Using Genetic Engineering to Create Your Own Spouse/Children/Friends/Etc.

[Randoman]

Note: cloning is crossed out and replaced with genetic engineering in the OP, since I misused the term cloning for the first 5 or so posts of the thread, but still wanted the first 5 posts to make sense to someone who's reading the posts in order. The actual term we're using in this thread should be genetic engineering, and not cloning.

Do you think the idea of people creating their own spouses/children/friends/employees/etc. through cloning genetic engineering technology (so you can choose their gender, age, personality, hair, eye colour, intelligence level, hobbies, preferences, you name it) is good and should be made legal? Why/why not? For discussion purposes, the clones artificial humans are modified to be happy in their role as a spouse/child/friend/employee/etc.

[Edit] I'm making this thread to get people's input and opinion for story writing reasons. For this story, issues such as shorter lifespans from taking genes from older people are addressed and personality/preference/intelligence/memory altering is possible within the context of this fictional/theoretical world. Also, artificial humans don't have to start as infants, and can be created as a 20 year old, 30 year old, or whatever you want (and they can be created to have the intellect and knowledge background of a typical natural human being of their age, whether it be school knowledge, cultural knowledge, etc.).

The upsides to such technology is pretty obvious. But the downsides could result in some very ugly things happening, like overpopulation and unemployment rates skyrocketing. There's also the danger of people who literally trap themselves in their own perfect world with a perfect spouse, kids, and friends, to the point that they can't even properly interact with or respect people who are "imperfect" to them and have different beliefs and personalities that they don't like.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Randoman

[Will O'Donnell]

Well, to be honest, having artificial humans has its pros and cons:

The pros being: If there's a homosexual family, then they can live as though they're the same as a straight couple; second is manipulation of what your clone should be like (Like a more IRL version of Kris, Robin and Corrin) and third is that it is more enhanced to become the "perfect" human being.

But its cons are: There will be another form of discrimination between real humans and artificial ones; second is that ALL religion will exile this because its considered a sin; and the third is overpopulation as speculated. 

Overall, I would say that this is illegal, but since there are some individuals who have different beliefs and genders who wanted kids, I would say... as an Artificial Son, it's legal; but don't spread this issue like wildfire. Only those who are worthy of cloning or creating artificial humans can choose to clone or not.

[Nobody]

What if the clone doesn't want to be your friend/spouse/etc (child isn't really a choice)?

TBH I don't think I'd have a problem with people adopting clones, as long as it was handled like just every other adoption. People using clones to force people to have a relationship to them (either platonic or romantic) would be ridiculous, though. If human cloning became a reality, clones should be treated like regular people. You can't force regular people to become your wife/husband/friend. Hell, forcing someone to become your employee without a choice is literally slavery.

Overpopulation wouldn't become an issue. First of all, I doubt people who don't want to have children would "adopt" a clone, even if its their own. The fertility rate in the entirety of the developed world with the exception of Israel (and depending on the year France and Ireland) is below replacement level. Including clones in this number would probably only increase it marginally, not enough to put those countries above replacement levels, and it would be even less likely to get them to overpopulation levels. So yeah, cloning almost surely would only happen on developed countries, where the population is naturally decreasing if you exclude immigration.

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by Nobody

[Johann]

Not sure if you know how cloning works, but it doesn't create a duplicate of an existing person. It's just a means of copying someone's DNA into a zygote. A clone is literally a newborn baby, has no memories from its "original", and depending on how old they are, the DNA may be damaged, which cuts their life short. The zygote also has to be supported as any other normal zygote would, through pregnancy. It's not like you get a fully customized adult. There's nothing remotely "artificial" about a clone, either. If it was done with the DNA of a new zygote or even a young enough child, you'd basically be creating an identical twin for that person with offset birth.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Johann

[Randoman]

11 minutes ago, Nobody said:

What if the clone doesn't want to be your friend/spouse/etc (child isn't really a choice)?

TBH I don't think I'd have a problem with people adopting clones, as long as it was handled like just every other adoption. People using clones to force people to have a relationship to them (either platonic or romantic) would be ridiculous, though. If human cloning became a reality, clones should be treated like regular people. You can't force regular people to become your wife/husband/friend. Hell, forcing someone to become your employee without a choice is literally slavery.

I guess I should've specified the cloning technology makes it so that the clone's preferences are modified so that they're more than happy to be your friend/spouse/etc.

