Any of you ever watch the show NOVA? Did you see the one about CRISPR? Genetic engineering?

I watched every minute of it Durdle. I was both very excited and horrified. Designer children from intellect to interests to physical appearance to character to temperament to personality. Place your order. Everything is on the menu. For a price. Take a number and wait your turn.

Who wouldn't want to eliminate disease or genetic anomalies? Who wouldn't want to prevent suffering for their children? BUT. Are we playing GOD? Are we venturing in to areas that we ought not go? Where is the line that we draw and never go further/farther beyond it? Who wouldn't want a genius child who was drop dead gorgeous or handsome and healthy and popular? BUT. It is such a troubling thing. Does the potential harm outweigh the known benefits? Where is THAT line? Thank you for your reply Durdle! :)

I think you drawn the line, or at least suggested where it should be, there: between preventing suffering, and selective breeding.

Whether such a "pedigree"  child would be popular is a very delicate point that cannot be controlled genetically. Even if it proved possible to control emotions genetically, popularity is a reaction by many others, not an inherent trait; and by no means certain.

One terrible but largely-suppressed or forgotten effect of the Nazi's crude attempts to meet Hitler's artificial ideals was of children being born to Nazi military officers and local women in occupied countries, becoming the victims of awful mental and physical cruelty as if to punish them. 

Now in that case, the invasion and occupation may have been the main driver of that abuse; but I fear a child created to meet above-average specifications could meet similar rejection from jealous peers at least. The parents too could face rejection, either for having used this breeding programme, or out of envy, possibly both. This is "eugenics", and one possible result could be a quasi-racist division of its own: same race but an artificially-enhanced version to suit parental ego, and potentially with further ramifications.

What would happen to the child if the genetic selection or modifying for its "excellence", fails to produce the "right" results? Would the parents reject it as a "failure" or to use a term long put out of use, "defective"? Or would they try to turn it into a commercial prospect for themselves by suing the clinic?
What would be the effects on, for example, employment prospects, for both the "pedigrees" and the wholly-naturals applying for the same post?

It is actually not that much better in principle than what the Chinese government found happened by their family-limit rules compounded by inherent social misogyny - the discreet murder of the unauthorised babies by the parents, and especially so of girls. It also led to the problem now of an aging population, a point they can't have considered in the first place. It also has eerie echoes of the 1940s-50s Swiss, Romany-eradication scheme that kidnapped the children and fostered them under new, approved identities to approved families while letting the elders die out naturally. (The Chinese drive against the Uyghur culture is similar, though crueller in its methods.)

So yes - we have to make a very clear distinction between the health and social benefits of genetically modifying individuals to reduce the risk to them of incurable diseases or physical abnormalities; and the grave dangers to individuals and society, of eugenics.  

Oh my gosh Durdle you just overwhelmed me with stuff I didn't know. Oh my gosh. So this kind of or similar manipulation has been going on for longer than right now. I do recall reading about the Nazis wanting a superior race of blond blue-eyed strong intelligent handsome/beautiful people. A SUPER RACE. In Science Fiction it occurs where a super robot is manufactured OR a homo has installed SUPERHUMAN  parts like a bionic arm. It's exciting when it's SCIENCE FICTION but science fact? Very scary. I would be tempted to go for high intelligence just because I'm drawn to very smart people and I wouldn't mind being one of them. As for appearance? Honestly I would not want to be drop dead gorgeous. I had a very good friend in Junior College who was exactly that. Drop dead Gorgeous. BUT SHE WAS ALSO BRILLIANT and that's what drew me to her. She was so disgusted with people always stopping at her looks and never bothering to get to know the real her. It was a HARDSHIP. Now maybe if she weren't so intelligent it wouldn't have bothered her so much. I don't know. Also I have no problem aging. Never did. But I expect a very beautiful woman would find it very difficult and maybe keep having surgeries because she did not like what she saw in the mirror. I like what I see. Nothing special. You wouldn't look at me twice passing me on the street. When I was younger I had my days in the sun but they're over and done and I've moved on. If your entire life is based on your beauty it would be a sad thing to see your beauty fade away. Oh. I just thought of a question about the demented duck and science. Here goes. Thank you for your thoughtful reply Durdle! :)

Actually, prosthetic limbs to replace injured ones are improving all the time, but what is more alarming is what some IT companies are working on. Already we have micro-chips that can be implanted as if we are dogs and cats; but a programme I heard on the radio the evening, about the surveillance aspects via computers and "smart" phones revealed research into whether thoughts can be tracked and analysed electronically. 

