4 ms·

> Trying to make better babies through breeding / genetics feeds right into the white supremacy narrative however. It is a really slippery slope, one I'd rather

> Trying to make better babies through breeding / genetics feeds right into the white supremacy narrative however. It is a really slippery slope, one I'd rather we not try again. So.. we'll make them non-white, and sidestep that issue? I mostly kid. Yet, it's a shame that even a fairly tame discussion about selecting sperm based on DNA has to be dragged through the mud with racism and godwin-eugenics. At some point humanity needs to stop being so anti-racist-racist. I'm not saying I don't understand where you come from, I just long for the day when we can discuss DNA selection without someone bringing up skin color.

SEJeff 7y ago
Given the current situation (here in the US at least) where white supremacy is very much on the rise, I feel it is very important to politely discuss, so we don't repeat the past. Just because I'm a privileged cis white male doesn't mean I think it is easy for everyone else.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  It would be interesting to start a eugenics-esque program, but focus on DNA superiority combined within equal races mixed in. Ie, fully embrace "melting pot". It's of course a silly dream to promote all skin colors equally. While I'd like it, it would immediately cause problems with the people who prioritize skin color over all else. It's such a tiring state of the world.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > but focus on DNA superiority combined within equal races mixed in “Superiority” is always subjective; the fact that the phenotype you are maximizing doesn't happen to be the same ideal sought by white supremacists doesn't really make a difference to the ethics of such a eugenics program (the steps you are taking to advance it might be a legitimate differentiator, but the purpose would not.)
    - asdkhadsj 7y ago
      Is superiority subjective? We have hundreds of fatal flaws in our genetics. Would someone defend that those are superior? I'm not talking about subjective traits like hair. I'm talking about scientific markers of health, disease, retardation, death. Not advancing this technology because of how it could be used seems awkward, like not making medicine because it could save bad people. Cutting our nose off to spite our face.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Is superiority subjective? Pretty much by definition. > We have hundreds of fatal flaws in our genetics. Pretty much by definition, we (living humans) have no necessarily-fatal flaws in our genetics. We may have some that are fatal when they combine in certain ways or in certain circumstances, but the fatal effects in those conditions aren't the only effects they have.
        asdkhadsj 7y ago
        I'm a bit lost. I get that genetics are not typically isolated to "just one bad thing", but I feel like you're dodging the point. To say that say a trait we only know to be a significant marker to mental retardation isn't inferior, due to moral reasons seems in bad faith. I am very accepting that technically (as I mentioned in other posts) we are in over our heads, and are likely to make mistakes. Frankly, these are games we don't have the understanding to be playing. However that is not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is whether or not we can morally proceed with any type of engineering. As if doing so would without fail become "lets make black people more dumb, because we don't like them" or w/e. This seems poorly thought out to me. If I view engineering as yet another medical tool, then lets look at the existing medical tools. Could I not make pills that selectively hurt specific groups more than others? Yes. So while the stakes are likely higher with genetic engineering, I'm arguing that I don't think we should, or even can, be making scientific medical decisions based on wishy washy what-ifs and moral gut feelings of right and wrong. Lets focus on saving lives.
        7y ago
3JPLW 7y ago
It's not just skin color, though. It's height. It's face structure. It's the fact that some Sneeches have stars while others are without thars. It's a natural diversity of _everything_. Yes some aspects of that diversity are devastating congenital issues, but IMO we're not ready — socially or technically — for such power to be safely applied through gene editing.
- SEJeff 7y ago
  This so much is literally my point ^
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    I'd be curious what your thoughts are on my reply to that point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20812273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20812273
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  I agree that we're in over our heads; but your comment makes it sound like I should be concerned with accidentally wiping out square jaw or blond hair people for moral reasons. I am not. In the same way that I don't care about skin color; I also don't care about features continuing to exist and be diverse. As mentioned, I recognize that we're in over our heads technically. I respect that if we were to "wipe something out" it very likely could end up a huge negative to humanity, due to unknown genes and etc. However the discussion largely took a moral twist when racism/etc got brought up, and frankly I just don't care. I'm not one for history; so the moral implication of not having a physical-feature-group of humanity around, be it freckles, blue eyes, brown hair, light skinned, tall people or whatever, is entirely lost on me. Humanity from my perspective seems far worse off having cared so much about our differences that I see little reason to be morally concerned about their absence. I imagine we would be better off for it, since we clearly fail with diversity now, it's not buying us any favors. Likewise, with or without diversity, we will still certainly find reasons to hate each other. The conversation will just change. We're good at hate.
  - 7y ago

