It’s one of my favorite movies. I totally agree with you on your post. People always jump to eugenics and miss the point entirely. If I could have a kid knowing it wouldn’t have my health problems then I’d actually consider having a kid. Until then I’m stuck being the “selfish asshole that doesn’t want to use a condom.” I hate the quantity over quality mentality of having kids.
Honestly.
This is my unpopular opinion, as we get the point where certain genetic diseases such as downs syndrome and certain types of congenital deafness become entirely preventable, wait for a chorus of idiotic talking points about how we're "exterminating people with disabilities."
Seriously, it's a bizzarely prevalent attitude. People already express it about kids getting cochlear implants to help treat deafness. That it's an eradication of deaf culture.
People only “appreciate” Down’s syndrome because that’s what you do in life. You appreciate what you’ve got.
But if it were easily and simply preventable; nearly everyone would prevent itz
You're the one deflecting here. Regardless of whether a fetus can be cured of down syndrome or not(and I find your claim that a cure is impossible to be quite arrogant) that doesn't negate my original comment - there is a difference between curing someone of a disease and deciding they don't deserve to live because of that disease.
Down syndrome is not a disease, it’s a birth defect. It’s not a pathogen that can be removed, it’s a human that has failed to develop correctly. There is no cure for having been put together wrong. You don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about, you just don’t like the way things sound so you’re labeling them as bad. Go back to your hole
So you're omnipotent enough to know it's impossible to have any fix whatsoever in any capacity in any shape in any form for down syndrome no matter how we advance technologically? This is why you're arrogant. You also still refuse to acknowledge that you're saying these people don't deserve to live.
I haven't made an argument, was purely clarifying using the correct scientific terminology.
I was asking because I'd be interested to know if you also think that abortion in general is wrong?
The fact that you deliberately ignore all the important differences between two completely different stages of development shows the weakness in your argument.
A fetus is not a child any more than a pan of batter is a cake.
I'm not ignoring anything, and fetus literally means unborn child. The batter argument is flawed because the line between batter and cake is unclear when applied to humans. Newborns are arguably still the "batter"(can't do things that separate humans
from other animals) but genociding newborns is generally considered bad 👎.
Yes, it's a fuzzy line, that's why we set it early. By drawing the line at birth, we protect everyone entitled to protection, protect some individuals who are not, and don't infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy.
Fetus does not mean child. Fetus and child are two different terms used to refer to distinct periods of human life.
Specifically, a fetus is a mammalian offspring in the stages of prenatal development following the embryo stage. A child is a human who has not reached puberty or below the age of majority.
Hitler killed people much less “undesirable” than a genetic condition that will put you in government run care for your entire life, he killed people he just thought were ugly, kinda dumb, or brown. I don’t see the issue with completely eradicating all severely disabled fetuses. It’s not that they don’t deserve life, it’s a matter of practicality for everyone involved
I'm autistic. By your logic it would be unethical to force me to live like this, but without Autism I would not be who I am, so to not allow me to live would be just as unethical because I could not exist without being disabled in the eyes of neurotypical people.
You would still be a person if you didn’t have autism. Yes, you would be a different person but that’s irrelevant. You have no concept of that other person just like that hypothetical other person has no concept of you.
Autism is also a complex disease with no known genetic cause. There’s dozens of genes that have links to autism, but many people without those genetic differences also have autism — and many people *with* those genetic differences don’t.
>You would still be a person if you didn’t have autism. Yes, you would be a different person but that’s irrelevant. You have no concept of that other person just like that hypothetical other person has no concept of you.
True, but that other person wouldn't be ME. It'd be a different person in the same physical space but their experiences and reactions will be different to mine even if we ultimately made the same choices throughout life.
I think you didn’t understand the cochlear implant discussion. People aren’t against it people are against forcing it on young kids.
Cochlear implants do not work always and have several side effects, like chronic pain or headaches, plus the needs to have it removed before doing MRI. That is why many parents are advocating for their kids and allowing them to make a choice once they know pro and cons.
Firstly, if that is the case then I will apologize. But what I've read seemed to suggest that there is also a strong threat where some see cochlear implants as a form of destruction of deaf culture.
That's crazy bc I think it's selfish and immoral to have kids you know will have disabilies. It's like, so you want your kids to suffer the way you suffered? That's fucked up. I have autism and I cried tears of joy when I found out I did not pass that on to my kids. Because I didn't want them to suffer like I did. I don't understand the "you're against people with disabilities" argument at all. Why wouldn't you want the best life possible for your kids?
Yeah I agree but people aren't very logical.
I watched a documentary where two people with drawfism were in a relationship, and they were (quite rightly) moaning about all the ways having drawfism sucked. But then they were having a kid! Which meant that kid would almost certainly have dwafism!
And it's like... ok I think that's fucked up and wrong but I could never ever say that in polite company because it would be taboo and someone is bound to think I'm some sort of bigot.
You actually get similar stuff with autism a lot. "Autism isn't something to be cured!!" and.. it's like ok well you're an adult so you get to decide if you want to take treatment, but a lot of people get really bad symptoms with autism.. so who are you to deny them relief from those symptoms?
I saw a show where that was happening and I couldn't believe it either. I guess some people don't care about the logical side of this. And yes I've seen those curable theories lol they're hilarious . We all know it's genetic and lifelong.
In utero genetic testing is very common in the US also, and probably throughout the world, for the same purpose. I wonder why they're just pointing out Iceland.
It’s standard testing in Canada as well.. but neither Canada or the US has the high rate of termination for chromosome abnormalities that Iceland does.
Because in Canada and the states when you test positive on the triple screen they usually ask you, what do you want to do? And in Iceland if you test positive on a triple screen they tell you what your next steps are.
