> I'm squeamish about genetic research
Can you elaborate on what makes you squeamish about research?
Can you elaborate on what makes you squeamish about research?
There is a genetic disorder that runs in my family. I used to be on a bunch of email lists for the condition. People with the condition routinely volunteer for drug studies in a desperate attempt to get help that current medical science can't provide them and/or to get free care for a condition that's very medically expensive.
People with serious medical conditions are all too often treated like lab rats whose lives don't really matter. Treating people like me humanely isn't a real high priority. Quality of life is not much part of the discussion. Keeping us alive a little longer is the only metric that seems to count and horrifying things get done in the name of it.
Should we base ultimately coercive society-wide regulatory framework on mere "squeamishness", appropriately rationalized, or should we instead embrace a non-discriminatory, laissez-faire approach in this domain?
All of them? I'm struggling to think of a counterexample.
A big part of progress is fighting and defeating the natural.
That said, not all genetic manipulation will end well.
You could just as easily make the argument that there is probably no body of data more stable than existing genomes.
Under that catastrophic social model the elite should have been descendants of the elite from before the Bronze Age collapse, and heavy cavalry should have maintained their combat effectiveness over the masses even during the Infantry Revolution.
Its not bad to think/talk about the possible negative consequences of bringing a new technology into this world.
Laws can be written to limit its use if we find it morally objectionable
If gene tech can make future generations healthier and smarter with informed choice by the parents, those future generations will look back in horror at the barbaric pro death & disease lobby of the 2020s.
Yes, I for one can't imagine why editing the genes of humans would cause alarm. After all, who wouldn't want to have children that are smarter, more docile, and healthier? Or, for other people's children, who have qualities that make you uncomfortable and can't be edited out, like dark skin or homosexuality, you have the option to edit their reproductive ability so that such qualities can come to an end humanely, without violence.
In the same way, I can't understand are those people against longevity research. Who wants to die? Not me, and certainly not those in power. You know, the people in power earned their positions, they are good at it, and mortality just means someone new and inexperienced will fumble around at the job. For continuity and safety, immortal leaders will do a better job and keep us safe. I don't see why anyone would consider this a bad thing.