The chance to eliminate Mendelian diseases is reason enough to allow this new science to reach maturity, which is still a long way off. "Designer babies" for rich people is a premature concern because those sought-after traits are not only polygenic but likely include environmentally triggered "switching genes," whose epigenetic control mechanisms are likely out of reach of human knowledge because of their dynamic nature. If we improbably ever reach the "designer baby" stage, government control is needed because genetic homogeneity imperils our species.
There is a 1997 movie that raises precisely these ethical issues - we have had 30 years to discuss them - whose title is made solely from the letters designating the four DNA nucleobases: are guanine, adenine, cytosine, and thymine. That movie is GATTACA.
Eliminating genetic diseases like juvenile diabetes is a very different proposition than privatizing healthcare so parents can pay to pick and choose the traits of their offspring. First of all, the ethics of having a known cure to a disease but only allowing a select few to benefit is truly evil. (I'd say it's also evil to deny clean water and antibiotics to third world countries while spending money on bombing them, but that's for another discussion.) We don't know what happens to a population over time if certain DNA traits are selectively phased out. It's possible that tipping the scales one way will have unforeseen consequences.
"The Third Reich’s obsession with genetic purity laid the groundwork for the Holocaust." umm, no. It was about Jews from day one. Writings and speeches. Eugenics was a side business. Genetic modification is not inherently Nazi even if distasteful.
I understand the concerns, but honestly, I think this is an amazing technology and it would be cruel NOT to adopt it as widely as possible. Why not spare humans from agonizing diseases and conditions without the specter of abortion? Why not abolish forever the pain and suffering involved?
As to the question of designer babies, again I am supportive. Perhaps talented people don't understand the anguish of those who don't share their blessings. Why not make intelligence, athleticism, and beauty more ubiquitous with what seems to me to be an elegant solution.
The left cries out against inequality, inequity, and meritocracy. Perhaps this is a way to generically engineer those issues out of existence.
It seems to me that government support would be warranted to make the technology universally available. Imagine the return on investment of having a a self-sufficient, physically and mentally sound population.
Oh, god, big deal. So a few rich people are going to pay to optimize their offspring for health, intelligence, and beauty. Like this world really needs more disease, stupidity, and ugliness than it already has. Give me a break.
The chance to eliminate Mendelian diseases is reason enough to allow this new science to reach maturity, which is still a long way off. "Designer babies" for rich people is a premature concern because those sought-after traits are not only polygenic but likely include environmentally triggered "switching genes," whose epigenetic control mechanisms are likely out of reach of human knowledge because of their dynamic nature. If we improbably ever reach the "designer baby" stage, government control is needed because genetic homogeneity imperils our species.
There is a 1997 movie that raises precisely these ethical issues - we have had 30 years to discuss them - whose title is made solely from the letters designating the four DNA nucleobases: are guanine, adenine, cytosine, and thymine. That movie is GATTACA.
Eliminating genetic diseases like juvenile diabetes is a very different proposition than privatizing healthcare so parents can pay to pick and choose the traits of their offspring. First of all, the ethics of having a known cure to a disease but only allowing a select few to benefit is truly evil. (I'd say it's also evil to deny clean water and antibiotics to third world countries while spending money on bombing them, but that's for another discussion.) We don't know what happens to a population over time if certain DNA traits are selectively phased out. It's possible that tipping the scales one way will have unforeseen consequences.
"The Third Reich’s obsession with genetic purity laid the groundwork for the Holocaust." umm, no. It was about Jews from day one. Writings and speeches. Eugenics was a side business. Genetic modification is not inherently Nazi even if distasteful.
I understand the concerns, but honestly, I think this is an amazing technology and it would be cruel NOT to adopt it as widely as possible. Why not spare humans from agonizing diseases and conditions without the specter of abortion? Why not abolish forever the pain and suffering involved?
As to the question of designer babies, again I am supportive. Perhaps talented people don't understand the anguish of those who don't share their blessings. Why not make intelligence, athleticism, and beauty more ubiquitous with what seems to me to be an elegant solution.
The left cries out against inequality, inequity, and meritocracy. Perhaps this is a way to generically engineer those issues out of existence.
It seems to me that government support would be warranted to make the technology universally available. Imagine the return on investment of having a a self-sufficient, physically and mentally sound population.
When in doubt, find links to the Nazis, I guess.
Oh, god, big deal. So a few rich people are going to pay to optimize their offspring for health, intelligence, and beauty. Like this world really needs more disease, stupidity, and ugliness than it already has. Give me a break.
Chilling dystopia
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/ancient-blood-unjabbed
They think they are God and history shows us what happened when man has tried that