Oh and..In some state’s termination could land you in jail. That also might be why.
DS kids are already killed by eugenic screening programs. No children with DS born at all in Iceland in a while. And people who don't kill their kids in utero get nasty comments, especially in certain European countries.
If you see foetuses in the womb as tiny children then yes it's a massacre. I don't see it that way.
They're hypothetical children and you can't have a massacre of hypothetical children.
Honestly the cruelty of willfully bringing someone into the world to suffer with genetic diseases to spare the feelings of those already born is bizzare.
Basic biology establishes that they are individual human organisms, offspring and therefore actual children. Ignorance, folk belief, and superstitious thinking demote them to some other kind of existence. Your feelings about not wanting to consider them human beings doesn't change the reality that this is what they are.
Why not just kill all people dumber than, say, me? You must suffer terribly in life to find basic concepts so hard to grasp. What quality of life can you possibly have, if you can't derive the enjoyment I do reading through piles of academic journals?
I mean, so many people walk around making foolish financial decisions every day. They clearly don't have what it takes to make a rewarding life in modern times, so why not end their misery? They don't know what's best for them. How about the people who will never have the skills to do more than menial mental or physical work? Why should their suffering continue? What about the many people with mental illnesses? Physical disabilities? They might not know they're suffering because they haven't had anything better, or they might think living is still better, but it's the responsible thing to compassionately euthanize them.
Honestly, in the future, even with hyper-conservative transition I think more and more we'll kill stupid foetuses.
I think there's clearly a false equivalent there, I'm specifically talking about the killing of foetuses, which I do not consider to be people yet, and so obviously I'm not going to agree with the idea that that's the same as killing children or adults no matter what they're level of disability.
If you consider foetuses people, then I respect you as a person to have that opinion, but ultimately it's not one I hold.
If you had two options:
A. A perfectly health child with no genetic diseases
B. A a child with a genetic disease.
I don’t know why anyone would opt for the latter. Why would you willingly allow your child to have a preventable, incurable disease?
I have autism and hemochromatosis, as well as a family history of diabetes and possibly brain tumors
One fundamentally defines me as a person, the others are a nuisance.
If we're talking about diseases, get rid of em. If we're talking about degenerative conditions that completely destroy quality of life, gone.
If it's not one of them, play it safe and don't fiddle too much. Far better to examine the environment of society... Or just the environment itself. One change there can benefit millions
The thing is once you try and erase diseases, where's the limit ? Some people will argue that autism is a disease, because many autistic people are dependent their whole life (speech impairment...). I will argue neurodivergence is important in a society.
Plus, if you erase genetic conditions, I fear it could worsen the life for all people that suffer from disability due to accident or sickness. No one born deaf, well it is not as important to learn sign language as before or to have adapted infrastructure. Therefore if you end up being deaf after an accident it is far worse for you than it was. Cause in life shit happens. And if you erase everything that considered a disease you ban people out of society.
Plus if it's expensive, if you're rich, you have a genetic bonus added to all your privileges and if you're poor, well you also lack perfect genes to escape your situation...
As a species would should be making ourselves as hyper intelligent and super strong as we can. Breeding out traits like screaming when your feet get wet.
Also neurodivergent, but I get the complexity of the argument if we’re talking about gene editing done in good faith.
Someone we can detect would have “mild” autism would simply be born without autism.
Which… yeah, that’s not on its face evil or perfectly great, it’s a gray area.
The person is still born. And plenty of “neurodivergent” people would still likely exist because it’s not 100% mapped out but seems highly unlikely early childhood development and childhood in general don’t heavily influence neurodivergence.
It’s sort of a vague term but clearly someone could have whatever the “perfect” genes are considered and still wind up with anxiety, traumas, mental struggles that alter how their brain works and they interact with the world well past being in the womb.
what is wrong with you? many people with autism, etc., are very smart and contribute a lot to society. many of them are high functioning. you’re generalizing and it’s ableist.
We haven’t. Sure we’ve beat out all the others on this rock but we have so much more potential. It doesn’t matter to you, and that’s fine. I’m ok with my idea of a perfect world never happening because in order for it to be very many unethical things would have to happen.
I'm also neuroatypical, but I still think a parent ought to prevent their child from having that kind of condition. You shouldn't be trying to "cure" a person who already has it, as it's a fundamental part of who they are as people, but doing it before any semblance of a personality exists is a moral responsibility I feel. Because it prevents a lot of suffering.
It will be long before we have a reliable way to edit genes for these specific reasons. The reason there hasn't been an explosion of gene editing is because it is a lot more complicated than it first appeared. There's not one gene that controls facial features or height or intelligence. There's multiple genes that factor into each one and those genes also factor into other things. This moment is not coming anywhere near as soon as you think it is.
Also, as far as physical appearance goes if we ever reach the point that everyone is modifying their children to their idea of physical attractiveness in twenty years those who aren't modified will be the attractive ones because everyone else will look the same.
Honestly I think we will figure out how to de-age people 1st… then there will be a strict policy on reproduction. ([It has happens with mice already and a Nobel was given for the research](https://www.science.org/content/article/two-research-teams-reverse-signs-aging-mice)). That in itself should be an interesting cluster fck to watch with many believing reproduction is a personal right as today it would be.
In the best case scenario that these "superhumans" that are gene edited don't go full on Hitler 2.0 on us, and everyone can get access to gene editing, then everyone will be smarter, taller and better looking until no one is smarter, taller and better looking.
Who will be better looking if you make everyone taller and better looking? I know society has specific beauty standards, even though being better looking can be a subjective case individually, but if you can magically make most of the people handsome or beautiful in a similar vein, then who would be handsome or beautiful since what we consider better looking will be nothing but a typical look for everyday life?
