With such a philosophy of aborting foetuses that are suspect of genetic deformities,would we want to abort the likes of Stephen Hawking?

The brave new world of genetic engineering make well take from us the ability to be empathic and thus human.There are always two sides to a coin.We need balance of both logical and emotional intelligence.Pure genetic genius may not necessarily make us happy.The black dog snaps constantly at the heals of our talented geniuses.My advice is to tread carefully.

KARTIYA JIM

I think your concerns about a small gene pool are misplaced.

I am not talking about a small group of super-rich people. In Australian terms the sort of technology I'm talking about would be within reach of, say, parents who can afford to send their kids to the more expensive private schools. That group tend to marry among themselves anyway.

Perhaps I should have used the phrase "well to do" rather than the word "wealthy."

The price of technology always declines. After a decade or so I would guess the top 10% of Australian households by income would be able to afford it. That's a fairly big gene pool.

ARJAY

It is possible that Stephen Hawking would have been aborted.

Nonetheless I think most parents would go with the odds. Most people who suffer from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are not scientific geniuses. Most sufferers in fact lead fairly miserable lives.

Even knowing that Stephen Hawking, David Niven and Charles Mingus among others were ALS sufferers, I think most parents would abort a foetus that was going to get this dreadful illness.

I also don't think genetic engineering takes from us the ability to empathise; an ability which in any case seems to have an evolutionary basis. In other words, the ability to empathise seems to be hard wired into us.

However Arjay, you raise an interesting point. Some people are unable to empathise. This MAY be a genetic defect.

Should we abort foetuses likely to grow into adults that CANNOT emphathise?

For the neurological basis of empathy see:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10108.html

Steven,

Not only humans empathise, apparently mice do to.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125595.400.html

Empathy could be a necessary requirement for survival - warning others of danger.

Not all wealthy people, albeit good at what they do (e.g importing cheap crockery) would raise a blip on the high IQ scale. Thus, the question whether one can genetically engineer for high IQ's; let alone success in life?

High IQ needs to be defined. Some academics, considered brilliant in their field, are not very competent in ways that the "ordinary person in the street" would be.

There are people who are brilliant but definitely eccentric (and none would wish them to be any other way).

Harold Gardener questions not only the reliabiability of current IQ tests, but also what they can tell. He states a case for multiple types of intellligence.

Genetic engineering could hopefully eradicate certain diseases; however, the environment also contributes to disease. Some people smoke all their lives and never suffer the effects; others, passive smokers, experience life-threatening illnesses which are attributed, quite correctly, to smokers.

Tay Sachs resulted from the development of immunity to TB. Again, this terrible disorder comes from “too much of a good thing”.

Standards of sexual attraction:

Often these are cultural mores, such as flat chests among Japanese women - not now, of course, as Western ideas, especially from the US have intruded. Frenchmen used to hold the ideal beauty was a woman with breasts (one) that could fit into a champagne glass. Not exactly Marilyn Monroe. Different peoples, different ideals.

With plastic surgery increasinlgy common; indeed, people having multiple procedures, beauty is becoming more subjective - “ I want X’s nose”

Will the well-to-do set the criteria for beauty?

Certainly, the healthiness of the other is a major factor.

Don’t pheromones play some part?

“ ... more expensive private schools ... tend to marry among themselves ...”

They also tend to go by the “old school tie” in selecting business partners, etc. Here, high IQ often has little to do with success.

It would, indeed, be excellent if dementia could be eradicated, especially with aging populations

Steven ,
You say that 10% "of the top households" would use the technology .

What if the other 90% of the population had bad teeth,crook backs and lived 20 years less?

Wouldn't they be entitled to be a bit peeved if billions of genetic research dollars derived off their labour went into making the rich more perfect to the detriment of the rest?

I really believe that medical and genetic advances should be for the greater good . This would keep the bulk of the population much happier and with hope for the future.

Democracy is not founded on selfishness.

After all, isn't the greater good a better result?

KARTIYA JIM,

As I think my posts make clear, I am making a FORECAST of the way things will develop.

I think the technology will develop and the well-to-do will make use of it. In the end that could create a sort of genetic elite.

But I am NOT advocating. Merely forecasting.

Perhaps my forecasts will prove correct.

Perhaps not.

Time will tell.

Steven ,Fair enough .

My forecast is that before a particular section of society gets too far advanced or healthier than the rest that in a democracy there is always a bit of levelling out and this is good .

As they say, "no good having all your eggs in the one basket".
Pardon the pun .