4 ms·

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 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.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > 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 (1) traits aren't markers: mental retardation is a trait, some Gene may be a marker. (2) I'm not saying that anything “isn’t inferior, due to moral reasons”. On the other hand, I'm saying that any designation of “inferiority” is (not restricted to genes, but ever, anywhere) a subjective value judgement. And that because of the complexities at play in genetics, people will quite vehemently disagree on judgements about which genes are inferior and should be eradicated, both because they will disagree about which traits should be eradicated and because very often the relationship between traits and genes is complex. > What we're discussing is whether or not we can morally proceed with any type of engineering. Sure, that's part of the discussion, and I'm saying, on that question, if it is morally permissible and Nazi eugenics is not, it because you are making tools available that people can choose to use the same way they choose partners potentially for genetic reasons, not imposing their use top-down on society and culling “undesirables.” And not because “the traits we've decided to eliminate are really bad, and those we've decided to promote are really good, unlike the Nazis who made dubious decisions as to the targeting of their eugenics program.” > As if doing so would without fail become "lets make black people more dumb, because we don't like them" Are you guaranteeing that all the resulting technology will be freely available to all? Because even if we except that the techniques themselves will be “good” in individual application, that's literally exactly what they should be expected to become except not for the “because we don't like them” reason, but instead for the “because their poor” reason.

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.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > 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 (1) traits aren't markers: mental retardation is a trait, some Gene may be a marker. (2) I'm not saying that anything “isn’t inferior, due to moral reasons”. On the other hand, I'm saying that any designation of “inferiority” is (not restricted to genes, but ever, anywhere) a subjective value judgement. And that because of the complexities at play in genetics, people will quite vehemently disagree on judgements about which genes are inferior and should be eradicated, both because they will disagree about which traits should be eradicated and because very often the relationship between traits and genes is complex. > What we're discussing is whether or not we can morally proceed with any type of engineering. Sure, that's part of the discussion, and I'm saying, on that question, if it is morally permissible and Nazi eugenics is not, it because you are making tools available that people can choose to use the same way they choose partners potentially for genetic reasons, not imposing their use top-down on society and culling “undesirables.” And not because “the traits we've decided to eliminate are really bad, and those we've decided to promote are really good, unlike the Nazis who made dubious decisions as to the targeting of their eugenics program.” > As if doing so would without fail become "lets make black people more dumb, because we don't like them" Are you guaranteeing that all the resulting technology will be freely available to all? Because even if we except that the techniques themselves will be “good” in individual application, that's literally exactly what they should be expected to become except not for the “because we don't like them” reason, but instead for the “because their poor” reason.