4 ms·

Yes, my thought exactly. A huge number of things are perfectly legal to do to children that are much, much worse than possibly screwing up an embryo while tryi

Yes, my thought exactly. A huge number of things are perfectly legal to do to children that are much, much worse than possibly screwing up an embryo while trying not to. You can get pregnant in your forties by a man in his seventies, drink and smoke while you're pregnant, and after giving birth have part of the child's genitals surgically removed and have their ears pierced. Why is trying to improve their genome where we draw the line?

fartcannon 5y ago
So, because some people treat babies and children badly, no one should question the ethics or consider the ramifications of gene manipulation? Seems like a stretch.
- lotu 5y ago
  That is a total straw man. The argument is that as a society we permit people to do lots of things to their children that have far greater ramifications that this gene editing. It is there for inconsistent to get upset about gene editing but not these other things.
  - borklanm8 5y ago
    It doesn't matter if it's inconsistent. If "lots of things" are immoral but permitted, and gene editing is also immoral, the correct conclusion is that all of them should be prevented. If the opposite is true - that if "lots of things" are immoral but permitted, things that are equally or less immoral should also be permitted - then you're arguing for more forms of child abuse to be legalized, in the name of "consistency".
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    No. It is not inconsistent to get upset about any individual thing we do to children. So gene therapy? Let's consider the consequences. Everything else? Let's also consider the consequences.
- ls612 5y ago
  If people generally think X is worse than Y and X is legal then saying Y should be illegal is hypocritical to say the least.
  - borklanm8 5y ago
posnet 5y ago
Because for a lot of people, germline editing is the genie in the bottle. Specifically once it becomes accepted for morally justifiable things, like curing horrible genetic diseases, it will quickly start being used to alter non life threatening things. And we will quickly find ourselves in a world where parents are able to alter the future children's height, intelligence, muscle mass, sex, race, sexual preference (These are purposefully extreme examples that are likely many decades away from being possible). But in terms of why there is moral outrage, those are the sorts of things people are concerned about. I would say that from the reading I have done, the concern that it might be done improperly and accidentally cause negative mutations harming the child is more of a practical one (we don't understand the genetic processes well enough to perform the editing safely yet), rather than the moral one outlined above.
hkt 5y ago
Because of the law on unintended consequences, not to mention the Rubicon that will be crossed when the rich start editing further advantages into the genes of their (already hyper privileged) kids. It is a recipe for a medical or social disaster. Perhaps both.
- causality0 5y ago
  The same argument holds for every technological advance. "Why build the world wide web when only the rich can afford home computers" and "why develop electric cars when only the rich can afford them". We live in a capitalistic society and therefore almost every advance will be available to the wealthy before it's available to the rest of us. That's not a good thing but it's also not a reason to stop improving ourselves. I would rather give the one percent another advantage than sit here smug in my knowledge that hey, millions of children might suffer needlessly from type 1 diabetes or cystic fibrosis but at least Donald Trump the fourth has to pay somebody to take his exams for him instead of using his artificial eidetic memory.
  - hkt 5y ago
    Conflating giving somebody an "upgrade" with preventing disease is fairly disingenuous. So is suggesting something you can acquire through work (owning a computer) is comparable to something you must be born to. They're not the same.
    - causality0 5y ago
      What does and does not constitute a disease is relative. Mental infirmity is a disease. Aging is a disease. Death is a disease. We participate in the comforting delusion that because these things have never been challenged before that somehow makes them less horrifying. Screw that.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Death is a disease. Death may be a consequence of disease (among other causes), but it is not a disease.

fartcannon 5y ago

So, because some people treat babies and children badly, no one should question the ethics or consider the ramifications of gene manipulation? Seems like a stretch.

lotu 5y ago
That is a total straw man. The argument is that as a society we permit people to do lots of things to their children that have far greater ramifications that this gene editing. It is there for inconsistent to get upset about gene editing but not these other things.
- borklanm8 5y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's inconsistent. If "lots of things" are immoral but permitted, and gene editing is also immoral, the correct conclusion is that all of them should be prevented. If the opposite is true - that if "lots of things" are immoral but permitted, things that are equally or less immoral should also be permitted - then you're arguing for more forms of child abuse to be legalized, in the name of "consistency".
- fartcannon 5y ago
  No. It is not inconsistent to get upset about any individual thing we do to children. So gene therapy? Let's consider the consequences. Everything else? Let's also consider the consequences.
ls612 5y ago
If people generally think X is worse than Y and X is legal then saying Y should be illegal is hypocritical to say the least.
- borklanm8 5y ago

posnet 5y ago

Because for a lot of people, germline editing is the genie in the bottle. Specifically once it becomes accepted for morally justifiable things, like curing horrible genetic diseases, it will quickly start being used to alter non life threatening things. And we will quickly find ourselves in a world where parents are able to alter the future children's height, intelligence, muscle mass, sex, race, sexual preference (These are purposefully extreme examples that are likely many decades away from being possible). But in terms of why there is moral outrage, those are the sorts of things people are concerned about. I would say that from the reading I have done, the concern that it might be done improperly and accidentally cause negative mutations harming the child is more of a practical one (we don't understand the genetic processes well enough to perform the editing safely yet), rather than the moral one outlined above.

hkt 5y ago

Because of the law on unintended consequences, not to mention the Rubicon that will be crossed when the rich start editing further advantages into the genes of their (already hyper privileged) kids. It is a recipe for a medical or social disaster. Perhaps both.

causality0 5y ago
The same argument holds for every technological advance. "Why build the world wide web when only the rich can afford home computers" and "why develop electric cars when only the rich can afford them". We live in a capitalistic society and therefore almost every advance will be available to the wealthy before it's available to the rest of us. That's not a good thing but it's also not a reason to stop improving ourselves. I would rather give the one percent another advantage than sit here smug in my knowledge that hey, millions of children might suffer needlessly from type 1 diabetes or cystic fibrosis but at least Donald Trump the fourth has to pay somebody to take his exams for him instead of using his artificial eidetic memory.
- hkt 5y ago
  Conflating giving somebody an "upgrade" with preventing disease is fairly disingenuous. So is suggesting something you can acquire through work (owning a computer) is comparable to something you must be born to. They're not the same.
  - causality0 5y ago
    What does and does not constitute a disease is relative. Mental infirmity is a disease. Aging is a disease. Death is a disease. We participate in the comforting delusion that because these things have never been challenged before that somehow makes them less horrifying. Screw that.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Death is a disease. Death may be a consequence of disease (among other causes), but it is not a disease.