4 ms·
> the public finds it slightly more acceptable to change a baby’s genes than to enhance human abilities. This is weird. Making a permanent non-consensual chang
by MattGrommes 10y ago
> the public finds it slightly more acceptable to change a baby’s genes than to enhance human abilities.
This is weird. Making a permanent non-consensual change versus something like an implant. I have to chalk that up to not really thinking about the question that hard. Is there some angle I'm missing here why the first would be better?
- JauntTrooper 10y agoThe first prevents or cures a disease. We vaccinate children without their consent, causing permanent changes to their immune system, because we know it reduces their chances of suffering illness and death. Curing Huntington's or sickle cell anemia, or removing high-risk cancer genes, seem like logical next steps. Implants that change the way we think and interpret the world are a much bigger leap. They challenge our sense of self and identity. Am I still "me" if my cognitive abilities are modified? I totally get why that's a much more uncomfortable topic.