3 ms·

> How do we know when that even was? I get we can know it wasn't right at fertilization Good. Done. Problem solved. We agree that we don't need to know exactly

> How do we know when that even was? I get we can know it wasn't right at fertilization Good. Done. Problem solved. We agree that we don't need to know exactly when it was to know when it definitely wasn't. > Adding this dystopian layer of trying to select for the best of your offspring based on genetic hypotheses about their future IMO you should stick with this part and forget about the embryo part. You can be worried about the process and outcomes of eugenics without focusing on any hypothetical unselected individual.

smeej 1y ago
> Problem solved. Not remotely. You provide no defense whatsoever of consciousness as a valid distinction between "you" and "not you yet," so it doesn't matter whether it's present at the beginning of your development or not. Whether one arbitrary feature you think is decisive is present at a particular point is completely irrelevant to anybody else, unless you can defend that that feature actually matters. I'm looking forward to hearing your case for it. The undisputed reality is that every human adult was once a specific human embryo. "Embryo" is one stage of human development, just like "infant," "adolescent," or "adult." There might be an argument for dismissing and eliminating certain embryonic humans en masse because of some trait they have or don't have, but you'd really need to pick one and make an argument for it, and it'd be a good idea to make sure the distinction doesn't apply to humans at other stages too if you don't want to have to argue that it'd be fine to kill toddlers, adolescents, or adults if they happened to have the same trait. It would probably also be important to make sure it's empirically verifiable, unless you're fine with whatever argument you make being used to justify killing toddlers, adolescents, or adults who might be thought to have/not have that trait. But if such an argument does exist, you certainly haven't made it yet here.

smeej 1y ago

> Problem solved. Not remotely. You provide no defense whatsoever of consciousness as a valid distinction between "you" and "not you yet," so it doesn't matter whether it's present at the beginning of your development or not. Whether one arbitrary feature you think is decisive is present at a particular point is completely irrelevant to anybody else, unless you can defend that that feature actually matters. I'm looking forward to hearing your case for it. The undisputed reality is that every human adult was once a specific human embryo. "Embryo" is one stage of human development, just like "infant," "adolescent," or "adult." There might be an argument for dismissing and eliminating certain embryonic humans en masse because of some trait they have or don't have, but you'd really need to pick one and make an argument for it, and it'd be a good idea to make sure the distinction doesn't apply to humans at other stages too if you don't want to have to argue that it'd be fine to kill toddlers, adolescents, or adults if they happened to have the same trait. It would probably also be important to make sure it's empirically verifiable, unless you're fine with whatever argument you make being used to justify killing toddlers, adolescents, or adults who might be thought to have/not have that trait. But if such an argument does exist, you certainly haven't made it yet here.