Layers call the mind the Forum Internum, part of holding that you cannot be legally responsible for a thought - only for any illegal action arising from it. This is a valuable protection for our personal privacy; although it does look as if manypeople now have a poor appreciation of that concept. 

The programme did not examine the actual possibility of reading someone's thoughts electronically, or how it might be done. Nor did it enquire whether it could even be accurate or be subject to the prejudices or the reader, or of the computer programmer if the analysis of the contents of the thoughts was by computer. 

I'd imagine it could only be done via electrodes, either implanted or on the skin. The salient point though is that some IT companies believe it could be done, and presumably as a possibly lucrative future business... all no doubt for own good, they'd say.

I agree too many people look at appearance more than intellect or character. The cruellest manifestation of this I have seen was an Internet fad for posting modern photos of women now in their 60s and 70s who had been famous for their beauty in their 20s, under headings like "Look At Her Now!" These were not in obscure sites called something like "imeatenupwithenvy" or "ihatewimmin"-dot-com, but openly among the "celeb" tittle-tattle on open forum and ISP home-pages. 

Your "question about the demented duck and science"... You left it out!

Thanks m'dear. I'm making a note to ask it next. I saw the part about being able to "read" thoughts and they did to a certain extent by showing photos of the brain after certain photos were shown and followed a pattern of similarity so they could tell what kinds of thoughts were occurring. Not necessarily in precise detail but close enough to be very unsettling. As for cruelty it manifests itself from a variety of sources. The verbal equal to ripping wings off the butterflies. It makes them feel superior I expect. The longer I live the more disappointed I am in the species I was born into. What about you? If the demented duck had not been elected I would never have known there are so many WHITE RACISTS in America. Or so many totally immoral stupid dumbs. So is that a good that came out of evil? I don't know yet. I'm still processing it! Next I ask 'THE" question. I appreciate the reminder. My brain gets so clogged up questions I need to start writing them down! :)

Answering your original question, I would not have the seen NOVA (wrong country!), and have no TV anyway.

I think what you've seen there is the racists  coming out of the woodwork thanks encouragement from On High, but there is a very chilling serial documentary in progress here on BBC Radio Four, about the Oklahoma City bombing 25 years ago.


It's written and presented by the American, Leah Sottile, who has investigated the background to Timothy McVeigh's atrocity in 1995; and is showing how the extremist views that led him to his crime, were already there and have not gone away.

In an earlier episode she outlined his military service, with his former sergeant (I think he was) from their duty in Iraq saying McVeigh was a good soldier but largely kept himself apart from his comrades, and was a racist then, even though serving alongside Afro-American soldiers. The outline in Radio Times, says tomorrow's episode will look at his entering a post-service world of anti-government distrust, gun shows and conspiracies.

Whatever has led to these people holding the extreme views I have no idea, but it has been festering for a long time, and Trump seems unable to see the problem or unwilling to anything about it.
 

You have NO TV? Good golly miss molly. Really? Do you get your news from the radio or newspapers or magazines? How long does it take for you to learn what is going on? I am gobstomped and perplexed. Would you care to share why that is?

Okay setting that aside I believe the demented duck no only sees it but delights in it because it is a weakness he can control by exacerbating it throwing gas on it and promulgating it. The racists are very weak people. Just agree with them about their racists views and they will do anything for you. Simpleminded one-cell creatures are led around by the nose by a nose ring expert. The demented duck has no cores of anything that is jeopardized. He is pure selfish pure greed pure evil which opens up the world of possibility and he is using it masterfully. These idiots think he values them and understand them and supports them and adores them when in fact the demented duck is simply USING THEM to his own ends. I am shocked at the number of toady sycophants who are actually RACISTS TOO or just pretending so they can suck up to the demented duck and get their yucks. The duck thinks it is his strength. Manipulating dumb homo saps to do his bidding and mimic him. The contempt with which he interacts with them is obvious to everyone BUT them. As I said they are all simpletons. Do I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT? No I don't but it seems quite obvious to me that's what it is. Thank you for your thoughtful reply Durdle. So it's the radio from which upi get your news then? Next question is about folks who don't have a TV! :) With regard to NOVA some TV shows are shown INTERNATIONALLY. I think NOVA is such a good show it would have been one of them. This post was edited by RosieG at September 24, 2020 4:42 AM MDT

I've never had a TV since I had my first home of my own, over 30 years ago now I think. My parents didn't until eventually one of my uncles bought a set for them one Christmas. There were programmes I would watch by choice, a few others now and then just for relaxation; but over the years I watched it less and less.

