6 ms·

Even if it could be used to create genetic super heroes, there's nothing inherently compulsory about it, in contrast to eugenics.

memling 6y ago
what if everyone uses it (or other genetic treatments) for augmentation or design? there is a critical mass when compulsory loses its meaning, I think. you don't have to eliminate cash by law for example if no business will take it.
- tprice7 6y ago
  I think there is an essential difference between "you have to do X because it is mandated" and "you practically have to do X in order to keep up". For one, the latter scenario is essentially more democratic than the former, it first requires some critical mass of people voluntarily (in the strongest sense of the word) deciding that they are better off with X, whereas the former may only require a decision from a relatively small number of authorities. This puts strong restrictions on what X could possibly be: for example, you would never have people sterilizing themselves because some critical mass of other people are sterilizing themselves. I will also point out that your argument applies to technological progress in general and is not specific to gene editing. EDIT: I may have misunderstood you, I interpreted your comment to be about the hypothetical scenario where most people have genetically modified themselves into being "super heroes" and now the people who haven't can't keep up with the rest of society, so it becomes a practical necessity without being legally required. On second reading though I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
drilldrive 6y ago
A "non-binding eugenics guideline" has been considered highly unethical regardless, so no a non-compulsory solution here fails as well.
- tprice7 6y ago
  Could you please clarify what you are referring to by "non-binding eugenics guideline" and whom you are quoting? Also, could you explain directly why gene editing is unethical without making a vague analogy to eugenics? If the analogy is sound then you should be able to.
  - drilldrive 6y ago
    Eugenics literally means "well-bred" so any attempts to re-encode ourselves has a direct involvement of Eugenics, so I am not performing analogy here but invoking the principle of a fortiori. Particularly I am not claiming ethics of gene-editing or Eugenics in general, but that the public has no appetite for this as seen with the strong ethical claims against Eugenics. By a "non-binding eugenics guideline" I mean something akin to "ex-convicts should not produce" or something, I mean there is absolutely zero state or national guideline that I know of that invokes arguments of eugenics, if you know of one then I am mistaken.
    - tprice7 6y ago
      Ok, I think you are just playing word games here, using one very broad interpretation of the word eugenics when you say that gene editing is eugenics, and then a narrower interpretation of the word when you say that there are strong ethical claims against it. Things like forced sterilization are obviously unethical but the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with gene editing. Maybe we could make this more concrete if you gave some specific examples of the ethical claims against eugenics that you are referring to, which you think also apply to gene editing. Also, if you are talking about public appetite, I think it's worth observing that this is the first time I've heard someone compare gene editing to eugenics (I'm sure it's been done before, but it certainly doesn't seem common), and your comment is at the very bottom of the page.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

memling 6y ago

what if everyone uses it (or other genetic treatments) for augmentation or design? there is a critical mass when compulsory loses its meaning, I think. you don't have to eliminate cash by law for example if no business will take it.

tprice7 6y ago
I think there is an essential difference between "you have to do X because it is mandated" and "you practically have to do X in order to keep up". For one, the latter scenario is essentially more democratic than the former, it first requires some critical mass of people voluntarily (in the strongest sense of the word) deciding that they are better off with X, whereas the former may only require a decision from a relatively small number of authorities. This puts strong restrictions on what X could possibly be: for example, you would never have people sterilizing themselves because some critical mass of other people are sterilizing themselves. I will also point out that your argument applies to technological progress in general and is not specific to gene editing. EDIT: I may have misunderstood you, I interpreted your comment to be about the hypothetical scenario where most people have genetically modified themselves into being "super heroes" and now the people who haven't can't keep up with the rest of society, so it becomes a practical necessity without being legally required. On second reading though I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

drilldrive 6y ago

A "non-binding eugenics guideline" has been considered highly unethical regardless, so no a non-compulsory solution here fails as well.

tprice7 6y ago
Could you please clarify what you are referring to by "non-binding eugenics guideline" and whom you are quoting? Also, could you explain directly why gene editing is unethical without making a vague analogy to eugenics? If the analogy is sound then you should be able to.
- drilldrive 6y ago
  Eugenics literally means "well-bred" so any attempts to re-encode ourselves has a direct involvement of Eugenics, so I am not performing analogy here but invoking the principle of a fortiori. Particularly I am not claiming ethics of gene-editing or Eugenics in general, but that the public has no appetite for this as seen with the strong ethical claims against Eugenics. By a "non-binding eugenics guideline" I mean something akin to "ex-convicts should not produce" or something, I mean there is absolutely zero state or national guideline that I know of that invokes arguments of eugenics, if you know of one then I am mistaken.
  - tprice7 6y ago
    Ok, I think you are just playing word games here, using one very broad interpretation of the word eugenics when you say that gene editing is eugenics, and then a narrower interpretation of the word when you say that there are strong ethical claims against it. Things like forced sterilization are obviously unethical but the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with gene editing. Maybe we could make this more concrete if you gave some specific examples of the ethical claims against eugenics that you are referring to, which you think also apply to gene editing. Also, if you are talking about public appetite, I think it's worth observing that this is the first time I've heard someone compare gene editing to eugenics (I'm sure it's been done before, but it certainly doesn't seem common), and your comment is at the very bottom of the page.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]