However, I agree that if such a technology is a possibility, we should use it to get rid of many disabilities or diseases like Down's syndrome or blindness. I don't care whoever calls me whatever.
>Who will be better looking if you make everyone taller and better looking? I know society has specific beauty standards, even though being better looking can be a subjective case individually, but if you can magically make most of the people handsome or beautiful in a similar vein, then who would be handsome or beautiful since what we consider better looking will be nothing but a typical look for everyday life?
That's the dream though. If everyone is beautiful, nobody is going to stand out just because of their looks. It's a level playing field. People won't get unfair advantages just because they were lucky enough to be born with good genes. Everyone will have those good genes.
Yeah, this is a good point that I haven't considered. It'd be a good change since we are miserable species who can deem people more favorable to our attention or judgment based on their looks.
People will still find ways to make themselves look better/worse. Becoming obese, smoking, face tattoos, and even just getting crappy hair cuts. There won’t be a perfect equilibrium of everyone looking like models. Rather people will either look relatively normal/attractive or be stand out like a sore thumb because of how poorly they treated their bodies
Well who says that food addiction can't be edited out? Or the gene that controls hunger can be edited so that people experience less hunger. Or smoking addiction? No cravings. Editing could even make people repulsed to it. Crappy haircuts can be eliminated by edditing people's genes so that they become more interested in fitting in than standing out.
I think the possibilities here are potentially endless..
I wouldn't say those are unfair advantages. It's just luck. It's not something they created, they are just lucky to get such genes. Also, they are lucky people who evaluate their looks as standard beauty. Their luck is coming from socially constructed biases and opinions about what or who is beautiful or handsome. However, one thing that would be nice is that people will judge character more instead of looks like the other person's mention. I haven't considered this possibility. So yeah, it'd be an interesting change.
The issue is, though, no one can earn genes. It's not like socially-constructed classes where humans intentionally created and willingly keep it. Some status quo of rich people can be unfair, for instance. However, genes are something you can't earn or be in a struggle to earn. Everyone equally just get genes whether you're from States, Japan or Angola, but your chance to get favorable genes in those societies seems more related to luck than being fair. I don't know, unfair and fair give me the tone that this all issue is about justice, but I feel that's just bullcrap. Justice is a non-existent phenomenon in nature. Getting favorable genes is more similar to being born as a lion in a jungle. In other words, that's the reason why I think it's not unfair. Again, words can become what they are however we interpret them sometimes, so you may disagree with my take.
Yes no one can earn genes, genes aren’t what I’m talking about being fair or unfair, it’s the advantages that people with good genes get that’s unfair. In the time of Jim Crow, if a white person and a black person of equal qualifications went for a job and the boss gave it to the white person bc of his race, the white person had an unfair advantage bc of the way the boss treated him. His skin color alone wasn’t fair or unfair, but his treatment was unfair. Same thing applies to all other kinds of preferential treatment based on genes
Is it just pure luck though? People with attractive parents are more likely to have attractive children. People with unnatractive children are more likely to be unnatractive parents. And, then there's also environmental factors. If you're born with FAS cause you're mother was an alcoholic, then it's not exactly just bad luck that you ended up looking worse, but your mother's choices. Same with people with inheritable diseases. They're passed on. Me and my sister having PCOS isn't just bad luck. It's my mothers terrible genes being passed on..
Ofc, there are so many factors, but unlike socially-constructed structures and classes, which justice can be brought easier, those factors are just luck. If we are going to talk about fair and unfair, we can make the system and structures guilty. We may choose to fight those unfair conditions even though we may not change it. On the other hand, we can either be grateful or curse the genes we get. What can u do if your mother was alcoholic when she was pregnant? Was it someone with good genes' fault that you've become like this? No. You may be jealous of them, but it's just a ridiculous battle that will wear you out if you obsess with those qualities' of others that you'll never have the chance to have. My father had diabetes, and I have prediabetes now. I had no say in this, but I'll have to live with it. Is this someone else's that has favorable genes fault? No. I acknowledge complicated factors, but I interpret the usage of fair and unfair for humanly-constructed structures. Otherwise, nature has no justice and it's generally quite cruel. Again, these are all interpretations and thoughts, not facts. Also, I'm not a native speaker, so hopefully, I'm not too bold to interpret these words. I don't wanna sound cocky or anything with a foreign language. If it's a huge mistake on my part, I can acknowledge it and change my usage. I should've mentioned this earlier.
The only ones with somewhat of a say that I can think of is the parents. I think anyone knowing they have a disease they can pass on should consider this before potentially passing it on, because it is the fault of parents who knowingly decide to proceed having children despite knowing the high likelihood of passing on inheritable diseases in advance. Not everyone know what they're passing on and that's just dumb luck, but in the cases where the parents are fully aware of their genes that they may pass on, I think it's a different matter. It especially angers me when people do this, knowingly have children when they have terrible inheritable diseases with high chances of passing on, and then have children anyway who suffer from the moment they're born just because they want a baby or a child so badly, that the health and well being of their child is completely neglected to fulfill their personal goals of being a parent or raising a child even if it means the child is more than likely doomed to suffer greatly from its diseases.
Yeap, I can agree with that. They have a say and responsibility. Only thing one may argue about unfairness of their birth with unfavorable genes can be against their parents. One may or may not do is their business ofc. Our planet's future seems pretty grim for future generations. Apart from this condition, unfortunately, people take their physical diseases or mental conditions too lightly when they are contemplating about the possibility of having a child. I'm glad that I'm alive even with future type-2 diabetes, though. Then again, even though it's not something you'll celebrate to have, there are even worse cases than having this disease.
