3 ms·

No, it is only eugenics when it when gene therapy controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born. Gene therapy for cancer is not eugenics.

quesera 1y ago
> controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born Selective breeding in livestock, mate selection in wild animals and humans... I do understand your point. I struggle with whether it is cause for (more than theoretical) concern. The ethical quandaries don't seem that important when it's isolated to expression of personal choice. State-driven decisions are ugly of course. And perhaps the insanity that we see in dog breeding is very bad. But we don't see the dog breeding problems in human parents (aside from the initial mate selection, which can be vicious!). So where does that leave us? Using blunt tools is OK but precise tools are bad?
stefan_ 1y ago
But gene therapy can fix the genetic makeup of the living child, then enable it to pass on its defective material. That seems patently worse for evolution?
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  If you take the case of sickle cell anemia, you’ll find this is not the case. You need to understand more about genetics and why these mutation survive over generations. They don’t survive by accident they survive because when they are heterogeneous, they are beneficial to the population. It’s only the unlucky child that ends homozygous that will suffer from illness. But that is the balance and sacrifice nature makes to keep a population alive. It’s indifferent and amoral, it’s utilitarian. And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge.
  - monetus 1y ago
    > And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge. Are you fairly religious, if you don't mind my asking?
    - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
      No, not religious, I just am averse to human hubris, so maybe since that theme that echos in all the religious texts which is why you might think so. God told Even not to get knowledge by eating the Apple, Them he dispersed the people of Babel because they were trying to become like God. I see Daoism as a scientific, observational life view. To know everything is impossible, and all the God stories say that God knows everything. No one can even know the Dao, all you can do is feel it in a sense. You can get an idea of the laws and let it take you. In other words, acceptance. The Dao (law of nature) controls evolution and why a baby is needed to live or die. We we try to change that we go against the Dao, and that leads to imbalance, and then problems.
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        > I just am averse to human hubris For someone averse to human hubris, you repeatedly speak as if you were the voice of the world (nature, "Dao"?), merely spreading the will of the world (nature, "Dao"?). This is also why you were asked if you're religious, I assume.
        FollowingTheDao 1y ago
        If you walk off the edge of a building, you will fall and hit the ground. The hubris does not lie with me telling you that, the hubris lies with someone want to start editing our genes with birds so we can have wings so we don’t ever have to fear falling off of a building. This goes back to my point of acceptance. Why can’t we just accept the fact that we do not fly? Why do we want to waste all this money and time being something we’re not?
        cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
        perching_aix 1y ago
        Because it's only true to the extent it actually holds. For example, in the 17th century, and then even more so in the 19th century, we discovered that humans can in fact fly pretty decent, provided the right contraption (an aircraft). Every conceivable thing will be eventually attempted to the extent it can be. One could consider that itself a law of nature, not even specific to humans per se. How hubris enters the picture then, to me remains a mystery.

quesera 1y ago

> controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born Selective breeding in livestock, mate selection in wild animals and humans... I do understand your point. I struggle with whether it is cause for (more than theoretical) concern. The ethical quandaries don't seem that important when it's isolated to expression of personal choice. State-driven decisions are ugly of course. And perhaps the insanity that we see in dog breeding is very bad. But we don't see the dog breeding problems in human parents (aside from the initial mate selection, which can be vicious!). So where does that leave us? Using blunt tools is OK but precise tools are bad?

stefan_ 1y ago

But gene therapy can fix the genetic makeup of the living child, then enable it to pass on its defective material. That seems patently worse for evolution?

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
If you take the case of sickle cell anemia, you’ll find this is not the case. You need to understand more about genetics and why these mutation survive over generations. They don’t survive by accident they survive because when they are heterogeneous, they are beneficial to the population. It’s only the unlucky child that ends homozygous that will suffer from illness. But that is the balance and sacrifice nature makes to keep a population alive. It’s indifferent and amoral, it’s utilitarian. And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge.
- monetus 1y ago
  > And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge. Are you fairly religious, if you don't mind my asking?
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    No, not religious, I just am averse to human hubris, so maybe since that theme that echos in all the religious texts which is why you might think so. God told Even not to get knowledge by eating the Apple, Them he dispersed the people of Babel because they were trying to become like God. I see Daoism as a scientific, observational life view. To know everything is impossible, and all the God stories say that God knows everything. No one can even know the Dao, all you can do is feel it in a sense. You can get an idea of the laws and let it take you. In other words, acceptance. The Dao (law of nature) controls evolution and why a baby is needed to live or die. We we try to change that we go against the Dao, and that leads to imbalance, and then problems.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      > I just am averse to human hubris For someone averse to human hubris, you repeatedly speak as if you were the voice of the world (nature, "Dao"?), merely spreading the will of the world (nature, "Dao"?). This is also why you were asked if you're religious, I assume.
      - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
        If you walk off the edge of a building, you will fall and hit the ground. The hubris does not lie with me telling you that, the hubris lies with someone want to start editing our genes with birds so we can have wings so we don’t ever have to fear falling off of a building. This goes back to my point of acceptance. Why can’t we just accept the fact that we do not fly? Why do we want to waste all this money and time being something we’re not?
        cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
        perching_aix 1y ago
        Because it's only true to the extent it actually holds. For example, in the 17th century, and then even more so in the 19th century, we discovered that humans can in fact fly pretty decent, provided the right contraption (an aircraft). Every conceivable thing will be eventually attempted to the extent it can be. One could consider that itself a law of nature, not even specific to humans per se. How hubris enters the picture then, to me remains a mystery.