4 ms·

People refusing genetic modifications to remove risks of birth defects are more harmful than antivaxxers.

nerdponx 9y ago
No. Birth defects aren't contagious and are not often fatal. Also -- where do you draw the line between "defect" and "cosmetic enhancement"? It will become a race to the bottom.
- i_are_smart 9y ago
  > Birth defects aren't contagious and are not often fatal. Well, not immediately fatal, anyway. What if a gene modification is developed that halves the rate of aging? Is it a birth defect to have a maximum life expectancy of only 120 years instead of 200 years?
- PrimalDual 9y ago
  How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive thanks to procedures like this humanity would be better for it. This would probably be true even if only a minority of people can afford it. If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended.
  - yulaow 9y ago
    It depends, if you create a super-race which ends to fight their "inferiors" or viceversa, well, you just doomed humanity Elisium style.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      I wonder, why is it that the CEOs, directors, scientists and high ranking officers are much more likely to survive a war then the common soldier?
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended. Because science and technology alone cannot save us from destroying ourselves. Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan and many others warned of how our scientific progress has been outpacing our human social progress. Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword.
    - pcnonpc 9y ago
      That is partly because most people are not Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan. If using genetic techniques and most people become as smart and wise as those names the world WILL be a better place, no?
      - yulaow 9y ago
        You are confusing intelligence/wisdom with empathy/ethic.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      >Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword. People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] If anything, now that a significant portion of the world has nukes, we haven't had two developed countries at war for perhaps the longest period in recorded history. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War --- Case and point -> You meant to write "case in point".
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        >People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] Technology was used in all of those examples. Technology by itself didn't create mass murder, but it does makes it much easier to do.
- hycaria 9y ago
  What is advantageous in keeping anything that is guaranteed to need life long treatment to simply stay alive and is genetically accurately identified in our gene pool (eg cystic fibrosis, not mild myopia) ? Technology for this is already available (and even parental testing could already help diminishing incidence) yet I doubt it's common.

No. Birth defects aren't contagious and are not often fatal. Also -- where do you draw the line between "defect" and "cosmetic enhancement"? It will become a race to the bottom.

i_are_smart 9y ago
> Birth defects aren't contagious and are not often fatal. Well, not immediately fatal, anyway. What if a gene modification is developed that halves the rate of aging? Is it a birth defect to have a maximum life expectancy of only 120 years instead of 200 years?
PrimalDual 9y ago
How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive thanks to procedures like this humanity would be better for it. This would probably be true even if only a minority of people can afford it. If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended.
- yulaow 9y ago
  It depends, if you create a super-race which ends to fight their "inferiors" or viceversa, well, you just doomed humanity Elisium style.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    I wonder, why is it that the CEOs, directors, scientists and high ranking officers are much more likely to survive a war then the common soldier?
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended. Because science and technology alone cannot save us from destroying ourselves. Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan and many others warned of how our scientific progress has been outpacing our human social progress. Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword.
  - pcnonpc 9y ago
    That is partly because most people are not Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan. If using genetic techniques and most people become as smart and wise as those names the world WILL be a better place, no?
    - yulaow 9y ago
      You are confusing intelligence/wisdom with empathy/ethic.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    >Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword. People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] If anything, now that a significant portion of the world has nukes, we haven't had two developed countries at war for perhaps the longest period in recorded history. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War --- Case and point -> You meant to write "case in point".
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] Technology was used in all of those examples. Technology by itself didn't create mass murder, but it does makes it much easier to do.
hycaria 9y ago
What is advantageous in keeping anything that is guaranteed to need life long treatment to simply stay alive and is genetically accurately identified in our gene pool (eg cystic fibrosis, not mild myopia) ? Technology for this is already available (and even parental testing could already help diminishing incidence) yet I doubt it's common.