3 ms·

I'm not sure about that... Isn't restricting people from reproducing based on their genetic material known as Eugenics?

• mmcclure 2y ago
  This is the "ethically fraught" bit I was referencing. Once this genie is out of the bottle and into the gene pool, there's effectively no moral/ethical path to putting it back in.
• aliasxneo 2y ago
  This certainly highlights the problem. For context, I wasn't suggesting eugenics, although I suppose that's one way to enforce things (one I would never support, anyways).
• Terr_ 2y ago
  Thought-experiment: Someone modifies their gametes for gene-drive extinction. [0] Failure to disclose it to every potential partner and descendant would be a very serious kind of fraud or potentially child-abuse. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-drives-could-fight-malaria-and-other-global-killers-but-might-have-unintended-consequences/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-drives-could...
• noch 2y ago
  > Isn't restricting people from reproducing based on their genetic material known as Eugenics? We really need to stop being afraid of words. We don't have to use a neutral word to imply a whole range of ancillary things which we don't name. There's nothing wrong, in principle, with eugenics. (Some bad guys many years ago were really into it for a specific use case, but so what?) While humanity is in the learning phase of gene editing: - High-trust societies can choose to say: "You can get whatever gene mods you want but you will be sterilized." - In freedom societies you could simply ask your partner what modifications she has before you conceive kids with her. Screening and embryo selection would probably be available in such a world and individuals would make their choices.