You do bring up quite an interesting point in clone employee slavery. I mean, even if their preferences are made so that they're happy to work for their company, most non-clone people would still view it as slavery.

[Nobody]

2 minutes ago, Randoman said:

I guess I should've specified the cloning technology makes it so that the clone's preferences are modified so that they're more than happy to be your friend/spouse/etc.

You do bring up quite an interesting point in clone employee slavery. I mean, even if their preferences are made so that they're happy to work for their company, most non-clone people would still view it as slavery.

That has nothing to do with cloning. What you're looking for is brainwashing.

See the post above yours. I think what you're looking for is more of genetic engineering, but even then, you can't engineer a person's personality.

From a genetic viewpoint, a perfect clone wouldn't be different from a identical twin.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Nobody

[Randoman]

@Johann & @Nobody

Ah, point taken on the cloning vs. genetic engineering. I guess I am referring more to genetic engineering than cloning. I've edited the OP to show the change from cloning to genetic engineering in my post.

In regards to not being able to engineer a person's personality, let's just say for discussion purposes that it's somehow possible and that's what they do with the genetically engineered humans (the "personality engineering" would only work when an artificial human is in the process of creation, though, and not afterwards). Even if personality engineering is impossible in reality, I'm interested in seeing how many people are for or against such technology if it were to exist somehow.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

We live in an individualistic age, so I imagine most today look to the subject of cloning and actively fear the implications. People growing up thinking they're "real" when in fact they're a copy of some existing person. The "Us versus Them" mentality. And genetic engineering, that's another can of worms. There's eliminating debilitating conditions, and then there's engineering a human that is guaranteed to function under subservience. I don't suspect people would engineer others for something so indulgent as companions. If they did, they'd perhaps look to some sort of AI/Android technology, rather than wait 18 years for the perfect specimen to mature from birth. Peoples' tastes change a lot in that amount of time. I somewhat expect cloning soldiers is something that will have to be addressed a hundred or so years from now, but by then militaries will be so dominated by computers, drones, and other killing machines that it begs the question how necessary humans will be for combat in the first place. 

As for Androids for companionship, maybe I'm just hopped up on Blade Runner, but I do expect that will be legal, if considerably controversial for a few decades. Yes more able bodied "persons" would cause unemployment for the real persons, but in the future the idea of working a job to sustain yourself is probably going to be antiquated. Governments...ha-let's be real, the corporations we live under will provide a basic income. If you want to live beyond their set of benefits, then you can get whatever jobs are left in the service industry. Mmm, suppose that's enough science fiction for one night.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Glennstavos

[Will O'Donnell]

1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

We live in an individualistic age, so I imagine most today look to the subject of cloning and actively fear the implications. People growing up thinking they're "real" when in fact they're a copy of some existing person. The "Us versus Them" mentality. And genetic engineering, that's another can of worms. There's eliminating debilitating conditions, and then there's engineering a human that is guaranteed to function under subservience. I don't suspect people would engineer others for something so indulgent as companions. If they did, they'd perhaps look to some sort of AI/Android technology, rather than wait 18 years for the perfect specimen to mature from birth. Peoples' tastes change a lot in that amount of time. I somewhat expect cloning soldiers is something that will have to be addressed a hundred or so years from now, but by then militaries will be so dominated by computers, drones, and other killing machines that it begs the question how necessary humans will be for combat in the first place. 

As for Androids for companionship, maybe I'm just hopped up on Blade Runner, but I do expect that will be legal, if considerably controversial for a few decades. Yes more able bodied "persons" would cause unemployment for the real persons, but in the future the idea of working a job to sustain yourself is probably going to be antiquated. Governments...ha-let's be real, the corporations we live under will provide a basic income. If you want to live beyond their set of benefits, then you can get whatever jobs are left in the service industry. Mmm, suppose that's enough science fiction for one night.

I think these sort of things would lead discrimination, as stated by me above. Oh, good lordy; we have discrimination on the races, now to artificial vs. real if this happens? And second, cloning is like, legitimately, birthing, but it doesn't involve physical anymore; it's only technological.

[Johann]

@Randoman So basically, eugenics. Using genetic engineering to remove what are effectively handicaps (birth defects, genetic diseases, etc) is a good thing, we could vastly reduce the number of cases of many diseases and disabilities this way, such as breast cancer. Using it for cosmetic reasons (hair/skin/eye color, height, etc) would have extremely problematic consequences, especially if the the technology is limited to those who can afford it, which it certainly would be.

