4 ms·

Yep welcome back eugenics.

by jansho 9y ago

wyager 9y ago
This isn't eugenics. I'm not sure why people use that label so much with almost any reproduction-related technology. Birth control is "eugenics", genetic disease screening is "eugenics", the creation of egg cells from other cells is "eugenics". Eugenics is, very specifically, the application of husbandry to humans. I'm all for anything that has similar benefits without the associated human rights violations.
- jansho 9y ago
  Let's not pretend ... if babies can be artificially created, why not tweak its genes a little bit? It's harmless right; what's wrong with going for brown hair, green eyes? What's wrong with cutting the risk of getting fatter/cancer? Then there's the social consequences worthy of a Black Mirror season. It's a slippery slope me thinks.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    I for one, welcome viruses that target people with green eyes!
  - afthonos 9y ago
    > Let's not pretend ... if babies can be artificially created, why not tweak its genes a little bit? Why not indeed? We have taken, or are trying really hard to take, natural selection out of the equation for ourselves. Doing so without an alternative way to bring out desirable traits and reduce undesirable ones condemns our descendants to lifetimes of treatment for ever more exotic and complicated genetic diseases. I don't think that's ethical, and I don't think stopping medical research is either, leaving us with gene editing of embryos (and hopefully someday fully developed humans) as the only way to ensure the health of coming generations. Of course, you're right that this will have profound social effects. But so will doing nothing while continuing medical advances.
    - jansho 9y ago
      The question is do you want to survive or do you want to be more super. IMO the gene-editing/eugenics topic falls under the latter. No one is saying that curing diseases is bad. But the fact is our lives will always be blighted with something, if not Disease A then it's Disease B and if not Accident C. Nature has a wonderful way of intervening, somehow or another. If you find one, then it'll just get more creative. And by the way, I would argue that most of the current ailments are human-generated - like climate change and lung cancer caused by smoking. The only leeway I can sort of accept is serious hereditary diseases like madness passed down through generations - but even then I'm cautious that it'll open the floodgates. No. The risk is too much - a new human race with a clearly defined code of what's good and what's not good for them? What about those who can't "make it"? What about the rest of us who can't afford fancy genes? Geez, this is Darwinian struggle taken to the extreme.
      - afthonos 9y ago
        > No one is saying that curing diseases is bad. But the fact is our lives will always be blighted with something, if not Disease A then it's Disease B and if not Accident C. But our entire history has seen us making it safer to be alive. From cooking to antibiotics to now immunotherapy, we have reduced the risk of death at every turn. This even extends to mobility: we have reduced the ways in which we move (what is a road but a disincentive to use any other path?) in exchange for making them massively safer. Safety hasn't monotonously increased, but the pattern is clear. And successful. Saying that it can't be perfect isn't an argument against continuing. > No. The risk is too much - a new human race with a clearly defined code of what's good and what's not good for them? What about those who can't "make it"? What about the rest of us who can't afford fancy genes? This is a very valid ethical concern, and I agree that getting it wrong is a scary prospect. But I don't think that getting it wrong is inevitable, nor do I think that inaction is better. In particular, the "never" position relies instead on blind chance. It may seem seductive because, hey, after all, blind chance is how we got here in the first place, but we suffer from tremendous survivor bias; our fitness to our environment is built on billions upon billions of failed experiments that resulted in death for each of the test subjects. I think it's perfectly fine to look for better models. The societal problems you're worried about are very real, but I think the solution is to talk about them and work them out.
  - wyager 9y ago
    That's still not eugenics. I also think it's a very good idea. I will be using this technology if it becomes available by the time I have children.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  > application of husbandry to humans Because every dog breed we created is super healthy and doesn't come with list of diseases that are caused by small number of breeding pairs.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    What does this have to do with the comment you are replying to?
  - wyager 9y ago
    It's harder to get away with giving humans hip dysplasia because they live for a long time and can complain about it. Gene modification also doesn't work by restricting the number of breeding pairs, so your complaint (while valid for dog breeding) doesn't apply to human genetic health improvement. There is a related risk in the form of reducing genetic diversity, which can increase population-level vulnerability to infectious diseases. However, it's unlikely that the kind of modifications people will first use (strength boost, intelligence boost, better heart health, etc.) will pose a serious risk in this respect. I would advocate extreme caution for large-scale modification of immune system-related genes.
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      Yeah, but it will be really easy and cheap to base your eye color on only a few donors. And side effects will be visible generations later.
Ygg2 9y ago
Welcome back diseases associated with small number of available parents.

