I think the perpetual attempts to reduce the risks inherent to being alive ultimately make us collectively weaker.
It wouldn't take superior genetics to make Armstrong's kids better cyclist's that he was - just way better ethics (which in his case is not exactly a hard task). As for Einstein, genetics plays some role in intelligence but so does environment both prenatal and early post natal. And the genetic component is very complex and not fully understood. You want tall, physically strong children? Fairly easy. Smarts? even with the genetics worked out the environmental factors vastly complicate the issue.
Same can be said for every invention since shaped stone hand tools. A dictatorial state like China might be able to pull off a 'Brave New World' style scenario with an enhanced elite ruling a dummed down placid working class but it also means you get what you pay for in terms of innovation and creativity. Such a society would be at a terrible disadvantage trying to compete against one where such stratification as not practiced.
Hitler was a product of his environment. Albeit he may have had underlying mental health issues caused by genetics, his early upbringing or war trauma (or most likely a combination of all three) he was certainly not hard wired by his genes for genocide. Raise a million Hitlers in warm and supportive family environments, don't them off to war and there's no way you still end up with 1 million Fuhrers. (Your BIG problem would be contamination of the 'experiment' if/when your subjects have a 'whose your daddy' moment and discover they the clones of Hitler - that would be a huge trauma.
I agree, Hitler was just playing to his base, Hitler was a narcissist and cared about no one but himself
It's a hypothetical about some future where such things have become possible. It's a perennial, I can remember people talking about this, and the topic coming up in tv shows, way back in the 1960s. Most people are dystopian, I am not. An interesting scifi book that covers this is Beggars in Spain.
sure it would be, these would be potential babies, would the pro-lifers choose to abort or not, simple yes or no question
unless they steal technology from others, and the others enjoy cheaper labor and stuff, so they allow it china could not exist without other countries acting as enablers
Wrong question. There's going to be a baby. The question each generation will face will be how much modification is acceptable. The conservative position will be to limit changes to the genetic code. There are good reasons for that. Some scientists are already calling for a genetic Bill of Rights. And a real risk of the species running into a genetic bottleneck. Fortunately, this is one controversy no one here is likely to have to deal with.
we were talking about someone creating 1000 Hitlers in a lab, and if they were discovered, would pro-lifers abort them but as to the science, yes, the right will be against it, until their not
There will be a marketplace of options, and of ideas. Hitler was a nut, no mother is going to agree to that. While I am not against modification, I do feel a genetic Bill of Rights is a very good idea. That would also deal with your dystopian Hitler problem, and of a whole bunch of scifi shows, books and movies.
we are talking about in the lab, as in the title of this thread, I understand why the right doesn't want to answer the question though the Hitler problem would be from cloning, not dna manipulation - the difference here is they would be grown in a lab vs 1000 women
Prob the first thing a genetic Bill of Rights would say is no cloning.You would need an international enforcement authority, but if the species survives, we will have made one.