[Dragoncat]

Genetics can determine likes/dislikes, personality, and hobbies? I'd think that would depend more on a person's upbringing and other factors.

But yes, this could be a good thing and a bad thing for reasons others have stated.

[John Denver Fan]

I think it is a bad idea, if you take a person's genes and they are in their 50s you would expect the artificial human to live 30 years because they would be biologically 50 years old when born. It should be illegal not just because of the short lifespan they may have, but also because of religious laws and ethical concerns.

[Randoman]

I probably should've mentioned this in my OP (which I'll admit is my bad): I made this thread to get opinions and stances on this issue for story-writing reasons, and to see what real life people would think about artificial humans being created to be spouses/friends/children/employees to whoever wanted to buy them. I know things like personalities, preferences, biological ages, and making a human that starts off as 20-30 years old instead of an infant is technically impossible right now. But in a fictional world where all of those would be possible to implement/address, I'm wondering about what real life people like you guys would think of it, and if you'd be for or against it.

15 hours ago, Johann said:

@Randoman So basically, eugenics. Using genetic engineering to remove what are effectively handicaps (birth defects, genetic diseases, etc) is a good thing, we could vastly reduce the number of cases of many diseases and disabilities this way, such as breast cancer. Using it for cosmetic reasons (hair/skin/eye color, height, etc) would have extremely problematic consequences, especially if the the technology is limited to those who can afford it, which it certainly would be.

Well, I'm specifically talking about choosing each and every trait of an artificial human being before it's made. The technology I'm talking about in the OP doesn't allow for altering the traits of already existing humans, whether they are naturally born or artificially created. I'm not sure if that's eugenics, genetic engineering, or something else entirely.

7 hours ago, Dragoncat said:

Genetics can determine likes/dislikes, personality, and hobbies? I'd think that would depend more on a person's upbringing and other factors.

Well, I know that genetic engineering can't actually alter those things. Let's just say it can for this thread's story-writing purposes, or they have some other technology that can shape a person's personality and preferences before they're even born.

3 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

I think it is a bad idea, if you take a person's genes and they are in their 50s you would expect the artificial human to live 30 years because they would be biologically 50 years old when born. It should be illegal not just because of the short lifespan they may have, but also because of religious laws and ethical concerns.

Let's say for this thread's story-writing purposes that the technology has gotten around the limitation of biological ages adding up, so that an artificial human created in an infant stage would still have the typical lifetime expectancy of 75+ years, regardless of whether they've gotten the genes from an 80 year old or an 8 year old. You do make good points on the religious and ethical concerns, though.

[Dragoncat]

Yeah you really should have mentioned it was for fictional purposes in the OP.

I remember in school we watched a movie about a future where social status was determined by genetics and who had the best genes according to society. Most people were test tube babies. Conceiving by having sex was "the old way of making babies". Intriguing stuff.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Dragoncat

[eclipse]

If it's a story, then all that matters is that it's believable.

[zakisrage]

I honestly think the idea of generic engineering to create the "perfect" person is kinda creepy. Plus it could also get into the wrong hands. A dictator could use it to eliminate those who don't conform to his idea of perfection. The idea of generic engineering honestly reminds me of eugenics, which is a very evil idea that was put into use by many governments in the 20th century (most disturbingly in Nazi Germany). As recently as the 90s, there was a sperm bank that tried to breed "perfect" kids from Nobel Prize winners. Honestly, with kids, you get what you get. That's what my mum always says.

[Shoblongoo]

If we ever actually have that technology, our social development and ethical paradigm is going to be so far removed from what it is today its almost pointless to apply the moral guidelines of our day to the question as presented. 

I hope we have that technology and that we're regularly using it at some point in the future.  That would be an amazing feat of human ingenuity. 

I hope that by the time our science advances far enough to acquire that technology, we can be trusted to use it wisely.

Posing the question today is almost like going back to the Dark Ages and asking: "is using knives to cut someone open, remove a vital organ, cut another person open, and put that organ in their body ethical?"

...well it sounds fucked up when you say it like that...buttttttttttttt...

