27 ms·
If we can edit, and it's reliable, we (those that can afford it, not I) will. I don't think that's a conversation that we as a society can really have while del
by crocodiletears 8y ago
If we can edit, and it's reliable, we (those that can afford it, not I) will. I don't think that's a conversation that we as a society can really have while delivering much impact.
A more salient set of questions to me, is how do we decide what constitutes improvements, and what responsibility do we have to improve those around us once it's economically feasible?
I recently had a discussion with someone who believed that inhibiting genes that correlate with aggression or certain levels of in-group bias should be mandatory for the general population once we as a society are able to do it safely and reliably.
In his eyes, sanding off our rougher edges in pursuit of a social ideal net improvement on humanity.
I personally was appalled by the idea.
- iguy 8y agoI agree that once this is possible, and advantageous, it will happen. Flying out to Thailand or wherever is already cheap compared to any serious medical procedure. Would we arrest people if they come home pregnant? But before we see this for editing, we will see it for embryo selection... which has all the same questions in milder forms. I'm similarly appalled by your friend's beliefs, although I imagine Beijing will not feel the same way. Besides worries about individual illness, I worry that self-interested improvements may accidentally remove certain types of people it turns out we need. For example, what if a change protective against autism turned out to weed out the best scientists? For each individual this may be a great choice.