Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Human Enhancement, Eungenics and everything else.

  1. #1

    Default Human Enhancement, Eungenics and everything else.

    in the past 15 years or so, perhaps even earlier then that. There's been fictional media about human enhancement, controlling reproduction and other stuff to help or guide humanity or one's self.

    There's Gattaca from 1997:

    Ghost In the Shell: a movie now series even earlier, in which your brain is extracted and put into a robot who looks, feels human.

    Deus Ex: A game based in a future of human augmentation with that play significant roles in the 3 games in the series.

    There's even the new movie called (Now) "In Time". Directed by the same guy who did Gattaca.

    So, how does everyone feel about these things. Either human augmentation of enhancing your current ability or making new ability's such as having perfect night vision in the dark. Such as have IR light emiting from your eyes, well being able to see what it's reflecting off of. What would you do, if you could control the pure genetics of your children as in Gattaca before their conceived?

    You don't have to answer the questions. Fell free to add anything to the discussion as long as it stays on the topic of human enhancement in general. Pros, cons, mixed views all are welcome.

  2. #2


    Btw, Gattaca is a good movie.

    On topic, *shrugs* women are already dissatisfied with their appearances thanks to beauty magazines and society's "standards". Also, when men make crude remarks and rape women, then women are justified when they feel insecure, are they not?

    Men are insecure as well. Men feel the need to be "macho". So everybody's sad all across the board.

    Whoops, I got off topic. I apologize.

    Back to your original discussion...controlling reproduction...well, I guess you could ask the Chinese government and their people about how they feel about that.

  3. #3


    Quote Originally Posted by bomb851 View Post
    Btw, Gattaca is a good movie.

    Back to your original discussion...controlling reproduction...well, I guess you could ask the Chinese government and their people about how they feel about that.
    It really is a great movie, I just don't like the middle section of it. Specifically the whole Allen Arkin subplot thing but whatever.

    As for the Chinese government and 1 child per couple, that's just in effect to stop over population from what I know. I assume it doesn't totally stop people from having more then 1.

  4. #4


    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    What would you do, if you could control the pure genetics of your children as in Gattaca before they're conceived?
    I wouldn't.

    Wife's eldest child is thirty and has multiple physical and learning disabilities. Even now no-one is quite sure what the genetic syndrome is that caused ears in the wrong place (very low down the head), eyes that don't open naturally, and a brain that can process maths and images just about at the level of an adult, but can't process language at a level above that of a five year old. Or even whether it is all genetic - or whether parts of the problems came later.

    The eugenicists would have aborted this child as a burden on society: thanks to the huge efforts my wife has made down the years along with contributions from others that is not the case.

    Human improvement/augmentation is still at the frontiers of sci-fi: the best use of human potential is well within our grasp.



  5. #5
    Butterfly Mage


    I support a *limited* form of eugenics. I think couples with very high IQ should be encouraged to have more children and people with low IQ should be encouraged to have few children. Individuals who commit crimes of violence should be sterilized.

  6. #6


    I definitely support the idea of prolonging life with science. It would be nice if someday we can greatly increase the human lifespan or even slow/stop the aging process. It may happen someday. My only concerns are that the population would suddenly increase quickly, as well as the unfairness of how money could decide who gets access to such things & who doesn't. Live to be 300 yrs old, but die before you hit 100 if you don't make over $200k a year?! Something like that would be very wrong. Actually, there is one other big problem... bad people, like some dictators, could possibly live for a long, long time.

    I'm not so sure I like the idea of eugenics though, but maybe it would be good in very limited forms only. One thing that would be nice would be to manipulate genes to prevent birth defects and such. However,"designer babies" are a bad idea. I do think it would be nice if the world population were to discontinue growing so quickly, but I'm not sure what you can effectively do about that. China has a birth limit, but all that does is prevent poor people from having children, while rich families can have as many children as they want.

  7. #7


    The idea's been around quite a bit longer than 15 years. I mean, let's remember that one of the earliest "Star Trek" episodes, "Space Seed", featured a genetically-modified leader and his crew (Khan) causing troubles for the Enterprise crew. That episode provided the basis for "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and this particular scene...

    As for my thoughts on this-I honestly don't like the idea of messing around with it at all. Besides the inevitable and unavoidable nature of unforeseen circumstances and complications that would result, I feel that our flaws and quirks and foibles are some of the biggest components of making us who we are as human beings. I feel like trying to remove those components would forever alter not just the physical, but the mental/spiritual/emotional/not-physical nature of humanity itself. If we suddenly gift ourselves with super strength and super intelligence and all that, where do we get our drive to improve and grow and evolve as human beings? Where do we get our drive for self-improvement?

    Do any of you remember the Game Genie for the old NES? There were a bunch of games where you could use the Game Genie to basically make yourself invincible, or at least quite a bit better off than if you just punched the cartridge into the console and powered it up, and although it was fun to mess around with for a bit, after a short time I always got bored with it, because there was no challenge. It stopped being about playing the game and winning and getting better. It was just cheating, and I feel that for us to start playing around with eugenics or genetic modification is pretty much the same idea. I do not want someone throwing a Game Genie onto humanity.

  8. #8


    Maybe I missed it, but no one seems to have raised, to my mind, the central questions of this entire topic:

    1. Who decides? Who decides what constitutes better? Who decides who can or cannot reproduce? What standard do you use to makes these decisions? Is it ethical or moral to even make decisions like this?

    2. What happens to the others? What becomes of people who either aren't enhanced or aren't considered to posses traits worth perpetuating? Is that course of action moral?

    And most central: Should we even do this?

  9. #9


    I don't really have a set opinion on the topic - I can't say it's something I've thought much into.

    However... It's interesting that I read an article today, around just this kind of thing...

    (Not sure who can see it, so I apologise...)

    BBC News - Will we all be tweaking our own genetic code?

    Having read through this, I can see the other side of it, but actually think this doesn't sound bad. Surely one of the privileges of evolving to be smart enough to question who and why we are, is to then build on it and understand it better...? I like the idea.

  10. #10


    i'm in agreement with Traemo on the morality aspect of the issue(s), but my instinctive doubts as to the validity of eugenics have been validated (to my mind) by an observation of nature. that is (and as we all ought to be aware by now), variety is more than just the spice of life.
    restricting a species to a single track [of a perceived perfection] is to herd them down the path to extinction.

    as for the matter of a perceived perfection, and as it is intelligence (or academic intelligence) that is held above all else in this day and age, i have to question the validity of that idea, in itself and as and how it may be applied to the topic at hand.
    more and more i'm forming the idea of a high IQ as more of a derangement of the mind. not that i'm the only one, nor that this is anything new, for as we've all heard before, 'there's a fine line between genius and madness'.
    and we certainly have to consider that our whole view of intelligence and the development of the world of academia, and it's required intelligence, is solely the spawn of an isolated, in-bred group of people renowned for their madnesses and extremes.

Similar Threads

  1. Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    By komodokitty in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 23-Jun-2010, 03:04
  2. Human Evolution
    By Snaps in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 02-Jun-2010, 23:25
  3. Diaper Enhancement Ideas?
    By Pamperable in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 29-Jul-2009, 04:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.