General

Against it for aesthetic reasons, for it if it's for health reasons.

@TheseWalls: They would be aiming to get rid of people in places with bigger population problems then the USA.

Deus EX LGI

@LowWillpower

I said government is in control and big corporations assist with governments primary goal of population thinning (work on those reading skills). We are in excess and reaching earths carrying capacity. Government needs corporations to work under them for that concept you thought was a relevant rebuttal, they dont need the other billions of irrelevant lives. By 2050 we'll be @ 10b pop. with a "4-40b carrying capacity" which realistically means around 20 we are creating a major problem. Do you see what Im getting at?

[quote=metaghost4]@eean: Well sci-fi or not, if you were a parent and had the chance to make your child smarter, stronger, healthier, and more fertile before they were born, would you not take that chance? Would you not want to do everything you possibly can do to improve these traits?[/quote]
Watch the movie to find out.

@TheseWalls: Cost money? Your theory is that big corporations are in control. If this is true, they need us. The people living below their means are the ones making them all their money. Those are the people you claim to be buying all their stuff. If you wanna say crazy things at least have a story that doesn't conflict with itself.

@metaghost4: Popular sci-fi movie from late 90's early or early 2000. I've seen it like 5 times. Every single time was in a classroom at school (twice in Jr. High twice in high school and once in university). Pretty interesting plot, though I wrote a report on why it was really unlikely.

I'm not having kids. genetically altered or not humans are still going to be stupid

EDIT: i do see this also being a severe problem as well: IF in terms of cost, the rich will afford to make the perfect child while the poor stay poor gap. But i think the biggest worry to me would be to permanently program a child to believe in the same things the family does which could pose a serious danger to something like a religious psychotic.

If we are talking cosmetic only it shouldn't be made into a totally huge deal but the problem is it may evolve into this...

@LowWillpower
Does that really sound like type of thing someones going to have a source for? If the source existed it would be destroyed quicker than Rob Ford cocaine scandal video.
Population thinning is among us - 9/11 was a measure of just that. As is the success, advocation and legalization of McDonalds, Cigarettes, 'anti'-depressants, Big-Pharm in general, Sex addiction, Sedentary lifestyles and unbalanced lifestyles.

The governments main goal is to ensure the greater good is taken care of - we are no longer apart of the greater good. We are in the way and we cost money.

[quote=LowWillpower]Source?

I'd like to point out that we have become a passive and submissive population due to decreased risks and the ideals of avoiding conflicts. I'd blame media for that way more then food corporations. Then again I pretty much hate all conspiracy theories.[/quote]

And at the end we die.

[quote=TheseWalls]The future? Hell its already here. Every individuals potential is suppressed by our modified food market and drinking water. Big Food controls exactly what we are consuming so the genetic changes in the food source affects us directly. Whether its intentional that Big Food is creating a more passive and submissive population purposely or not, ordered by the government or not, will stay unknown as desired by the elites. The livelihood of our food sources has been manipulated in a fashion similar to genetic engineering, by modifying their food to alter what we intake, too then change the human populations behavior. General population is already being torn by a food epidemic, created by the genetically modified food sources, enticing a lazier, passive more submissive population than ever.

Anyone ever drank rich people water? It is completely different from the water we drink. I doubt 90% of the people here ever even drank rich people water, but its significantly different. Im pretty sure our food and water is genetically modified to negatively change the masses for the benefit of the elite. Sux eh.[/quote]
Source?

I'd like to point out that we have become a passive and submissive population due to decreased risks and the ideals of avoiding conflicts. I'd blame media for that way more then food corporations. Then again I pretty much hate all conspiracy theories.

[quote=CMPump]NOT Needed. Why evolve forcefully when humans apparently evolve naturally?[/quote]

Why wait when you can evolve now?

The future? Hell its already here. Every individuals potential is suppressed by our modified food market and drinking water. Big Food controls exactly what we are consuming so the genetic changes in the food source affects us directly. Whether its intentional that Big Food is creating a more passive and submissive population purposely or not, ordered by the government or not, will stay unknown as desired by the elites. The livelihood of our food sources has been manipulated in a fashion similar to genetic engineering, by modifying their food to alter what we intake, too then change the human populations behavior. General population is already being torn by a food epidemic, created by the genetically modified food sources, enticing a lazier, passive more submissive population than ever.

Anyone ever drank rich people water? It is completely different from the water we drink. I doubt 90% of the people here ever even drank rich people water, but its significantly different. Im pretty sure our food and water is genetically modified to negatively change the masses for the benefit of the elite. Sux eh.

[quote=CMPump]NOT Needed. Why evolve forcefully when humans apparently evolve naturally?[/quote]
Who's to say the next step in natural evolution isn't genetic engineering?

NOT Needed. Why evolve forcefully when humans apparently evolve naturally?

It can be really interesting. However, I feel like I can agree with @metaghost4 (I'm surprised, I agree, myself.)
Basically, all the rich folks would be able to "fix" their child's at birth genetics and make the child really athletic from the birth or something else. Or something else. It would create problems and a lot of competition.

I'd expect far greater advancements in Biological/Biomechanical engineering, but genetic engineering itself is a pretty questionable practice and would require much more research before any major developments to humans can come from it IMO.

Also GATTACA (there is no gene for the human spirit!).

It certainly has a lot of potential to be interesting. There are already a lot of Transhumanist technologies being developed.

In terms of "Human enhancement" in general. Stimulants, Nootropics (brain-boosting drugs), and etc have been explored quite a bit and have been used regularly by people interested in them, and research on them continues.

There are always going to be people who want to improve themselves, or people who want a higher quality of life. If there is a market for it, it will come.
Regardless of cultural stupidity, the average intelligence of the world's population is rising steadily. And arbitrary moral arguments against it will be looked at much more reasonably.

In terms of safety, I'm sure testing will quickly reach stages that can provide data/adjustments that will satisfy the market.

In terms of "wage gaps"... things don't really work that way.
[i]Initially[/i] there is a wage gap, but as any product or service matures production costs decrease to reach broader markets. Also related to Human capability to produce steadily rising with time. It happens with everything. Do you know how rare and valuable Cinnamon was a few centuries ago? A peasant of that would've flipped the eff out if you told him you could walk 5 minutes from your home and buy a jar of Cinnamon for a fraction of a day's wage.
Or brain-boosting drugs, something that's actually an enhancement. I'm sure it was completely inaccessible to people when research first began, and when distribution started there was the opportunity to sell it at a Premium.
But now I can buy 180 pills of Piracetam off of Amazon or some other site for under $40. And get brain boosters without even getting off of my butt.

i think people would use it more for looks like 'i want a green eyed child' or to remove harmful genes

[quote=metaghost4]I feel like this will only separate the class gap, only the rich can afford a genetically engineer child. In turn, the child will grow up to be even more successful and rich than their parents. While the poor and people who refuse to genetically engineer children will become inferior and will be dominated against.

I would genetically engineer my child if given the choice. Competition in the world is becoming more and more cutthroat. Eventually we'll be in a world where a decent living will only be obtained by the best and everyone else will struggle with their lives on a day-to-day basis.[/quote]

Hahaha, is this some sort of joke? We're living in the safest time period, there is no need to genetically engineer people, especially for 'competition' or whatever that means. Also you cant just make 'better' people, it's earn't through hard work.

No because its not needed.
/thread