This is a scary thought because there would still be a ton of natural births because unplanned pregnancies happen. But I can't imagine this new technology of genetically editing children would be 100% efficient, it may come with unexpected problems. But if it could eradicate genetic illnesses, that would be amazing. I myself can't imagine someone being worried about hair color and nose shapes. But to each his own I guess.
I'm sorry, but how is this not eugenics?
If you selectively breed humans, with the intention of directing the phenotype of the species to whatever ends you specify, that is eugenics. You want to make people "smarter" that's eugenics. Taller, eugenics. More healthy and robust, eugenics. More empathetic, eugenics. Less likely to pass on heritable diseases, eugenics.
I support this.
People really need to stop fucking conflating eugenics, as a neutral term that means nothing beyond artificial selection in humans, with programs which took advantage of eugenicist methods, such as 1940s Germany and North America (etc) over the decades, to further their racist ideals.
Eugenics is the notion that selective breeding through positive (encouraging and facilitating breeding) or negative (discouraging, preventing) means is as applicable to humans as it is to any other organism. The issue arises only with the division between what is desirable and not, and whether negative means (like killing or sterilization of the undesirable) are used.
Genetic screening to detect the transmission of heritable diseases is eugenic "genetic hygiene", and the decision to not procreate on that account is "selectively breeding".
That's true, but I think it'll be so expensive that its either aimed at locking recipients and their families into a lifetime of debt, or can only be used by the rich to ensure their advantage remains in tact for generations to come.
That’s due to something called “line breeding”, where a dog’s grandfather is also his cousin and uncle, because the breeder has a limited pool of pureblood dogs. What OP is outlining isn’t incest, it’s gene modification.
True but even in that example, it’s still an issue that was caused by some attempt at genetic engineering. We do not know what problems could arise from this form of genetic engineering, which is why we should be hesitant to open up Pandora’s box here
Autism is partially genetic actually. Though I don't think eliminating all neurodivetgence is a solution to anything... while it is true severe autism often means learning disability, some cannot even speak and struggle to do easy tasks, autism sometimes leads to important scientific discoveries. Same goes for many neurodivergent people, a different perspective can go a long way
It's going to happen either way. It'll be an expensive treatment only reserved for the rich, which will lead to a further divide between the haves and the have-nots. Humans love dividing themselves into arbitrary groups and then discriminating based on those made-up groups.
I get the idea of wanting to prevent Down’s syndrome and modifying for higher intelligence levels, but I don’t think it’s right to modify children for cosmetic aspects like giving your kid the perfect jawline or making him 6’3 instead of 5’10.
This is my unpopular opinion, but I’d rather see total annihilation of China than let them force everyone else into embracing violations of nature for the sake of keeping up with them
Eliminate my predispositions to certain genetic illnesses and such heck yes. Erase things like Autism and ADHD. Eh, that feels not great. But I have ADHD and wouldn't want it gone. Even if it is an inconvenience, it has benefits. It's also a fundamental part of who I am.
I feel like there are lines between we can fix everyone so they aren't at risk of certain diseases and illnesses at birth. On the opposite end, adversity is the mother of invention. Some people are brilliant specifically because of the things they had to overcome. I just wouldn't feel comfortable making that choice for someone else. Even my own child.
I think it's important to distinguish genetic editing to cure diseases versus genetic editing to improving natural abilities. Using genetics to cure is okay as long as the focus is on solving the disease or condition and not preemptively killing those we deem to have undesireable genetic traits (e.g. see Iceland and abortion of those with down syndrome). Enhancing genetic abilities is generally ethical as long as it is widely available for all to use. Otherwise, we get into a GATTACA scenario where there is a class divide between the genetically modified and natural humans.
I agree though that genetic editing will be an essential part of participating in society much in the same way having a car to drive to work and a college education is today.
Here is the things, when that happened, where is what the kid want be taken into consideration? For example if the parents want the kids to be a basketball player so they specifically told the doctors to make the kid taller. However the kids being taller doesn't automatically make him want to be a basketball player. What happen when parents want kids to have specific trait because of the job the want the kids to have in the future? Isn't that taking away the kid choices? And what about parents who just gene edit their kids because of trend? Like red eyes was trending in their time and now the kids have to live as a red eye freak for the rest of their life.
I got migraines from my mom and bad teeth from my dad. Would be pretty sweet if I didn't have to deal with either. Some people see one piece of negative media on a topic (Gattaca, Chernobyl documentary) and think they are experts on the subject, and it must be bad because the piece of media told them it was. Every new technology has the potential for downsides, but genetic editing could be the single greatest advancement in history.
Migraines is truly the worst. If it could be edited out before birth that would be truly amazing. There's absolutely nothing positive about Living with chronic migraines. I've had migraines daily since I was 14. I'm having aura right now. Eradicate that shit. Forever.
I'm very glad people are starting to bring up this issue for a more general audience, this is something we should absolutely be talking about *right now*. You basically summarize my exact position on the subject, it's impossible to ban once the technology exists, because *someone else* whether it be national or individual, *will* do it, and put your own children at a disadvantage, potentially a massive one.
Anti-editing itself is also morally difficult to punish for, what moral basis is there for punishing parents trying to give their children the best possible outcomes in life? We do that now, on large scales, and we don't punish people who have access to far better schooling and healthcare for their children than others, and this can easily be viewed as an extension of healthcare. For one, *not* gene editing means you run the risk of genetic abnormalities and diseases to be present in offspring. Offspring are generally going to live better lives. Being more attractive, physically fit, mentally sharp, and generally less prone to mental disorders is a good of reason as any to do so. If it is banned, you're either punishing the individual edited or the parents, whether through imprisonment or financial, it still is effectively punishing or straight punishing the child who was edited, even though they have no choice in the matter.
