5 ms·

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 pop

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.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  Epidemics != disease. See my other comment to a similarly confused poster. Even if you believe in transhumanism, I don't see how forcing others into that believe system would be "awesome". I like Chocolate Chip ice cream, yet I would oppose a law making it the only allowed flavour. Other than that, I don't get what souls have to do with anything. I don't believe in God, or souls, or even dualism. Yet dignity, defined as each individual being worthy of respect (as opposed to being a collection of molecules expendable in the service of any other goal), would seem rather fundamental to our code of ethics. I think by "souls" you're actually just referring to morality in general. And yes, if you subscribe in anything-goes nihilism, then I have nothing to answer you. Except that I'll be coming to rob you of your soul as soon as it becomes beneficial to my narrowly-defined interest.
  - Yizahi 8y ago
    > Epidemics != disease. See my other comment to a similarly confused poster. If you are concerned about gene diversity then yes it is a valid concern. But I must say that with my absolute zero knowledge in this area I still suspect that it is not that easy binary yes/no question and not yes/no consequences of it. E.g. It could be that edits would be sufficiently different and make it non-issue. It could be that edits will eradicate those same corrupted genes that make humans susceptible to epidemics. Or again, you could be right. No way to tell right now. Next to other concerns. Again, you are worried about dignity of humans. From my point of view fetuses and newborns up to 1y are not human. They are alive but cognitively on a level of animals. At least concerning fetuses it is most definitely true. And so we should allow parents to do whatever non-harmful procedures on them. Defining non-harmful will be very hard. I'm not anarchist or nihilist or similar. I just feel that we need to progress in gene modification area and fast. And I don't think that any single group of humans can dictate to the other group what they could do unless it is something morally awful. If for example, you oppose gene editing then I think I can't force you to do gene editing but I also think that you can't ban me doing it. PS: just in case - I do think that gene editing should be a government regulated industry, only not extremely regulated and not affected by ANY religious view of any religious group.
zeroname 8y ago
> - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. > - genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics genetic engineering also might make populations less 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 That's indeed a possibility. > - it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings First of all, there's no such thing as "universal dignity of all human beings", different societies have different conceptualizations of "dignity" and its consequences. Even then, why should being genetically engineered threaten your dignity or that of others? Engineered humans are still humans. Their DNA isn't necessarily any different than what some natural mutation could've come up with. > - your tired meme is tired I'm actually dead serious.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  > If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. > genetic engineering also might make populations less susceptible to epidemics It may make populations less susceptible to disease. It's extremely unlikely that homogenisation of genes would lead to increased resistance to epidemics. > I'm actually dead serious. That's what's most frightening.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    It is possible that it could boost resistance - for instance I have a grandmother with a weird immune system flaw - for some reason she cannot retain immunity to chicken pox at all - she caught it every time someone in her large farm family got it as a child! While diversity ensures better coverage genetic engineering could "patch the holes" as it were.
chasd00 8y ago
> - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. at least in the US you can abort a baby for any reason. The only limiting factor is time i believe.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  It’s legal because it’s not done, thankfully. The second it appears in birth gender statistics, it would become illegal, just as it is in, for example, India.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > It’s legal because it’s not done, thankfully. You don't know that it isn't done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#United_... Those who strongly favor male offspring may be a small minority. Even without intervention, there will be more male births. That ratio differs geographically. It would take a lot of sex-selective abortions to show a clear correlation.
- roganartu 8y ago
  You appear to be conflating ethics and legality. It is perfectly legal (for now) for social media giants to spy on their US users in increasingly intrusive ways, but many would argue there are lines in there that cross into unethical. Perhaps legislation will follow to enforce this ethical stance over the coming years as has happened in the EU, but the absence of such legislation does not preclude it from being unethical. The objection to Google's interest in the Chinese market is another example where ethics and legality don't match up. Anecdotally, I personally find it ethically indefensible to abort a child due purely to sex, despite otherwise being pro-choice.