SEJeff 7y ago

Given the current situation (here in the US at least) where white supremacy is very much on the rise, I feel it is very important to politely discuss, so we don't repeat the past. Just because I'm a privileged cis white male doesn't mean I think it is easy for everyone else.

asdkhadsj 7y ago
It would be interesting to start a eugenics-esque program, but focus on DNA superiority combined within equal races mixed in. Ie, fully embrace "melting pot". It's of course a silly dream to promote all skin colors equally. While I'd like it, it would immediately cause problems with the people who prioritize skin color over all else. It's such a tiring state of the world.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > but focus on DNA superiority combined within equal races mixed in “Superiority” is always subjective; the fact that the phenotype you are maximizing doesn't happen to be the same ideal sought by white supremacists doesn't really make a difference to the ethics of such a eugenics program (the steps you are taking to advance it might be a legitimate differentiator, but the purpose would not.)
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    Is superiority subjective? We have hundreds of fatal flaws in our genetics. Would someone defend that those are superior? I'm not talking about subjective traits like hair. I'm talking about scientific markers of health, disease, retardation, death. Not advancing this technology because of how it could be used seems awkward, like not making medicine because it could save bad people. Cutting our nose off to spite our face.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Is superiority subjective? Pretty much by definition. > We have hundreds of fatal flaws in our genetics. Pretty much by definition, we (living humans) have no necessarily-fatal flaws in our genetics. We may have some that are fatal when they combine in certain ways or in certain circumstances, but the fatal effects in those conditions aren't the only effects they have.
      - asdkhadsj 7y ago
        I'm a bit lost. I get that genetics are not typically isolated to "just one bad thing", but I feel like you're dodging the point. To say that say a trait we only know to be a significant marker to mental retardation isn't inferior, due to moral reasons seems in bad faith. I am very accepting that technically (as I mentioned in other posts) we are in over our heads, and are likely to make mistakes. Frankly, these are games we don't have the understanding to be playing. However that is not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is whether or not we can morally proceed with any type of engineering. As if doing so would without fail become "lets make black people more dumb, because we don't like them" or w/e. This seems poorly thought out to me. If I view engineering as yet another medical tool, then lets look at the existing medical tools. Could I not make pills that selectively hurt specific groups more than others? Yes. So while the stakes are likely higher with genetic engineering, I'm arguing that I don't think we should, or even can, be making scientific medical decisions based on wishy washy what-ifs and moral gut feelings of right and wrong. Lets focus on saving lives.
        7y ago

3JPLW 7y ago

It's not just skin color, though. It's height. It's face structure. It's the fact that some Sneeches have stars while others are without thars. It's a natural diversity of _everything_. Yes some aspects of that diversity are devastating congenital issues, but IMO we're not ready — socially or technically — for such power to be safely applied through gene editing.

SEJeff 7y ago
This so much is literally my point ^
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  I'd be curious what your thoughts are on my reply to that point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20812273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20812273
asdkhadsj 7y ago
I agree that we're in over our heads; but your comment makes it sound like I should be concerned with accidentally wiping out square jaw or blond hair people for moral reasons. I am not. In the same way that I don't care about skin color; I also don't care about features continuing to exist and be diverse. As mentioned, I recognize that we're in over our heads technically. I respect that if we were to "wipe something out" it very likely could end up a huge negative to humanity, due to unknown genes and etc. However the discussion largely took a moral twist when racism/etc got brought up, and frankly I just don't care. I'm not one for history; so the moral implication of not having a physical-feature-group of humanity around, be it freckles, blue eyes, brown hair, light skinned, tall people or whatever, is entirely lost on me. Humanity from my perspective seems far worse off having cared so much about our differences that I see little reason to be morally concerned about their absence. I imagine we would be better off for it, since we clearly fail with diversity now, it's not buying us any favors. Likewise, with or without diversity, we will still certainly find reasons to hate each other. The conversation will just change. We're good at hate.
- 7y ago