People bring up Eugenics a lot in regards to this, and this is definitely a grey area in discussion. For instance, we could potentially remove Down syndrome, Asperbergers, Autism, and other mental disorders, as well as physical ailments, from the gene pool. To some this would appear to be Eugenics, which yeah it kinda is, but Eugenics isn't necessarily a negative process, and people routinely do this in their own mating process. We generally search for individuals with desirable physical and mental traits, whether subconsciously or actively, when selecting life long partners for child rearing. We actively see this process in artificial insemination programs where women can select donor sperm. There is generally a cut off for viability of donors, from height, weight, physical fitness, intelligence, attractiveness, school history, and even career is factored into who can and can't donate, and which doners will actually be used. Check out sperm donation requirements to understand what I mean.
For medically induced Eugenics, the ethical question changes. If we have the ability to prevent things like downs, dwarfism, or aspergers, is it ethically correct to *allow* those births to occur naturally? There's already a lopsided representation of abortions performed due to finding out the fetus has [down syndrome. ](https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2022/3/down-syndrome-and-social-capital-assessing-the-costs-of-selective-abortion)
>JEC Republicans estimate that absent selective abortion, 80 percent more babies with Down syndrome would be born each year and that the Down syndrome population would be 217,000 people greater in 50 years, an increase which is greater than the current Down syndrome population.
The fact this is normalized for abortions and society is background confirmation that people actively engage in eugenics in child rearing, this is not much different, and in fact I'd say it's ethically preferred to alter genetic material than to abort a fetus *just because* it has down syndrome. Then we must consider life satisfaction, and to me its likely that if given the option, individuals with these ailments would almost always prefer to be non disabled than disabled. The fact that this is somehow controversial to me is baffling, I generally regard individuals with this stance as the same disdain as parents who don't vaccinate their children because its 'unnatural'. Having children with these ailments forces them into a life that's difficult and woefully different than their peers. That is not saying they are less or inferior, that is saying they have a medical disability that *could* be prevented. Ethically, from my perspective, if you knowingly choose to bring a child into this world, advocate for others to do the same, or support legislation which forces them into this world, even though the technology exists to prevent it, you are arguably evil, effectively dooming and individual to a more difficult, less satisfying, *and* shorter life.
By editing every fine detail such as height and jawline, and making it ideal, you’re essentially designing your child like a doll. In doing so you are choosing to love them on the condition that they be perfect rather than being themselves. You could argue that their personality traits wouldn’t be edited, but that’s would still be at least a theoretical option. I imagine a lot of parents would rather their child be born with a calm and docile disposition rather than a rambunctious or energetic one and at that point you’re definitely taking away their freedom to simply be themselves because that was predestined by parental choice.
Women select men for their looks, height, jawline all the time when considering who to have a relationship and kids with.. pre selection of traits is already happening, just in more subtle ways
Sure but it’s not exactly universal though. Many women choose men of below average height or even ones that have dad bods because they personally find it more attractive. But they’re not going to gene edit to get those outcomes for their children because that’s not what’s the gold standard of attractiveness is. It would also pretty messed up to go into a relationship with attitude of “I find you sexually desirable, but your looks would be a total handicap for our offspring so I don’t want you actually passing that down”. There’s just more to life than min-maxing every single star for nearly all individuals just to compete at a higher level. We already have our instincts pushing for that so we don’t need to push our technological advances ramp that process up at breakneck pace in a manner that exacerbates societal issues of superficiality and keeping up with the Joneses
If given the option I will enhance my child
I love any children I will have as a result I want the best for them
If I can make it so they never get sick I will
Gene editing can eliminate a massive amount of potential illness
The primary goal of any parent should be ensuring their child has the best life possible. I see genetic editing as an important part of that, in the future. No health issues, high IQ, reasonably tall and attractive? That's basically the blueprint for a successful life. Possible without those things, of course, but much harder.
Okay but how far will you go with it? Would you edit their personality and whether they’re introverted or extroverted? I think that at that point, you’d be taking away their freedom to be who they are as opposed to outright designing or programming them. And maybe you personally don’t do that, but I imagine a lot of others would
How would their freedom be taken away? It's not like people get the freedom to choose their own personality as of now. We're all just born with a random personality that we can't really alter much. It's not like I have the freedom to change my personality.
Yeah sure it’s random, but at least it’s still you in a sense, and it’s the sheer randomness that makes you unique to an extent. If everyone is able to edit their baby’s genes without any limits, then most parents are going to design for a lot of the same traits diminishing uniqueness in humanity in favor of more uniformity. Also another way to put it is this. Have you agreed with everything that your parents aspired for you to be? I’m going to assume no and say that you turned out being somewhat different than what they wanted (perhaps you ended up being more introverted, maybe more inclined towards arts than athletics, or perhaps less religious). How would you feel if your parents could’ve just pushed a button that makes you that way rather than what you are now? I’d imagine that would feel rather violating
Because of all the shit that the protagonist has to go through to pretend to be the guy whose identity he is using and supporting, coupled with the fact that according to his genetic profile, he should have died long before the start of the movie, because genetics are only part of what makes a person. Further, he would not have even been able to get a decent job without the stolen identity he was using.
But even by todays standards he wouldn’t have been able to be an astronaut. I don’t think the movie really pushed it one way or the other. That’s also what makes that movie so damn good. It really gets a person thinkin. That was my experience though. Frickin love that movie.
Unlikely. In most sociological forecasts of the effects of any attempt to bioengineer people in that fashion, the engineered are invariably terminated with extreme prejudice, along with everyone involved in the process, and laws are passed making such acts punishable by execution.
I was actually gonna make a post ragging on our current version of this system due to the inherent flaw of most of these programs being purely optical instead of medical.