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.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Epidemics != disease. See my other comment to a similarly confused poster. Even if you believe in transhumanism, I don't see how forcing others into that believe system would be "awesome". I like Chocolate Chip ice cream, yet I would oppose a law making it the only allowed flavour. Other than that, I don't get what souls have to do with anything. I don't believe in God, or souls, or even dualism. Yet dignity, defined as each individual being worthy of respect (as opposed to being a collection of molecules expendable in the service of any other goal), would seem rather fundamental to our code of ethics. I think by "souls" you're actually just referring to morality in general. And yes, if you subscribe in anything-goes nihilism, then I have nothing to answer you. Except that I'll be coming to rob you of your soul as soon as it becomes beneficial to my narrowly-defined interest.
- Yizahi 8y ago
  > Epidemics != disease. See my other comment to a similarly confused poster. If you are concerned about gene diversity then yes it is a valid concern. But I must say that with my absolute zero knowledge in this area I still suspect that it is not that easy binary yes/no question and not yes/no consequences of it. E.g. It could be that edits would be sufficiently different and make it non-issue. It could be that edits will eradicate those same corrupted genes that make humans susceptible to epidemics. Or again, you could be right. No way to tell right now. Next to other concerns. Again, you are worried about dignity of humans. From my point of view fetuses and newborns up to 1y are not human. They are alive but cognitively on a level of animals. At least concerning fetuses it is most definitely true. And so we should allow parents to do whatever non-harmful procedures on them. Defining non-harmful will be very hard. I'm not anarchist or nihilist or similar. I just feel that we need to progress in gene modification area and fast. And I don't think that any single group of humans can dictate to the other group what they could do unless it is something morally awful. If for example, you oppose gene editing then I think I can't force you to do gene editing but I also think that you can't ban me doing it. PS: just in case - I do think that gene editing should be a government regulated industry, only not extremely regulated and not affected by ANY religious view of any religious group.

zeroname 8y ago

> - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. > - genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics genetic engineering also might make populations less 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 That's indeed a possibility. > - it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings First of all, there's no such thing as "universal dignity of all human beings", different societies have different conceptualizations of "dignity" and its consequences. Even then, why should being genetically engineered threaten your dignity or that of others? Engineered humans are still humans. Their DNA isn't necessarily any different than what some natural mutation could've come up with. > - your tired meme is tired I'm actually dead serious.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. > genetic engineering also might make populations less susceptible to epidemics It may make populations less susceptible to disease. It's extremely unlikely that homogenisation of genes would lead to increased resistance to epidemics. > I'm actually dead serious. That's what's most frightening.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  It is possible that it could boost resistance - for instance I have a grandmother with a weird immune system flaw - for some reason she cannot retain immunity to chicken pox at all - she caught it every time someone in her large farm family got it as a child! While diversity ensures better coverage genetic engineering could "patch the holes" as it were.

chasd00 8y ago

> - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. at least in the US you can abort a baby for any reason. The only limiting factor is time i believe.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
It’s legal because it’s not done, thankfully. The second it appears in birth gender statistics, it would become illegal, just as it is in, for example, India.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > It’s legal because it’s not done, thankfully. You don't know that it isn't done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion#United_... Those who strongly favor male offspring may be a small minority. Even without intervention, there will be more male births. That ratio differs geographically. It would take a lot of sex-selective abortions to show a clear correlation.
roganartu 8y ago
You appear to be conflating ethics and legality. It is perfectly legal (for now) for social media giants to spy on their US users in increasingly intrusive ways, but many would argue there are lines in there that cross into unethical. Perhaps legislation will follow to enforce this ethical stance over the coming years as has happened in the EU, but the absence of such legislation does not preclude it from being unethical. The objection to Google's interest in the Chinese market is another example where ethics and legality don't match up. Anecdotally, I personally find it ethically indefensible to abort a child due purely to sex, despite otherwise being pro-choice.