4 ms·

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone

by pyre 10y ago

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).

roywiggins 10y ago
The real ethical issue is that you're giving "performance enhancers" to babies. We can't test this stuff in vitro or in adults, not really. So any baby born this way is, in some sense, an experiment. And crucially, so are all of those babies' children and their children, because they will inherit some or all of the genetic changes.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Only if you see life as a competition against your fellow humans.
- pyre 10y ago
  It's not always about whether or not you see everything as a competition. Consider the "requirement" nowadays of a college degree. I could say that you "need a college degree to compete in the work-force," but that doesn't mean you just need a college degree only if you want to be the "best of the best." Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca).
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    I think the need for a college degree to even get a job is (1) specific to American society and regulations, and (2) not really true even there. Since we're talking about general human morality, I wouldn't put much weight on the particulars of this region in 2016. On a healthy job market, you get paid about as much as you produce. Regardless of what others produce. You also get to benefit from whatever inventions any new super talented people come up with. Finally, the more intelligent a population is in general, the more peaceful it is.
    - pyre 10y ago
      It's not a hard and fast requirement, but there is definitely a wage-gap between the have's and have-not's when it comes to college degrees.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca). Don't use this as part of an argument. Some stories made up based on assumptions of writers not backed by any evidence have little to do with the ethical implications of actual technology.
    - pyre 10y ago
      Are you saying that we should disregard all science-fiction that has explored this topic when considering possible implications? I was referencing sci-fi as more of a "further reading" than as part of an argument.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- dawidloubser 10y ago
  Life, arguably, is a competition. Evolution inherently rewards winners.
joesb 10y ago
What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right?
- pyre 10y ago
  > What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right? What? I'm talking about performance-enhancing drugs here because they enhance performance. So everyone else operating in the same space as you will need to also use performance-enhancing drugs if they want to compete. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp. If there were a pill you could take to turn you into the mythical "10x programmer," the implication of industry-wide usage would be that you would have to start taking that pill to participate in the industry or else you wouldn't be able to keep up.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    We already have such pills, in effect. For example, someone who has depression (a very common ailment), but also has access to drugs that mitigate it, can easily be 10x better programmer relative to someone who has depression but no drugs. Come to think of it, this goes for a lot of other things. Having a car is better than not having one, if only because you shorten commute times, and so have more free time - which translates to better rest and therefore higher productivity, or you could spend it learning new things, again, for higher productivity. So basically anything that improves your quality of life in exchange for money is "performance enhancing" directly or indirectly.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Immunizations are performance enhancing drugs. Shall we ban them?
    - Goronmon 10y ago
      You are using an incorrect definition of "performance enhancing". Your question is easy to answer if you don't start off from an incorrect context.
int_19h 10y ago
Participate in what, though? This outlook basically presupposes that society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? If it does, what does "losing" mean, and can we reduce its impact to the point where it stops mattering?
- malka 10y ago
  > society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? Not society. The universe. Ressource ownership is exclusive. If I own something, no one else can own the very same thing at the same time.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Sure, but society can prevent you from hogging too much for yourself (via taxes etc), so long as it's not 100% laissez-faire, and not just the rich have political rights.
    - pyre 10y ago
      Do you have faith that these aspects of human society will be solved in parallel with increased "designer baby" technology?
      - int_19h 10y ago
        No, but I don't see the "designer baby" tech as something that radically changes the nature of the problem (which already exists, and has existed for a long time), either. Basically, insofar as status quo is tolerable, this doesn't move the needle enough to care. The other thing is, coming from a "well, something must be done about it" perspective, fixing these aspects of human society strikes me as the least intrusive and harmful side-effect-free approach, compared to all the other alternatives (which are mostly about tightly regulating the tech and its use). Heavy handed regulation, in particular, will just produce a black market with no regulation at all, which is likely to result in more problems in the end.
  - 10y ago
lyle_nel 10y ago
Most world class athletes are already genetically superior by the measure of athleticism. Even though these favourable mutations or inherited traits have not been engineered, they still exist and it does enhance the athlete's performance.

