5 ms·

If it's ethically defensible to abort a child based on its sex (or for any other non-medical reason), it should be ethically defensible to mess with its genome.

If it's ethically defensible to abort a child based on its sex (or for any other non-medical reason), it should be ethically defensible to mess with its genome. I, for one, welcome our new Chinese designer baby overlords.

Gokenstein 8y ago
If it’s legal to drink alcohol and poison yourself it’s no different than pouring arsenic in the water supply and poisoning everyone right?
- mmirate 8y ago
  How is improving a handful of people tantamount to poisoning everyone?
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    The point is that those "improvements' will contaminate everyone in the long run.
- zeroname 8y ago
  Poor comparison. Let's not forget that it's legal for people with hereditary diseases to procreate, would you compare that with "poisoning the water supply"? Furthermore, here are some legal ways to crudely "engineer" the DNA of your future offspring: - smoking - drinking - legal prescription drugs - exposing yourself to ionizing radiation That counts for both males and females, of course with pregnant females the effects are vastly amplified.
IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
To only begin to scrape at the trouble with this argument: - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. - genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics - it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics - it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings - your tired meme is tired
- mmirate 8y ago
  > it would seem to devalue non-engineered life Non-engineered life, in comparison to (hypothetical) well-engineered life ... is indeed less valuable, because it has lesser affordances. Same as any tool or machine, and same as today; insofar as e.g. medics differ from thieves, officers from enlisted, ambulatories from cripples, etc. Why is the mere "seeming" part, important? And why lament the devaluation of cottage industry instead of noticing the large net-increase-in-value being delivered by factories? > it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics Good; then the transition from non-engineered to well-engineered life will have that much less room for pointless and expensive violence. > genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics This hypothetical does not merit the kind of absolute opposition that I am seeing in this thread and this article.
- SonicSoul 8y ago
  devalue non engineered life Last i checked Organic > GMO
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    Still up for debate
  - mmirate 8y ago
    As usual, this is entirely a question-of-facts. In this particular case the relevant questions-of-facts are: what affordances the organic life provide, what affordances the GM life provide, and how do those two sets' sums-of-value compare.
- Yizahi 8y ago
  > it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. Only if a person believes in souls. Otherwise human fetus and human newborn up to age 1y or so is indistinguishable from any higher animals that humans kill en masse. Human babies are born undeveloped by design. > genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics Or the other way around including some incurable or debilitating diseases. There is no statistics to prove either point. > it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics Which is awesome if you believe in transhumanism and bet on more good vs. evil from technology. > it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings Not an argument for non-believers in souls. There is no inherent dignity of any kind in not using gene modification vs. not using it.

Gokenstein 8y ago

If it’s legal to drink alcohol and poison yourself it’s no different than pouring arsenic in the water supply and poisoning everyone right?

mmirate 8y ago
How is improving a handful of people tantamount to poisoning everyone?
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  The point is that those "improvements' will contaminate everyone in the long run.
zeroname 8y ago
Poor comparison. Let's not forget that it's legal for people with hereditary diseases to procreate, would you compare that with "poisoning the water supply"? Furthermore, here are some legal ways to crudely "engineer" the DNA of your future offspring: - smoking - drinking - legal prescription drugs - exposing yourself to ionizing radiation That counts for both males and females, of course with pregnant females the effects are vastly amplified.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

To only begin to scrape at the trouble with this argument: - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. - genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics - it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics - it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings - your tired meme is tired

mmirate 8y ago
> it would seem to devalue non-engineered life Non-engineered life, in comparison to (hypothetical) well-engineered life ... is indeed less valuable, because it has lesser affordances. Same as any tool or machine, and same as today; insofar as e.g. medics differ from thieves, officers from enlisted, ambulatories from cripples, etc. Why is the mere "seeming" part, important? And why lament the devaluation of cottage industry instead of noticing the large net-increase-in-value being delivered by factories? > it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics Good; then the transition from non-engineered to well-engineered life will have that much less room for pointless and expensive violence. > genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics This hypothetical does not merit the kind of absolute opposition that I am seeing in this thread and this article.
SonicSoul 8y ago
devalue non engineered life Last i checked Organic > GMO
- dwighttk 8y ago
  Still up for debate
- mmirate 8y ago
  As usual, this is entirely a question-of-facts. In this particular case the relevant questions-of-facts are: what affordances the organic life provide, what affordances the GM life provide, and how do those two sets' sums-of-value compare.
Yizahi 8y ago
> it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. Only if a person believes in souls. Otherwise human fetus and human newborn up to age 1y or so is indistinguishable from any higher animals that humans kill en masse. Human babies are born undeveloped by design. > genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics Or the other way around including some incurable or debilitating diseases. There is no statistics to prove either point. > it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics Which is awesome if you believe in transhumanism and bet on more good vs. evil from technology. > it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings Not an argument for non-believers in souls. There is no inherent dignity of any kind in not using gene modification vs. not using it.