3 ms·
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 edit
by 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 agoAlmost exactly... like nature does?
- crimsonalucard 8y agoMuch 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]