4 ms·

Genetic engineering is a tricky one. It seems unethical but if you think about it.... there is nothing inherently immoral about creating a genetically superior

Genetic engineering is a tricky one. It seems unethical but if you think about it.... there is nothing inherently immoral about creating a genetically superior baby. It's our own sense of insecurity and disgust thats inhibits this technology from crossing the line. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for restricting this technology. I don't want to live in a world like the one portrayed by Gattaca simply because of the fact that my children and I will never be the ones that are genetically superior.

zozbot123 8y ago
Our "genetically superior" crops and livestock are anything but (they're inherently fragile and vulnerable to all sorts of unforeseeable conditions), and these were obtained by methods that were far less inherently fiddly than CRISPR. Even most existing GMO techniques are more robust than CRISPR! And you think it's okay to pursue those same goals and techniques in humans? Sorry but this makes zero sense.
- hermitdev 8y ago
  Is GMO really any different than selective breeding, which has been going on for 10s of thousands of years, except for the time scale and precision of the changes? Yes, there may be unintended side effects, but that can be true with selective breeding. Look at what we've done to dogs and how some breeds can hardly breath, others are predisposed to hip dysplasia, others yet prone to hearing issues, and we did all of that without genetic engineering.
  - max76 8y ago
    > Is GMO really any different than selective breeding Yes, GMO is very different. 1. GMO crops are genetic clones. We have never experienced such small amounts of genetic diversity in our crops. This creates unique liabilities. 2. Timescales matter. Perhaps skilled breeders could create the exact same genome of a GMO crop we have today in 10,000 years. However the environment will be given much more time between each mutation, and each mutation will take more time before it spreads across the entire population. This gives other forms of life a fighting chance. Ecosystems fail when they are dominated by a single organism. 3. While our yields are much higher today, our farming practices are much less substainable than they were in the past. The types of farming practices GMOs promote are part of the move towards less substainable farming.
perfmode 8y ago
The risk isn’t that we create something superior. It’s that we fail and subject babies/children/people to suffering that we can’t predict or imagine. Gene editing can go very wrong. You change one little thing and it produces myriad unexpected effects.
- wetpaws 8y ago
  Almost exactly... like nature does?
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  Much of genetic engineering is a blackbox. Many macro physical traits are associated with a gene (or several genes) through a probabilistic quantity indicating that a lot of what we are dealing with is a blackbox where we only establish correlations with inputs and outputs. However, I am addressing the ethics of genetically engineering humans not the ethics of using a technology where we possess limited understanding. The gap of understanding is closing and will no longer be a valid excuse in the near future. In fact, there are many traits and genetic diseases where we know 100% the mechanism that triggers it all the way down to gene. See here: https://www.genome.gov/10001204/specific-genetic-disorders/ https://www.genome.gov/10001204/specific-genetic-disorders/ What is the ethical reasoning stopping people from using CRISPR on these diseases? I am still against the usage of CRISPR to cure these diseases because it opens a door for the creation of a race of genetically superior humans. I am against this purely for selfish reasons.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
GuB-42 8y ago
I don't thing the problem really is about genetically engineering babies. I mean, we are already creating superhumans that are immune to some diseases with vaccines, genetic engineering is just a step further. The real problem is that it is essentially unauthorized experiments on human subjects. Just like with drugs, there is a process ensuring the risks are minimized. And it look like they skipped all that. Gene editing also has specific challenges: - They are babies, they can't give consent themselves. - They are (presumably) healthy to begin with. It is not a case of "with that experimental treatment, you may die, but without it, you definitely will". - The treatment may also affect the offspring in unexpected ways.
- jfrankamp 8y ago
  Point three of yours is the primary concern with 'superhumans', so its unlike vaccines entirely. It's not about the individual at all, its about the new species we'd be creating, that would reproduce on its own. How many edits would it take?
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  When I refer to super-humans I mean better-looking, faster, stronger, and smarter. I'm not talking about smallpox immunity.
MRD85 8y ago
Genetics is already a lucky dip. Intelligence appears to be highly heritable. If there is a couple that both have low IQ's below the 20th percentile then is it moral to tell them that there is a way for their child to be intelligent? What about health? Social skills? Good looks? Looks have a huge impact on your life (i.e. halo effect).
- qwerty456127 8y ago
  Of course it is, why not? I even believe it's immoral to let the kids struggle from inheriting their parents disadvantages in intelligence and health when it is possible to save them from that. As for social skills and appearence, however, this is not so straightforward as the first is complicated and the second is subjective. Psychopaths and dominant characters can make amazing social players but I doubt it's nice (both to the person and to whoever is going to have to deal with them) to pre-program a person with these traits. Unusual appearance can sometimes be more cool than nazi-style unified perfection.
  - MRD85 8y ago
    Looks may be subjective but most people tend to somewhat agree on who is and is not attractive. A large number of women think George Clooney is attractive and that Danny Devito isn't. If you take two babies who are identical in every way except one will look like George and one will look like Danny then they will have very different lives. Looking good makes people assume you have good traits.
    - qwerty456127 8y ago
      > A large number of women think George Clooney is attractive and that Danny Devito isn't. Nevertheless Danny Devito is extremely charismatic and if I were him I would certainly appreciate my parents didn't modify my genes to make me look a different way. In fact my actual look is much more close to that of George Clooney than Danny Devito but if I could choose now I would prefer to change my look into exactly that od Danny Devito than of George Clooney. This is exactly the example of how subjective this is.
chr1 8y ago
The problem in Gattaca world is not the genetic modification. It is the assumption that worth of the individual can be judged by genetics alone, that fitness for the job can be determined by something other than merit. In this way Gattaca is a really harmful movie, it decives viewers into thinking that genetic editing is bad, but in fact shows only failures of a non-free society, which is bad independantly from any technology.
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  I find it bad in the sense, other people can be modified to be superior at birth while it's already too late for me.
  - chr1 8y ago
    I agree that is sad, but already many people are way smarter than me without any artificial modifications. If i could pick i'd prefer to live in a world where there are thousands of people like Feynman and most people are smarter than me, instead of a world where all people are about as smart as me, and progress in science is correspondingly slow.
    - crimsonalucard 8y ago
      Sure there are people smarter than you. But I don't want to be pushed lower on the rung of the ladder of genetic superiority. An important human need that has to be satisfied whether we care to admit it or not is that we need to feel better than others at something.
      - chr1 8y ago
        I wouldn't worry about that either. If it is about superiority of children much younger than you, you do not have anything to worry, because they'll be superior anyway simply by being much younger. If it is about children that will become adults before you going to pension, you should be only happy about them being significantly smarter, because that will increase your chances of learning about new science, having much better computers, and maybe even living much longer, if they manage to make a good progress in biology.

