Turn off the genes that would make my child below 6'5 in adulthood, turn off the genes that wouldn't make him naturally muscular, turn off the genes that would give him an average intelligence, etc.
$10M + options. Payable in monthly installments.
All that to say that, in these cases, sure _most_ people have positive traits from these genes, not all do and we could theoretically use CRISPR to change people with the negative versions of these genes to the positive versions of these genes.
[0]: https://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/what-is-brca [1]:https://www.alzheimersorganization.org/alzheimers-gene-apoe4
It's so easy for them to posture as virtuous protectors of humanity, sowing FUD about things that are so far from existing that nobody even understands how they might work or what capabilities they might have or not have. So easy, when the benefits are nowhere near close enough to factor into anyone's near-mode thinking.
I'm cheering for the scientists. Give us the choice to have brilliant, strong, healthy children. Then laugh at how little anyone cares about the so-called "ethics", facile cloud-talk that never considered real people facing real decisions.
The "ethicists" had their chance to intelligently weigh the pros and cons and give real advice based in prudence, empathy, and a love for human flourishing. They chose to self-indulgently chinstroke about dystopia on the taxpayer dime.
We'll figure it out without them.
It's likely that for the time being we'll only use gene therapy for things which are recognized as devastating diseases and the treatment is extremely reliable; germline modification for enhanced attributes in typical individuals is still a fairly out-there concept that would probably get panned in the media.
Not only that, but any genes that are not selected against (e.g. your Alzheimer’s example, which occurs after reproductive age) are now permanently circulating in the population, with absolutely zero (humane) way of ever removing them.
You know, I used to be wary of eugenics, but when you put in that light, yeah, I'm kinda tired of putting up with everyone's crap kids. If you could make them be quiet, sit still, and do as told, that would be a fantastic achievement! Oh, and maybe make them smarter, too. Ever try to actually talk to one (the newer ones are really pretty stupid)?
Most of my friends' children are smart. The ones not raised in the USA are generally well-behaved. Your sample size may need to be increased.
Did you even pay attention to the movie? The horrific aspect was the human genetic engineering led 1) to the the unengineered to be turned into an underclass that was blatantly and unfairly discriminated against, and 2) that same discrimination would be turned against the engineered if they had an accident that caused them to fall short of the expected perfection.
I have little doubt that the reality of genetic engineering (that was is effective as that depicted) would rhyme with that movie. It's also nearly certain that any such technology would not be distributed in an egalitarian way, so the sentiment should be more like "it's cool and exciting that [well off] people will be able to have [genetically superior] children than [the plebs]."
> It's also nearly certain that any such technology would not be distributed in an egalitarian way
This argument could have been made about early computers as well. But time and its economies of scale come into play. We can't limit our species based on shortsighted fairness, there's a longer view to take.
Techno-optimism hasn't really panned out as promised.
And I really doubt it will be "us." If trans-humanism pans out (though I suspect it's bunk), we'll be the Homo erectus populations to their Homo sapiens.
> This argument could have been made about early computers as well. But time and its economies of scale come into play. We can't limit our species based on shortsighted fairness, there's a longer view to take.
Capital got automation from computers, the plebs got distraction boxes that push ads.
Because it's a distraction box or so amazing that it shows technology should not be criticized and everyone who does is a hypocrite?
This will be just another currency. And there will be some flops, busts, unintended consequences. Just like with anything else.
Ist mir scheissegal!
Vague resemblance does not an equivalency make.
Right now, there may be an unequal distribution of wealth, etc.; but the wealthy by and large aren't actually better models of human. Genetic engineering has the potential to ossify that (both morally via "meritocracy" and physically) with biological superiority. It stops being Homo sapiens vs Homo sapiens, and becomes something more like Homo erectus vs Homo sapiens.
If anything, this would increase the amount of opportunity in the world, as then your child could have whatever traits you (or your culture) deems superior. It would perhaps eliminate racism by rendering traditional race markers completely obsolete.
- this is performing an irreversible procedure on a person without their consent. Justifiable for a disease but less so for vanity traits.
- genes are pleiotropic and modifying multiple genes could have unexpected effects. An easy example is that taller people have a higher risk of cancer. Barring some great advance in predicting the effects of genetic changes, this will remain a problem.
- it has a homogenising effect, optimising for traits a culture finds appealing and that can be easily measured. You will eventually get a eugenic army that all look like swimwear models and score highly on IQ tests.
At the same time, I think that modifying the organism is the only way to get rid of diseases like heart disease and cancer.
Medicine is practised outside the US as well, including high tech medicine. And for a much more reasonable price tag.
In fact. I would consider a society, that has the capability to noninvasively eliminate for example sickle cell anemia or Huntingtons and doesn't because some people one hundred years ago did horrible things, barbaric.
I hope that she can help you to open your eyes as well.
It is that erroneous conflation that introduced euthanasia for discussion. (also i would say that technically intentional non-intervention is not exactly killing, so thats not even what i was implying)
I provided evidence that keller, contrarily, saw value in genetic defects.
If you have another reason for believing that helen keller was a supporter of eugenics, you have failed to provide it.
conversely, everything i've said has been a direct analysis of what you've said.
Any modern medicine gene modification program would create the exact human and social divisions he sought to avoid... Unless you are somehow able to suddenly do gene modification universally throughout the entire planet..
so he doesn't really support your position either.
"capability" should not be confused with "universal accessibility"
and "some people one hundred years ago did horrible things" is a fictional strawman. There are real and present reasons why practically eugenics will lead to stratified and unjust conditions for humanity in practice.
>"Churchill is on record as praising “Aryan stock” and insisting it was right for “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” to take the place of indigenous peoples. He reportedly did not think “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people”. In 1911, Churchill banned interracial boxing matches so white fighters would not be seen losing to black ones. He insisted that Britain and the US shared “Anglo-Saxon superiority”. He described anticolonial campaigners as “savages armed with ideas”.
Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”"
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/17/why-ca...
>"He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three "savages." Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the "squeamishness" of his colleagues, who were not in "favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/03...
If the future is designer babies/baby incubation pods. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation the kid is. The parent would have a designer baby, then why would the child eventually not have a designer baby as well?
It's good evolutionary strategy to reduce the birth rate to compensate for successful reproduction (i.e. more pregnancies that result in offspring that reach child-rearing age themselves), as otherwise populations will explode beyond the carrying capacity of the environment (or pay more of the fixed resource costs of raising children than is necessary).
What we see now, however, is that in situations where both pre-adult and maternal mortality rates are exceedingly low (such as has been the case for the last ~4-5 generations in the developed world), the strategy undershoots the replacement rate.
Like there good reasons to do this are, OK genetic malformation, ie osteogenesis imperfecta, that's a SNIP, totally. Or you were raped, want to punish that rapist by making the egg have even less genes in common with him than it would ordinarily, making his rape counterproductive genetically. Another good reason, defensible. Or you want to protect rare alleles, considering weaknesses to be strengths, this is like a left-handed man marrying a left-handed woman, or freckles (I think something about freckles make children hate them til they're 19, rare exceptions, not even the iconic Lindsay Lohan accepted her own freckles). Preserving their identity and diversity. Don't pass laws as much as using judgment to decide, individually and collectively, what the future will be. Talk and think instead of setting up magic words for lawyers to copy-paste--an isomorphic problem to genetic design.
No fucking blind copy-paste, don't use copy-paste with your copy paste to copy-paste yourself.