by pyre 10y ago

roywiggins 10y ago

The real ethical issue is that you're giving "performance enhancers" to babies. We can't test this stuff in vitro or in adults, not really. So any baby born this way is, in some sense, an experiment. And crucially, so are all of those babies' children and their children, because they will inherit some or all of the genetic changes.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Only if you see life as a competition against your fellow humans.

pyre 10y ago
It's not always about whether or not you see everything as a competition. Consider the "requirement" nowadays of a college degree. I could say that you "need a college degree to compete in the work-force," but that doesn't mean you just need a college degree only if you want to be the "best of the best." Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca).
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  I think the need for a college degree to even get a job is (1) specific to American society and regulations, and (2) not really true even there. Since we're talking about general human morality, I wouldn't put much weight on the particulars of this region in 2016. On a healthy job market, you get paid about as much as you produce. Regardless of what others produce. You also get to benefit from whatever inventions any new super talented people come up with. Finally, the more intelligent a population is in general, the more peaceful it is.
  - pyre 10y ago
    It's not a hard and fast requirement, but there is definitely a wage-gap between the have's and have-not's when it comes to college degrees.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca). Don't use this as part of an argument. Some stories made up based on assumptions of writers not backed by any evidence have little to do with the ethical implications of actual technology.
  - pyre 10y ago
    Are you saying that we should disregard all science-fiction that has explored this topic when considering possible implications? I was referencing sci-fi as more of a "further reading" than as part of an argument.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
dawidloubser 10y ago
Life, arguably, is a competition. Evolution inherently rewards winners.

joesb 10y ago

What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right?

pyre 10y ago
> What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right? What? I'm talking about performance-enhancing drugs here because they enhance performance. So everyone else operating in the same space as you will need to also use performance-enhancing drugs if they want to compete. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp. If there were a pill you could take to turn you into the mythical "10x programmer," the implication of industry-wide usage would be that you would have to start taking that pill to participate in the industry or else you wouldn't be able to keep up.
- int_19h 10y ago
  We already have such pills, in effect. For example, someone who has depression (a very common ailment), but also has access to drugs that mitigate it, can easily be 10x better programmer relative to someone who has depression but no drugs. Come to think of it, this goes for a lot of other things. Having a car is better than not having one, if only because you shorten commute times, and so have more free time - which translates to better rest and therefore higher productivity, or you could spend it learning new things, again, for higher productivity. So basically anything that improves your quality of life in exchange for money is "performance enhancing" directly or indirectly.
- hueving 10y ago
  Immunizations are performance enhancing drugs. Shall we ban them?
  - Goronmon 10y ago
    You are using an incorrect definition of "performance enhancing". Your question is easy to answer if you don't start off from an incorrect context.

int_19h 10y ago

Participate in what, though? This outlook basically presupposes that society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? If it does, what does "losing" mean, and can we reduce its impact to the point where it stops mattering?

malka 10y ago
> society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? Not society. The universe. Ressource ownership is exclusive. If I own something, no one else can own the very same thing at the same time.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Sure, but society can prevent you from hogging too much for yourself (via taxes etc), so long as it's not 100% laissez-faire, and not just the rich have political rights.
  - pyre 10y ago
    Do you have faith that these aspects of human society will be solved in parallel with increased "designer baby" technology?
    - int_19h 10y ago
      No, but I don't see the "designer baby" tech as something that radically changes the nature of the problem (which already exists, and has existed for a long time), either. Basically, insofar as status quo is tolerable, this doesn't move the needle enough to care. The other thing is, coming from a "well, something must be done about it" perspective, fixing these aspects of human society strikes me as the least intrusive and harmful side-effect-free approach, compared to all the other alternatives (which are mostly about tightly regulating the tech and its use). Heavy handed regulation, in particular, will just produce a black market with no regulation at all, which is likely to result in more problems in the end.
- 10y ago

lyle_nel 10y ago

Most world class athletes are already genetically superior by the measure of athleticism. Even though these favourable mutations or inherited traits have not been engineered, they still exist and it does enhance the athlete's performance.