zozbot123 8y ago

Our "genetically superior" crops and livestock are anything but (they're inherently fragile and vulnerable to all sorts of unforeseeable conditions), and these were obtained by methods that were far less inherently fiddly than CRISPR. Even most existing GMO techniques are more robust than CRISPR! And you think it's okay to pursue those same goals and techniques in humans? Sorry but this makes zero sense.

hermitdev 8y ago
Is GMO really any different than selective breeding, which has been going on for 10s of thousands of years, except for the time scale and precision of the changes? Yes, there may be unintended side effects, but that can be true with selective breeding. Look at what we've done to dogs and how some breeds can hardly breath, others are predisposed to hip dysplasia, others yet prone to hearing issues, and we did all of that without genetic engineering.
- max76 8y ago
  > Is GMO really any different than selective breeding Yes, GMO is very different. 1. GMO crops are genetic clones. We have never experienced such small amounts of genetic diversity in our crops. This creates unique liabilities. 2. Timescales matter. Perhaps skilled breeders could create the exact same genome of a GMO crop we have today in 10,000 years. However the environment will be given much more time between each mutation, and each mutation will take more time before it spreads across the entire population. This gives other forms of life a fighting chance. Ecosystems fail when they are dominated by a single organism. 3. While our yields are much higher today, our farming practices are much less substainable than they were in the past. The types of farming practices GMOs promote are part of the move towards less substainable farming.

perfmode 8y ago

The risk isn’t that we create something superior. It’s that we fail and subject babies/children/people to suffering that we can’t predict or imagine. Gene editing can go very wrong. You change one little thing and it produces myriad unexpected effects.