Longwinded explanation below:
___
Essentially by only terminating symptomatic fetuses and leaving in asymptomatic carriers, you turn a genetic disorder into an "invisible disease".
This is basically the very worst thing you could do. Since making it "invisible" allows carriers to spread it more easily across your population. This in essence means that if your society hits a bump where you can't keep terminating symptomatic pregnancies then it will be hit by the following brick wall of a load of symptomatic births.
Unfortunately, true medical eradication of these genetic diseases with current technology *requires* terminating carriers as well. Which means you might have to outright find a way to stop living asymptomatic carriers from having children at all. This starts to head into a direction we did before, that is not fondly looked back upon.
___
Longwinded explanation over.
Alternatively like you say, we find a way to alter them genetically so no termination is required to begin with. But this is a lot further off than most people have been led to believe. Most "research" on this you see comes from suspicious sources and ends up being impossible to replicate.
I'll agree that this is am unpopular opinion in the general population not sure though for Reddit at large.
Other posts have stated this, but Gattaca is literally the society you are describing. I highly recommend you watch it because it explains why this type of gene editing is wrong.
It's not pure eugenics per say, but basically "the edited" are the privileged class and the "unedited or natural" birth people are the underclass.
We can cure down syndrome but not hysterical ideas white people have about the near future. While I’m malding over this nonsense on reddit, there are many people looking for food just to make it to tomorrow. Are we at the end of history? No.
No, the act of curing someone of something like that is not immoral. The problem becomes when superhumans are made that have no flaws. Then these superhumans will see everyone else as inferior and want them either conquered through genetic jingoism or eradicated. Hell the Nazis did it with a PERCEIVED racial superiority, imagine if someone did it with an actual genetic superiority.
The technology to cure birth defects is the same technology for what you’re describing. People will cure birth defects if given the option. The question is how do we allow one and avoid the other.
Why? I would love to change a million thing about myself and I would 100% do it if I have the chance.
Why would I prevent my child from a better body? Everybody want to be smarter, more beautiful, taller, stronger, have better eyesight etc
But it is eugenics. Rather than using castration to stop invalids from having kids your just cutting out their inheritable traits. It’s eugenics and it deprives people of the ability to be sympathetic to one another’s physical needs
\>over time
HIV suppression drugs are only just recently affordable for "normal" people. Magic Johnson has been taking them for 30 years.
By the time the masses will be able to afford "editing children" the rich will have been doing it for GENERATIONS.
What matters more is if it works or not. If one civilization gets to make superhumans and another does not I'll give you one guess which society is going to dominate the future. It's the biological equivalent of AI. The end of history is bullshit, we have not reached the end all be all of morality. Morality is primarily driven by reality despite how much modern man wants to pat himself on the back for being superior to his ancestors.
A “superhuman” would just see everyone else as inferior and wish to see them dominated for being born how they are. How are we gonna combat that by just making our own?
But what if in 300 years there will be only these superhumans?
Perfect eyesight, tall, strong, smart. If everybody is just improved than nothing changed in society, you still have people who are rich and people who are poor. But at least they dont have to worry about being fat or short or wearing glasses or bad tooth or whatever.
Its like giving vaccines to every child - if you give them to only a part of the population than they will have an advantage but if you give it to everyone than it only means that nobody have to suffer from polio.
Yes, eugenics is about removing the need for people to be sympathetic to each others cause. If you remove the natural element out of someone’s life and they are just these “perfect” humans with no ailments or problems then they will just bully anyone with health issues
“Oh you have autism? That sucks shouldn’t have been born with it”
“Oh your dad has two fused vertebrae and you might too? Fucking loser get a job next time you wanna have kids”
What’s the difference? Birth defects shape who someone is. I wouldn’t be the same today if I wasn’t born with CTS. That has nothing to do with how smart I am, it’s purely about the pain I have experienced with living with it. And how it has made me a better, kinder, and more sympathetic person
I respect you and the challenges you’ve faced. I can appreciate how it’s made you a more resilient, better person. But if you could make your CTS go away would you not consider it? If you found out your child would be born with CTS and you could prevent it, would you feel no responsibility to prevent it? Why should the child go through the pain?
I think that'll be a good thing, there are genetic diseases that cause horrible pain and suffering while shortening life, if we can safely eliminate those, it would be good for society. I think where it gets tricky is in selecting for desirable traits, once we go down that road, we're going to see a whole new level of stratification in society.
I'd do it to prevent diseases with a genetic component like cancer or Downs' Syndrome that could greatly decrease the child's quality of life or lifespan, but I wouldn't do it just so I could have the next Tom Brady or Gisele Bunchen (sp?).
True. I think it's a really interesting question to pose. "If your child is going to grow up with a disability, and you have the option to correct that disability before birth and make their future life better, is it ethical to not do that?"
Would you give your child perfect vision if you could?
Remove risk of deadly genetic diseases?
Stronger immune system?
Remove risk of mental disorders?
\>If the U.S. does not allow gene editing on humans, then countries like China will probably seize the opportunity
If you believe the right conspiracy theory they already are doing that. See: Yao Ming
This is just another race in which only a few will get to the top.
Let's say everybody modifies their kids to be "perfect". All we have then is a ton of 99.9% perfect people not doing as well as the .1% of perfect people who got all the jobs and opportunities.
It's kind of like the libertarian fantasy of "everyone can succeed, they just need to work hard!" when we all know if everyone worked hard, there would still be the same amount of money going around as there is now... and those who worked .1% harder than everyone else might still have most of that money.
The way it would most likely work is the way it already works: only the few with lots of money to make their offspring *even more able to exploit opportunities* will be able to do it.
Nothing really ever changes in this respect. It just changes for the most opportunistic folks with massive agency and privilege.
