4 ms·

I don’t think this is an area in which pure first principles reasoning leads to good outcomes. People are resistant to any sort of genetic restrictions on proc

I don’t think this is an area in which pure first principles reasoning leads to good outcomes. People are resistant to any sort of genetic restrictions on procreation for a couple reasons. First, the historical precedent of eugenics is so monstrously abusive that any step in that direction is viewed as dangerous. Second, how would you enforce a ban on procreation of people with genetic defects? Put the parents in jail? Forcefully abort the fetus? What if they don’t know about their genetic condition? With genetic engineering, it’s a bit more clear. It’s much easier to just not start doing germline editing than to roll back the (unknown) consequences. The harm in not doing that is of course that some people get sick and die, but we can mitigate that with normal medicine. Also the particularities of the case matter here. The scientist chose a questionably effective approach to preventing HIV, a disease that has good treatments. Also he did a shit job informing the parents about the risks. Just bad choices all around. Doing secret, shady genetic engineering on children is not the same thing as letting people with genetic conditions have children.

at_a_remove 4y ago
Speaking of reasoning ... "we can mitigate that with normal medicine" -- for some illnesses. For many, it's an abbreviated lifetime, curtailed options, and some measure of ongoing suffering. I don't really care about historical precedents. They can best be used as a measure of how not to do something, rather than a suggestion that it not be done at all. Germline editing has the chance to relieve the suffering of real people. My entire life would likely to be quite different and much better, were it available back then. And yet a lot of people are just ... counted as part of the cost. Sorry you will die soon, and painfully, but at least we're not the Nazis.
Llamamoe 4y ago
I honestly don't think there's any way to stop people with bad genetics from having children than isn't an ethical nightmare, but I have always found it curious that the right to have children is always considered to be incomparably more important than preventing children from living a lifetime of suffering from debilitating illnesses or deformities. In general, it seems as though our civilization views children as little more than property of their parents.
polski-g 4y ago
Putting people in jail is exactly what nearly every Western country in the world currently does to prevent the birth of genetically-defective children: > Susan and Patrick were a young German couple in love. But, the German state never allowed Susan and Patrick to get married. Shockingly, Patrick was imprisoned for years because of his sexual relationship with Susan. Despite these obstacles, over the course of their relationship, Susan and Patrick had four children. Three of their children—Eric, Sarah, and Nancy—had severe problems: epilepsy, cognitive disabilities, and a congenital heart defect that required a transplant. The German state took away these children and placed them with foster families. Why did Germany do all these terrible things to Susan and Patrick? > Eugenics. No, this story didn’t happen in Nazi Germany, it happened over the course of the last 20 years. But why haven’t you heard this story before? Because Patrick and Susan are siblings. https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist

at_a_remove 4y ago

Speaking of reasoning ... "we can mitigate that with normal medicine" -- for some illnesses. For many, it's an abbreviated lifetime, curtailed options, and some measure of ongoing suffering. I don't really care about historical precedents. They can best be used as a measure of how not to do something, rather than a suggestion that it not be done at all. Germline editing has the chance to relieve the suffering of real people. My entire life would likely to be quite different and much better, were it available back then. And yet a lot of people are just ... counted as part of the cost. Sorry you will die soon, and painfully, but at least we're not the Nazis.

Llamamoe 4y ago

I honestly don't think there's any way to stop people with bad genetics from having children than isn't an ethical nightmare, but I have always found it curious that the right to have children is always considered to be incomparably more important than preventing children from living a lifetime of suffering from debilitating illnesses or deformities. In general, it seems as though our civilization views children as little more than property of their parents.

polski-g 4y ago

Putting people in jail is exactly what nearly every Western country in the world currently does to prevent the birth of genetically-defective children: > Susan and Patrick were a young German couple in love. But, the German state never allowed Susan and Patrick to get married. Shockingly, Patrick was imprisoned for years because of his sexual relationship with Susan. Despite these obstacles, over the course of their relationship, Susan and Patrick had four children. Three of their children—Eric, Sarah, and Nancy—had severe problems: epilepsy, cognitive disabilities, and a congenital heart defect that required a transplant. The German state took away these children and placed them with foster families. Why did Germany do all these terrible things to Susan and Patrick? > Eugenics. No, this story didn’t happen in Nazi Germany, it happened over the course of the last 20 years. But why haven’t you heard this story before? Because Patrick and Susan are siblings. https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist