3 ms·

> 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 i

by 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.

by Yizahi 8y ago

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.