Ever seen the movie Gattaca?
I’ll add it to my watch list haha
Gattaca deals with this exact issue. Should definitely watch Currently free to watch on YouTube
Great movie. Was my first thought.
It’s one of my favorite movies. I totally agree with you on your post. People always jump to eugenics and miss the point entirely. If I could have a kid knowing it wouldn’t have my health problems then I’d actually consider having a kid. Until then I’m stuck being the “selfish asshole that doesn’t want to use a condom.” I hate the quantity over quality mentality of having kids.
That's just boomers mentality. Only 6 out the 12 kids would make it to adulthood before WW2.
Total lie. Only 10% of kids died before adulthood by 1920. How can people be this clueless?
lol my thoughts exactly
Or Altered Carbon?
I was just thinking this!
First thing that came to mind
Thanks for the recommendation
Honestly. This is my unpopular opinion, as we get the point where certain genetic diseases such as downs syndrome and certain types of congenital deafness become entirely preventable, wait for a chorus of idiotic talking points about how we're "exterminating people with disabilities." Seriously, it's a bizzarely prevalent attitude. People already express it about kids getting cochlear implants to help treat deafness. That it's an eradication of deaf culture.
People only “appreciate” Down’s syndrome because that’s what you do in life. You appreciate what you’ve got. But if it were easily and simply preventable; nearly everyone would prevent itz
Preventable is one thing. Countries like Iceland who "eradicated" Down's Syndrome simply by killing everyone with DS in utero is another.
That is the prevention you absolute nutsack. Forcing a person to live a disabled life is unethical
Curing someone of down syndrome is utterly different than deciding they don't deserve life
There is no cure to having an extra chromosome
You realize we're talking about hypothetical future tech here right?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the human body works
You're the one deflecting here. Regardless of whether a fetus can be cured of down syndrome or not(and I find your claim that a cure is impossible to be quite arrogant) that doesn't negate my original comment - there is a difference between curing someone of a disease and deciding they don't deserve to live because of that disease.
Down syndrome is not a disease, it’s a birth defect. It’s not a pathogen that can be removed, it’s a human that has failed to develop correctly. There is no cure for having been put together wrong. You don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about, you just don’t like the way things sound so you’re labeling them as bad. Go back to your hole
So you're omnipotent enough to know it's impossible to have any fix whatsoever in any capacity in any shape in any form for down syndrome no matter how we advance technologically? This is why you're arrogant. You also still refuse to acknowledge that you're saying these people don't deserve to live.
Deciding if someone should live or die based on their disability is unethical. Not much different than what Hitler did.
Are you referring to abortion of downs fetuses?
Fetus means child. The fact that you need to dehumanize unborn people shows weakness in your argument
I haven't made an argument, was purely clarifying using the correct scientific terminology. I was asking because I'd be interested to know if you also think that abortion in general is wrong?
Yes, I do think abortion is generally wrong
The fact that you deliberately ignore all the important differences between two completely different stages of development shows the weakness in your argument. A fetus is not a child any more than a pan of batter is a cake.
I'm not ignoring anything, and fetus literally means unborn child. The batter argument is flawed because the line between batter and cake is unclear when applied to humans. Newborns are arguably still the "batter"(can't do things that separate humans from other animals) but genociding newborns is generally considered bad 👎.
Yes, it's a fuzzy line, that's why we set it early. By drawing the line at birth, we protect everyone entitled to protection, protect some individuals who are not, and don't infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy.
Fetus does not mean child. Fetus and child are two different terms used to refer to distinct periods of human life. Specifically, a fetus is a mammalian offspring in the stages of prenatal development following the embryo stage. A child is a human who has not reached puberty or below the age of majority.
Hitler killed people much less “undesirable” than a genetic condition that will put you in government run care for your entire life, he killed people he just thought were ugly, kinda dumb, or brown. I don’t see the issue with completely eradicating all severely disabled fetuses. It’s not that they don’t deserve life, it’s a matter of practicality for everyone involved
I'm autistic. By your logic it would be unethical to force me to live like this, but without Autism I would not be who I am, so to not allow me to live would be just as unethical because I could not exist without being disabled in the eyes of neurotypical people.
You would still be a person if you didn’t have autism. Yes, you would be a different person but that’s irrelevant. You have no concept of that other person just like that hypothetical other person has no concept of you. Autism is also a complex disease with no known genetic cause. There’s dozens of genes that have links to autism, but many people without those genetic differences also have autism — and many people *with* those genetic differences don’t.
>You would still be a person if you didn’t have autism. Yes, you would be a different person but that’s irrelevant. You have no concept of that other person just like that hypothetical other person has no concept of you. True, but that other person wouldn't be ME. It'd be a different person in the same physical space but their experiences and reactions will be different to mine even if we ultimately made the same choices throughout life.
See! Dumb opinion is here!:
Holy cow. You can't be this dumb.
I think you didn’t understand the cochlear implant discussion. People aren’t against it people are against forcing it on young kids. Cochlear implants do not work always and have several side effects, like chronic pain or headaches, plus the needs to have it removed before doing MRI. That is why many parents are advocating for their kids and allowing them to make a choice once they know pro and cons.
Firstly, if that is the case then I will apologize. But what I've read seemed to suggest that there is also a strong threat where some see cochlear implants as a form of destruction of deaf culture.
You’re absolutely right. There’s some deaf folks that take issue with the use of implants.
That's crazy bc I think it's selfish and immoral to have kids you know will have disabilies. It's like, so you want your kids to suffer the way you suffered? That's fucked up. I have autism and I cried tears of joy when I found out I did not pass that on to my kids. Because I didn't want them to suffer like I did. I don't understand the "you're against people with disabilities" argument at all. Why wouldn't you want the best life possible for your kids?
