41–50 of 79 posts
"..standard Gammas, unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons. Millions of identical twins. The principle of mass production at last applied to biology."
> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken. In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for ar…
What are you talking about?
The concept of beauty changes every generation (so what would we select for?), and IQ/fertility has, at best no definitive correlation (and many would argue it has a negative correlation)[0].
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligenceEarlier quoted context omitted.
How, exactly, could genetics solve inequality? It is a social problem.
> It is a social problem. You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable. Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way…
If that's the case, augmentation and genetics are literally the only technologies that could have a lasting impact on inequality.
> They also want the public to understand the ethical issues surrounding the technique, which could be used to cure genetic diseases, but also to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence. The latter is a path that many ethicists believe should never be taken. In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for ar…
Applied to this situation: if it's morally bad to enhance the intelligence of a child beyond that of their peers, then it should be morally good to diminish the intelligence of a genius child to be more average. If it's bad to enhance the intelligence of an entire generation, it should be morally good to switch back to leaded paint and gasoline.
Or my favorite, from slatestarcodex I think (I can't find the link): if it would be morally bad to cure heroin addiction with a pill rather than the "hard way" with will power, then it should be morally good to addict schoolchildren to heroin. (In other words, if the chance to build character has more value than not being addicted to heroin, then we should be addicting _more_ people to heroin).
With apologies for the somewhat flip turn of phrase, if we outlaw human genome editing, then only outlaws will edit the human genome . States in general do not have a good track record at preventing things that can take place in a small room, with inexpensive equipment and few personnel. Consider the kinds of equipment, and its associated cost, needed for genome editing -- and compare to that required for development…
Humans modifying themselves is scary. Very scary. One way it is scary is it creates a new form of genocide. Rather than murdering oppressed groups, we will simply disable the genes that make them part of that group, erasing diversity. A world with only white, straight, cisgender, neurotypical, conventionally attractive etc. people is not one I want to live in.
Sounds alright to me tbh.
Humans modifying themselves is scary. Very scary. One way it is scary is it creates a new form of genocide. Rather than murdering oppressed groups, we will simply disable the genes that make them part of that group, erasing diversity. A world with only white, straight, cisgender, neurotypical, conventionally attractive etc. people is not one I want to live in.
Take a trip on tumblr sometime and you'll see that the psychological drive to be a unique and special snowflake is strong enough that you have nothing to worry about.
We're willing to ban a technology because we fear how it could be used? How is there no discussion about how this could aid the fight against cancer?
I doubt there are any actual scientist driving this ban (a phd in ethics doesn't make you a scientist in my book).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How, exactly, could genetics solve inequality? It is a social problem.
> It is a social problem. You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable. Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way…
Also, everyone is fairly similar in intelligence anyway. It is not for lack of intelligence that black people suffer in the United States.