3 ms·

Can't express coherently how much the idea of "not going with this research 160 mph" irritates me. Human genetic variation is so profoundly unfair. There is su

Can't express coherently how much the idea of "not going with this research 160 mph" irritates me. Human genetic variation is so profoundly unfair. There is such a wide IQ range, such a wide physical development range, such a wide 'beauty' range. To think of condemning one extra person to be in the bottom of those ranges is painful. What the hell can such a benefit be measured against ? The aesthetic objection of 'ethicists' ? (read: filosophers trying to answer unanswerable questions armed just with 'common sense') ------------ Btw: I am not sure that, given the possibility of writing genes, we'd know the right genes to alter. Just answering to the article on its terms

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
When the alternative is 'allow random chance to produce a possibly-deformed child with no particular chance of success' its not hard to decide. Of course we want to improve our children! We spend our lives doing that after they're born. Now we have a chance to do it before. It obvious what we will choose. And we know more about genes literally every day. We will start with small changes (remove defects). Then we will tune physical details (height, weight, strength, skin). Then we will turn to the serious stuff - IQ, longevity, disease resistance. To complain that some children will suffer, is to ignore all the children that already suffer.