4 ms·
> And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations. That's an awfully euphemistic way to say "The kids'll die before th
by PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> And the truly bad mutations should self-correct before passing to subsequent generations.
That's an awfully euphemistic way to say "The kids'll die before they grow up."
- Fjolsvith 7y agoI didn't want to say, "Survival of the fittest."
- roenxi 7y agoWe live in a world where kids die before they grow up. Gene editing technologies will almost surely reduce the number of children who die before they grow up and lead to higher quality of life for everyone else. I'm not necessarily for gene editing. I think it is probably a long-term certainty and a net good, but it makes me uneasy because it is one of the maybe-this-one-ends-humanity style technologies. That being said, the suffering that a gene edited baby and its parents go through is meaningful - we learn from it, we improve. At the moment if a baby is born with random congenital problems there is similar suffering and it is completely pointless; we don't really learn anything or change anything. When both paths lead through suffering, anyone who knowingly chooses the path of greater long term suffering is a monster. Even if they want to claim they are acting for some sort of moral reason. We can't get hung up if a few children die when dealing with technologies of this consequence. There are just more important issues to work through.
- imtringued 7y agoWhy would it end humanity? It may cause greater suffering than any war in history but it is not a serious threat to humanity.
- roenxi 7y agoMight create something better. It depends what we define as human and how quickly the technology develops.