Yep welcome back eugenics.

by jansho 9y ago

Yep welcome back eugenics.

This isn't eugenics. I'm not sure why people use that label so much with almost any reproduction-related technology. Birth control is "eugenics", genetic disease screening is "eugenics", the creation of egg cells from other cells is "eugenics". Eugenics is, very specifically, the application of husbandry to humans. I'm all for anything that has similar benefits without the associated human rights violations.

jansho 9y ago
Let's not pretend ... if babies can be artificially created, why not tweak its genes a little bit? It's harmless right; what's wrong with going for brown hair, green eyes? What's wrong with cutting the risk of getting fatter/cancer? Then there's the social consequences worthy of a Black Mirror season. It's a slippery slope me thinks.
- Ygg2 9y ago
  I for one, welcome viruses that target people with green eyes!
- afthonos 9y ago
  > Let's not pretend ... if babies can be artificially created, why not tweak its genes a little bit? Why not indeed? We have taken, or are trying really hard to take, natural selection out of the equation for ourselves. Doing so without an alternative way to bring out desirable traits and reduce undesirable ones condemns our descendants to lifetimes of treatment for ever more exotic and complicated genetic diseases. I don't think that's ethical, and I don't think stopping medical research is either, leaving us with gene editing of embryos (and hopefully someday fully developed humans) as the only way to ensure the health of coming generations. Of course, you're right that this will have profound social effects. But so will doing nothing while continuing medical advances.
  - jansho 9y ago
    The question is do you want to survive or do you want to be more super. IMO the gene-editing/eugenics topic falls under the latter. No one is saying that curing diseases is bad. But the fact is our lives will always be blighted with something, if not Disease A then it's Disease B and if not Accident C. Nature has a wonderful way of intervening, somehow or another. If you find one, then it'll just get more creative. And by the way, I would argue that most of the current ailments are human-generated - like climate change and lung cancer caused by smoking. The only leeway I can sort of accept is serious hereditary diseases like madness passed down through generations - but even then I'm cautious that it'll open the floodgates. No. The risk is too much - a new human race with a clearly defined code of what's good and what's not good for them? What about those who can't "make it"? What about the rest of us who can't afford fancy genes? Geez, this is Darwinian struggle taken to the extreme.
    - afthonos 9y ago
      > No one is saying that curing diseases is bad. But the fact is our lives will always be blighted with something, if not Disease A then it's Disease B and if not Accident C. But our entire history has seen us making it safer to be alive. From cooking to antibiotics to now immunotherapy, we have reduced the risk of death at every turn. This even extends to mobility: we have reduced the ways in which we move (what is a road but a disincentive to use any other path?) in exchange for making them massively safer. Safety hasn't monotonously increased, but the pattern is clear. And successful. Saying that it can't be perfect isn't an argument against continuing. > No. The risk is too much - a new human race with a clearly defined code of what's good and what's not good for them? What about those who can't "make it"? What about the rest of us who can't afford fancy genes? This is a very valid ethical concern, and I agree that getting it wrong is a scary prospect. But I don't think that getting it wrong is inevitable, nor do I think that inaction is better. In particular, the "never" position relies instead on blind chance. It may seem seductive because, hey, after all, blind chance is how we got here in the first place, but we suffer from tremendous survivor bias; our fitness to our environment is built on billions upon billions of failed experiments that resulted in death for each of the test subjects. I think it's perfectly fine to look for better models. The societal problems you're worried about are very real, but I think the solution is to talk about them and work them out.
- wyager 9y ago
  That's still not eugenics. I also think it's a very good idea. I will be using this technology if it becomes available by the time I have children.
Ygg2 9y ago
> application of husbandry to humans Because every dog breed we created is super healthy and doesn't come with list of diseases that are caused by small number of breeding pairs.
- benchaney 9y ago
  What does this have to do with the comment you are replying to?
- wyager 9y ago
  It's harder to get away with giving humans hip dysplasia because they live for a long time and can complain about it. Gene modification also doesn't work by restricting the number of breeding pairs, so your complaint (while valid for dog breeding) doesn't apply to human genetic health improvement. There is a related risk in the form of reducing genetic diversity, which can increase population-level vulnerability to infectious diseases. However, it's unlikely that the kind of modifications people will first use (strength boost, intelligence boost, better heart health, etc.) will pose a serious risk in this respect. I would advocate extreme caution for large-scale modification of immune system-related genes.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    Yeah, but it will be really easy and cheap to base your eye color on only a few donors. And side effects will be visible generations later.

Ygg2 9y ago

Welcome back diseases associated with small number of available parents.