2 ms·
> Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. What the fuck? We finally have th
by mmirate 9y ago
> Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability.
What the fuck?
We finally have the capability to extract the best possible sample of a couple's genetics - to, over generations, actively remove unfit traits from our genome without having to kill any living people - and this is how we greet the future? How ungrateful and utterly disgusting!
> In the West, PGD still raises fears about the creation of an elite genetic class,
Oh, boo fucking hoo. We make all kinds of investments whose payoff is self-improvement; running shoes, education, internships. This is no different! And in this particular case, the effect is slow enough that "I can't afford it; perhaps my children could, but they'll just be outcompeted by superhumans." is fucking bullshit.
> and critics talk of a slippery slope towards eugenics, a word that elicits thoughts of Nazi Germany and racial cleansing.
This insinuates that we would murder living people over having non-artificially-selected genes. Why would this be considered necessary? We don't have any deontological directive that all of humanity must have the best genes immediately. (The Nazis might have; or at least, such a directive would produce Nazi-like behavior.)
On the other hand, if, to avoid having "genetic inequality", our nanny state decides that everyone should use IVF with their embryo pre-selected if they wish to reproduce at all ... that specific policy could be interpreted as "eugenic". So ... pick your poison, I guess? (Personally, I prefer the one that favors individuals' freedom to choose what they want.)
- dragonwriter 9y ago> This insinuates that we would murder living people over having non-artificially-selected genes. Rendering them economically noncompetitive in a market system with, as in the US, a fairly weak social safety net is a fairly grave result, even without active murder.
- mmirate 9y agoPossibly. But if someone is actually unfit enough to be "gravely" hurt, and multiple generations of their ancestors were all too unproductive to afford IVF and pre-selection even when not under full competitive pressure from superhumans ... then what kind of a person is this, who we are so concerned about? Does his/her loss of competitiveness deprive humanity of so much, that it is better to hold back humanity's best+brightest?
- dragonwriter 9y agoThe slippery slope argument usually advanced involves what happens when technology improves and allows bigger single-generation deltas for the existing economic elite. But, in any case, many people find the idea that the less-genetically-fortunate should suffer to avoid “holding back” genetic superiors to be morally repugnant even when dealing with natural variations, much less when dealing with advantages available only to offspring of pre-existing economic elites.
- mmirate 9y agoAh, in this case we have an isomorphism to the argument between "no child left behind" and private schools.
- seanp2k2 9y agoHere in America, we prefer racial cleansing of the torch-wielding variety.
- mmirate 9y agoYes, there do exist violent collectivist groups which have the uncanny ability to have their antics be broadcast on the news. Also, they each care specifically about their own race and racial identity, not about whether or not their children will have an optimal genome. How is all this related to anything I said in my top-level comment?