At least 3 of my friends don't have one either.

Most of my national  and international news is from BBC Radio Four, so is up-to-date and generally reliable. I don't buy national newspapers but sometimes buy the local one, and that has a smattering of national news.

We need a Television Licence in the UK - it is often attacked as a "tax" on viewing but it is really to buy it, as a subscription to the BBC. It is far cheaper than any TV service subscription sold under that name; but you need it whatever you watch and however you watch it, including on-line. That's because if you can watch any TV show at home there is nothing physically to stop you watching the BBC programmes. We don't need a licence for the radio, so I am aware my listening is subsidised by TV viewers.

The money the BBC needs beyond the Licence income, comes from sales of programmes overseas. 
+++

There is at the moment a serial on the radio, about the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, his motives, and the far-Right types from his time onwards. It is frightening...

Simpletons? They certainly act and talk simple, and no doubt some are dim-wits; but there is something about extreme beliefs and cults that attracts even people you'd otherwise think as bright as anyone else. Some are taken in by feeling part of something significant for the first time in their lives - this is also common among teenagers who become caught up in street drug-gangs.    

That serial too is on BBC R4, and is quite likely among those that can be listened to on-line, on the BBC Sounds site. (I have tried using that service but had problems logging-in, probably due to my system being a bit out of date or something.)

A TV LICENSE to access the BBC? WHAT? Now in the states we have FREE TV on regular channels. Major Networks.  Local Networks. A few cable TV shows. BUT if you want access to specialized shows you need to subscribe to cable TV. Depending upon how many different things you're interested in it can cost hundreds of dollars a month. Jim is a tennis and golf fan so we get those. He likes the "do-it-yourself" shows and food shows. We get the BBC as one of our options in the news package. There are movie channels and international sports channels. Thousands of them. Broadcast in dozens of languages. There's even an Armenian cable TV show believe or not! You are always knowledgeable and "up" on things so what you're doing is working for you. Thank you for your informative reply Durdle and Happy Tuesday to thee and thine! :) This post was edited by RosieG at September 29, 2020 10:11 AM MDT

You cannot have something for  nothing!

Someone is paying for those "free" channels even if it is not obvious who.

It's called the TV "Licence" and it is compulsory; but only for TV, not radio; and if you think of it as a subscription it is actually remarkably cheap at less than £4 a week - though normally paid annually.

A pint of beer in an English  pub costs about the same, but a pint of beer does not last a week and provide two TV channels and five main radio ones, plus some extra digital and local services !

If the BBC was funded by advertising, or run by an outfit like that of Rupert Murdoch, it would have to go by the agencies' tastes and desire for maximum standard-taste audiences, so it would not be allowed to present the vast variety and quality of TV and radio programmes it does. That includes for example playing recorded and live, existing and commissioned music the advertisers would not understand and not want.

If paid for from general taxes it would be subject to heavy political pressure, and be turned from a public service to a State broadcaster at the mercy of the Government of the day, and probably have to be biased in its favour. A lot of politicians of all parties hate the BBC because it dares to give air time to their opponents - but when given their own chances most of them are usually pretty poor at explaining their or their party's ideas!

If a subscription service it would have to be an all-or-nothing subscription because parcelling it up into classified channels with separate subscriptions would be a bureaucratic nightmare; bad for the service overall and far more expensive.

If we have no cable to pay each month we STILL HAVE BASIC TV CHANNELS which we do not pay for. So your response is very confusing. What you get for "free" is very limited of course. But we could discontinue cable and STILL WATCH PROGRAMS ON local and national networks. What am I missing? Thank you for your reply Durdle.

Good. When you've watched it can we chat about it? It's exciting and very troubling. Thank you for your reply E. :)

OK

Thanks bigly.