Advance a few hundred years, and its just another ordinary feat of modern medicine. 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[NPR]

I draw the line on anything after genetically altering your own child when it comes to the purposes you listed and even then there are only a few narrow ways that I agree with, like eliminating diseases, improving eyesight to well within a normal range, and perhaps significantly extending life expectancy.

There are a couple of ways I can imagine someone could make their own spouse. First, they could create a human with a physically adult body. Second, they could alter a pre-existing human to meet their wants. Both of these are ridiculously messed up for a number of ethical reasons. We as a free society value free will, so both examples fall prey to some very awkward questions. Do you implant false memories into the entirely artificial adult human so that they can 'make their own decisions?' Does the pre-existing human consent to being physically altered? Can a person even consent into being changed at such a deep level that they wouldn't truly be the same person afterwards? Would that be considered a form of suicide? More specifically towards the first example, if too few memories were placed in the physically adult body, would this artificial human be able to consent with such a  young mental age? How does consent even work if they were essentially made to have sex with you? It gets waaaaay too messy.

The same issues start to crop up with 'friends.' Using genetics to create minor neurochemical changes in the brain that would help a friend group stay interested in the same things may seem harmless on the surface, but it has serious macro-level implications. For instance, the ability to alter the brain's fear center in specific ways could certainly benefit reactionary politicians and aspiring fascists.

This gets waaaaay worse when people start getting augmented for their jobs. The medical community and the courts would need to find a serious ethically bright line fast, or risk creating an enslaved worker population. Think people who would be altered to feel so happy at their job as they stand on an assembly for 12 hour shifts. We have robots for that kind of stuff. We don't WANT sentiments doing that kind of work, at least not for that long, because of all the ethical questions.

 

[Will O'Donnell]

Well if this is going to be a thing, I think there's going to be a "Direct Descendant Theory". Like Roy and Eliwood kinda stuff.

[The_antithesis]

On 13/03/2018 at 7:00 PM, Shoblongoo said:

Advance a few hundred years, and its just another ordinary feat of modern medicine. 

Not true. Gene editing technology, such as CRISPR, is already very far into development, and it is forecast to start in humans this year! (Citation) Modified humans are right around the corner, so this discussion is relevant to the present. That being said, 'customising' adults and personality modification like what is mentioned in the above posts is still very much science fiction with our current technology, and it will probably remain impossible for the next 20 years or so.

 

As for my own views, I don't really know where to stand. On one side, there is the promise of curing inherited conditions and giving those who would have genetic disorders longer, healthier, happier lives. Additionally, genetic modification could quite easily push humanity to new heights. Imagine if we could give everyone immunity to every known disease by beefing up heir immune systems, or increasing our metabolisms so we don't get fat.

On the other hand, this is a big can of worms with some serious ethical consequences. Firstly, there is the idea of "playing God", though I can't go into too much detail on that argument, as I personally am not religious. Secondly, there is the problem of eugenics and the destruction of human diversity. We'd effectively be doing what the Nazis were trying to do, albeit minus the genocide. Thirdly, there is a problematic situation of "What happens if the 'genetic disorder' is actually helpful?" I have high-functioning Asperger's, so I am a prime example of this situation. Do "normal" people have the right to my genetic mutation, as they are at an unfair disadvantage? In theory, it's the same situation as the minority being worse-off, but in practice, there are huge ethical implications in changing the whole population to be like a select few with "superior" traits. Finally, what happens when some people can get genetic modifications for their children, and others cannot? Could this create a genetic "super-race" of rich people who use their genetic dominance to stay rich and prevent everyone else from elevating to their level? How do we prevent such a situation from happening?

Overall, I'd say this is a question of "Where do we draw the line?" Life saving modifications are OK in my books, while modifying people for looks is not a future I want to be in. But then, what happens to edge-cases such as mild learning disabilities? Are they damaging enough to justify editing out of the population, or is preserving diversity and preventing eugenics hell important enough to deny these people something that could benefit them?

It's definitely a lot of food for thought!

[Mirania]

I imagine if we can customize our kids to look like what society decided is good looking we will have issues. Not to bash males( being a male) or females but many people have gender stereotypes for what is attractive as you said it is subjective. I worry that what is considered the ideal traits now may change so some of these people might be looked at as oh those are 2070s kids because they have light skin or something. There will also be issues when it comes to people that missed the genetic messing boat I bet people will call them mutts, random chancers. People that do not run quite as fast, look boring, and get sick more. That is my two cents.