wetpaws 8y ago
Almost exactly... like nature does?
crimsonalucard 8y ago
Much of genetic engineering is a blackbox. Many macro physical traits are associated with a gene (or several genes) through a probabilistic quantity indicating that a lot of what we are dealing with is a blackbox where we only establish correlations with inputs and outputs. However, I am addressing the ethics of genetically engineering humans not the ethics of using a technology where we possess limited understanding. The gap of understanding is closing and will no longer be a valid excuse in the near future. In fact, there are many traits and genetic diseases where we know 100% the mechanism that triggers it all the way down to gene. See here: https://www.genome.gov/10001204/specific-genetic-disorders/ https://www.genome.gov/10001204/specific-genetic-disorders/ What is the ethical reasoning stopping people from using CRISPR on these diseases? I am still against the usage of CRISPR to cure these diseases because it opens a door for the creation of a race of genetically superior humans. I am against this purely for selfish reasons.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

GuB-42 8y ago

I don't thing the problem really is about genetically engineering babies. I mean, we are already creating superhumans that are immune to some diseases with vaccines, genetic engineering is just a step further. The real problem is that it is essentially unauthorized experiments on human subjects. Just like with drugs, there is a process ensuring the risks are minimized. And it look like they skipped all that. Gene editing also has specific challenges: - They are babies, they can't give consent themselves. - They are (presumably) healthy to begin with. It is not a case of "with that experimental treatment, you may die, but without it, you definitely will". - The treatment may also affect the offspring in unexpected ways.

jfrankamp 8y ago
Point three of yours is the primary concern with 'superhumans', so its unlike vaccines entirely. It's not about the individual at all, its about the new species we'd be creating, that would reproduce on its own. How many edits would it take?
crimsonalucard 8y ago
When I refer to super-humans I mean better-looking, faster, stronger, and smarter. I'm not talking about smallpox immunity.

MRD85 8y ago

Genetics is already a lucky dip. Intelligence appears to be highly heritable. If there is a couple that both have low IQ's below the 20th percentile then is it moral to tell them that there is a way for their child to be intelligent? What about health? Social skills? Good looks? Looks have a huge impact on your life (i.e. halo effect).

qwerty456127 8y ago
Of course it is, why not? I even believe it's immoral to let the kids struggle from inheriting their parents disadvantages in intelligence and health when it is possible to save them from that. As for social skills and appearence, however, this is not so straightforward as the first is complicated and the second is subjective. Psychopaths and dominant characters can make amazing social players but I doubt it's nice (both to the person and to whoever is going to have to deal with them) to pre-program a person with these traits. Unusual appearance can sometimes be more cool than nazi-style unified perfection.
- MRD85 8y ago
  Looks may be subjective but most people tend to somewhat agree on who is and is not attractive. A large number of women think George Clooney is attractive and that Danny Devito isn't. If you take two babies who are identical in every way except one will look like George and one will look like Danny then they will have very different lives. Looking good makes people assume you have good traits.
  - qwerty456127 8y ago
    > A large number of women think George Clooney is attractive and that Danny Devito isn't. Nevertheless Danny Devito is extremely charismatic and if I were him I would certainly appreciate my parents didn't modify my genes to make me look a different way. In fact my actual look is much more close to that of George Clooney than Danny Devito but if I could choose now I would prefer to change my look into exactly that od Danny Devito than of George Clooney. This is exactly the example of how subjective this is.

chr1 8y ago

The problem in Gattaca world is not the genetic modification. It is the assumption that worth of the individual can be judged by genetics alone, that fitness for the job can be determined by something other than merit. In this way Gattaca is a really harmful movie, it decives viewers into thinking that genetic editing is bad, but in fact shows only failures of a non-free society, which is bad independantly from any technology.

crimsonalucard 8y ago
I find it bad in the sense, other people can be modified to be superior at birth while it's already too late for me.
- chr1 8y ago
  I agree that is sad, but already many people are way smarter than me without any artificial modifications. If i could pick i'd prefer to live in a world where there are thousands of people like Feynman and most people are smarter than me, instead of a world where all people are about as smart as me, and progress in science is correspondingly slow.
  - crimsonalucard 8y ago
    Sure there are people smarter than you. But I don't want to be pushed lower on the rung of the ladder of genetic superiority. An important human need that has to be satisfied whether we care to admit it or not is that we need to feel better than others at something.
    - chr1 8y ago
      I wouldn't worry about that either. If it is about superiority of children much younger than you, you do not have anything to worry, because they'll be superior anyway simply by being much younger. If it is about children that will become adults before you going to pension, you should be only happy about them being significantly smarter, because that will increase your chances of learning about new science, having much better computers, and maybe even living much longer, if they manage to make a good progress in biology.