4 ms·

We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing. If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I don't

We should carefully build up the knowledge and experience on genome editing. If we can prevent children to be born with genetic defects, we should. And I don't care if the rich and powerful get to make their kids extra smart and beautiful if that means millions of other children don't have to live with a disability.

throwawayaway 12y ago
one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to computing.
- Patrikvo 12y ago
  If it required medication, surgery or the use of an aid (like glasses) it's clearly not a feature. I've had to wear glasses since I was 4 and would have been very happy if this would have been fixed before being born. But I agree not everything is so clear cut.
- ticking 12y ago
  Bullshit. I'm in my early 20s and have MS. That is not a feature.
  - Fiahil 12y ago
    What is MS?
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis
- josinalvo 12y ago
  ? At any rate, I'd prefer to decide myself what is a feature, rather than having some 'ethicist' decide for me.
  - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
    Perhaps what features you select is determined by another feature that some else selected for you
- maxerickson 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Specific_diseases_caused_by_point_mutations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Specific_disease... None of those are features (and they are "perfect targets" for gene therapy because we have a thorough understanding of the consequences of the edit). Sickle cell anemia gets trotted around because carriers are somewhat resistant to malaria, but it turns out that everyone who had the choice eradicated malaria rather than deal with it. And people that have two copies of the mutation are more susceptible to malaria.
ht_th 12y ago
Actually, I think that once intelligence and beauty can be "fixed", one could argue that the line between being disabled intelligence-wise (or aesthetically-wise) or not starts to shift. All those millions of children who, in your scenario, don't have to live with a disability will also be at a steep disadvantage compared to the extra smart and beautiful rich kids. If this would continue for some generations, you'll get a genetic upper and lower class. It could even mean that we create a new "super species" that's becoming less and less compatible with humans . (Yes, I read way too much science fiction, but I think it explores some interesting scenarios we should seriously consider while debating the issue. For a very popular reference: In the Star Trek universe the Eugenic Wars explore problems of genetic enhancements; The character Doctor Bashir in DS9, for example, is an (illegally) enhanced human [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir] http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir])

throwawayaway 12y ago

one man's defect is another's feature. the old bug vs. feature debate, applies here. maybe my thinking has been horribly warped by over exposure to computing.

Patrikvo 12y ago
If it required medication, surgery or the use of an aid (like glasses) it's clearly not a feature. I've had to wear glasses since I was 4 and would have been very happy if this would have been fixed before being born. But I agree not everything is so clear cut.
ticking 12y ago
Bullshit. I'm in my early 20s and have MS. That is not a feature.
- Fiahil 12y ago
  What is MS?
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis
josinalvo 12y ago
? At any rate, I'd prefer to decide myself what is a feature, rather than having some 'ethicist' decide for me.
- GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
  Perhaps what features you select is determined by another feature that some else selected for you
maxerickson 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Specific_diseases_caused_by_point_mutations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Specific_disease... None of those are features (and they are "perfect targets" for gene therapy because we have a thorough understanding of the consequences of the edit). Sickle cell anemia gets trotted around because carriers are somewhat resistant to malaria, but it turns out that everyone who had the choice eradicated malaria rather than deal with it. And people that have two copies of the mutation are more susceptible to malaria.

ht_th 12y ago

Actually, I think that once intelligence and beauty can be "fixed", one could argue that the line between being disabled intelligence-wise (or aesthetically-wise) or not starts to shift. All those millions of children who, in your scenario, don't have to live with a disability will also be at a steep disadvantage compared to the extra smart and beautiful rich kids. If this would continue for some generations, you'll get a genetic upper and lower class. It could even mean that we create a new "super species" that's becoming less and less compatible with humans . (Yes, I read way too much science fiction, but I think it explores some interesting scenarios we should seriously consider while debating the issue. For a very popular reference: In the Star Trek universe the Eugenic Wars explore problems of genetic enhancements; The character Doctor Bashir in DS9, for example, is an (illegally) enhanced human [http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir] http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Julian_Bashir])