2 ms·

I think there's a difference between a gene-editing programme focused on giving everyone the genetic basis of a decently healthy life, and one that goes beyond

I think there's a difference between a gene-editing programme focused on giving everyone the genetic basis of a decently healthy life, and one that goes beyond that and has major geopolitical consequences. It's the latter that risks spiralling into a global bioengineering arms race, and which states might want to proscribe. Do you want to live in a world where some societies are genetically superior to others, or where there's a constant pressure to upgrade the human species as quickly and to the greatest advantage possible?

landryraccoon 7y ago
It's interesting that you use an arms race framing for this, rather than a scientific one. Let me ask you this. Universities and private schooling give a constant pressure for families to provide the best possible education for their kids, leading to constant competition for the best education since that gives a huge advantage in the job market over everyone else. Why haven't we banned universities and private schooling then, since it gives just as much advantage as any hypothetical near term genetic engineering would?
- Emma_Goldman 7y ago
  Several possible answers: 1) education has been around for millennia, genetic engineering hasn't 2) there is a deep and wide-ranging taboo about modifying the human species, which there isn't about education 3) the gains from genetic engineering are potentially rapid and far in excess of what can be achieved through education 4) there is a potential for states to enter into a human enhancement arms races, and the possible consequences of this - unsafe testing, the complete transformation of the human species, gene-based weapons - are terrible 5) gene editing will amplify inequalities and create eugenic-racist politics, in a way that education doesn't I think (4) and (5) are the most important reasons why we should be more careful about genetic engineering than education. Competition in education is harmless compared to a race to create the best superhumans.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

landryraccoon 7y ago

It's interesting that you use an arms race framing for this, rather than a scientific one. Let me ask you this. Universities and private schooling give a constant pressure for families to provide the best possible education for their kids, leading to constant competition for the best education since that gives a huge advantage in the job market over everyone else. Why haven't we banned universities and private schooling then, since it gives just as much advantage as any hypothetical near term genetic engineering would?

Emma_Goldman 7y ago
Several possible answers: 1) education has been around for millennia, genetic engineering hasn't 2) there is a deep and wide-ranging taboo about modifying the human species, which there isn't about education 3) the gains from genetic engineering are potentially rapid and far in excess of what can be achieved through education 4) there is a potential for states to enter into a human enhancement arms races, and the possible consequences of this - unsafe testing, the complete transformation of the human species, gene-based weapons - are terrible 5) gene editing will amplify inequalities and create eugenic-racist politics, in a way that education doesn't I think (4) and (5) are the most important reasons why we should be more careful about genetic engineering than education. Competition in education is harmless compared to a race to create the best superhumans.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]