3 ms·

> To me, social controls on who can marry and who can breed with who are much less humane than offering experiential gene editing to sick and willing people. T

by wahern 6y ago

> To me, social controls on who can marry and who can breed with who are much less humane than offering experiential gene editing to sick and willing people. The alternative wouldn't need to be social controls. A program of free genetic testing simultaneous with typical childhood vaccines might suffice, with only the family given the results. Armed with such knowledge well before they begin developing relationships, many if not most people might voluntarily employ a disassortative mating strategy independent of any sort of state coercion. And that doesn't even need to be the alternative. It could just be the primary approach, with gene editing for handling the remaining and, hopefully, dramatically reduced case numbers.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
many if not most people might voluntarily employ a disassortative mating strategy independent of any sort of state coercion. In the Cystic Fibrosis community, many people have no idea they are carriers and know nothing about the condition until they have a child with the condition. And then they are left with the gut-wrenching decision-making process of "Should we have more kids, knowing there is a 25 percent chance they will also have this Dread Disease?" This is a huge hot-button topic in the CF community, or was when I used to participate in CF discussion spaces. As the saying goes, most people "wouldn't wish this on their worst enemy," much less their own child whom they have to raise. (If they have any idea what is involved, most people wouldn't wish raising such a child on themselves. It's a significant burden to care for such a child. That alone is enough reason for many people to not want a child with a serious genetic disorder.)
s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think this is a great additional solution. Another one in a similar vein is to include testing for sickle cell and other major genetic diseases prior to birth, perhaps in parallel to downs syndrome testing. The capability to perform these tests already exists, but it would be necessary to make them cheap and available. For those with money, embryonic screening already exists for most monogenic and many polygenic traits, including IQ, height, ect.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by wahern 6y ago

DoreenMichele 6y ago

many if not most people might voluntarily employ a disassortative mating strategy independent of any sort of state coercion. In the Cystic Fibrosis community, many people have no idea they are carriers and know nothing about the condition until they have a child with the condition. And then they are left with the gut-wrenching decision-making process of "Should we have more kids, knowing there is a 25 percent chance they will also have this Dread Disease?" This is a huge hot-button topic in the CF community, or was when I used to participate in CF discussion spaces. As the saying goes, most people "wouldn't wish this on their worst enemy," much less their own child whom they have to raise. (If they have any idea what is involved, most people wouldn't wish raising such a child on themselves. It's a significant burden to care for such a child. That alone is enough reason for many people to not want a child with a serious genetic disorder.)

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think this is a great additional solution. Another one in a similar vein is to include testing for sickle cell and other major genetic diseases prior to birth, perhaps in parallel to downs syndrome testing. The capability to perform these tests already exists, but it would be necessary to make them cheap and available. For those with money, embryonic screening already exists for most monogenic and many polygenic traits, including IQ, height, ect.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]