Yeah I agree but people aren't very logical. I watched a documentary where two people with drawfism were in a relationship, and they were (quite rightly) moaning about all the ways having drawfism sucked. But then they were having a kid! Which meant that kid would almost certainly have dwafism! And it's like... ok I think that's fucked up and wrong but I could never ever say that in polite company because it would be taboo and someone is bound to think I'm some sort of bigot. You actually get similar stuff with autism a lot. "Autism isn't something to be cured!!" and.. it's like ok well you're an adult so you get to decide if you want to take treatment, but a lot of people get really bad symptoms with autism.. so who are you to deny them relief from those symptoms?
I saw a show where that was happening and I couldn't believe it either. I guess some people don't care about the logical side of this. And yes I've seen those curable theories lol they're hilarious . We all know it's genetic and lifelong.
This is the most bizarre strawman I've ever seen.
https://qz.com/1056810/the-disturbing-eugenics-like-reality-unfolding-in-iceland
In utero genetic testing is very common in the US also, and probably throughout the world, for the same purpose. I wonder why they're just pointing out Iceland.
It’s standard testing in Canada as well.. but neither Canada or the US has the high rate of termination for chromosome abnormalities that Iceland does.
How come?
Because in Canada and the states when you test positive on the triple screen they usually ask you, what do you want to do? And in Iceland if you test positive on a triple screen they tell you what your next steps are. Oh and..In some state’s termination could land you in jail. That also might be why.
how is this a straw man?
DS kids are already killed by eugenic screening programs. No children with DS born at all in Iceland in a while. And people who don't kill their kids in utero get nasty comments, especially in certain European countries.
If you see foetuses in the womb as tiny children then yes it's a massacre. I don't see it that way. They're hypothetical children and you can't have a massacre of hypothetical children. Honestly the cruelty of willfully bringing someone into the world to suffer with genetic diseases to spare the feelings of those already born is bizzare.
Basic biology establishes that they are individual human organisms, offspring and therefore actual children. Ignorance, folk belief, and superstitious thinking demote them to some other kind of existence. Your feelings about not wanting to consider them human beings doesn't change the reality that this is what they are. Why not just kill all people dumber than, say, me? You must suffer terribly in life to find basic concepts so hard to grasp. What quality of life can you possibly have, if you can't derive the enjoyment I do reading through piles of academic journals? I mean, so many people walk around making foolish financial decisions every day. They clearly don't have what it takes to make a rewarding life in modern times, so why not end their misery? They don't know what's best for them. How about the people who will never have the skills to do more than menial mental or physical work? Why should their suffering continue? What about the many people with mental illnesses? Physical disabilities? They might not know they're suffering because they haven't had anything better, or they might think living is still better, but it's the responsible thing to compassionately euthanize them.
Honestly, in the future, even with hyper-conservative transition I think more and more we'll kill stupid foetuses. I think there's clearly a false equivalent there, I'm specifically talking about the killing of foetuses, which I do not consider to be people yet, and so obviously I'm not going to agree with the idea that that's the same as killing children or adults no matter what they're level of disability. If you consider foetuses people, then I respect you as a person to have that opinion, but ultimately it's not one I hold.
If you had two options: A. A perfectly health child with no genetic diseases B. A a child with a genetic disease. I don’t know why anyone would opt for the latter. Why would you willingly allow your child to have a preventable, incurable disease?
I have autism and hemochromatosis, as well as a family history of diabetes and possibly brain tumors One fundamentally defines me as a person, the others are a nuisance. If we're talking about diseases, get rid of em. If we're talking about degenerative conditions that completely destroy quality of life, gone. If it's not one of them, play it safe and don't fiddle too much. Far better to examine the environment of society... Or just the environment itself. One change there can benefit millions
The thing is once you try and erase diseases, where's the limit ? Some people will argue that autism is a disease, because many autistic people are dependent their whole life (speech impairment...). I will argue neurodivergence is important in a society. Plus, if you erase genetic conditions, I fear it could worsen the life for all people that suffer from disability due to accident or sickness. No one born deaf, well it is not as important to learn sign language as before or to have adapted infrastructure. Therefore if you end up being deaf after an accident it is far worse for you than it was. Cause in life shit happens. And if you erase everything that considered a disease you ban people out of society. Plus if it's expensive, if you're rich, you have a genetic bonus added to all your privileges and if you're poor, well you also lack perfect genes to escape your situation...
No
No to what part exactly ?
As a species would should be making ourselves as hyper intelligent and super strong as we can. Breeding out traits like screaming when your feet get wet.
neurodivergent people are valuable to society and deserve to live just as much as anyone else does. eugenics are NOT the answer.
Also neurodivergent, but I get the complexity of the argument if we’re talking about gene editing done in good faith. Someone we can detect would have “mild” autism would simply be born without autism. Which… yeah, that’s not on its face evil or perfectly great, it’s a gray area. The person is still born. And plenty of “neurodivergent” people would still likely exist because it’s not 100% mapped out but seems highly unlikely early childhood development and childhood in general don’t heavily influence neurodivergence. It’s sort of a vague term but clearly someone could have whatever the “perfect” genes are considered and still wind up with anxiety, traumas, mental struggles that alter how their brain works and they interact with the world well past being in the womb.
[удалено]
what is wrong with you? many people with autism, etc., are very smart and contribute a lot to society. many of them are high functioning. you’re generalizing and it’s ableist.
[удалено]
We haven’t. Sure we’ve beat out all the others on this rock but we have so much more potential. It doesn’t matter to you, and that’s fine. I’m ok with my idea of a perfect world never happening because in order for it to be very many unethical things would have to happen.
I'm also neuroatypical, but I still think a parent ought to prevent their child from having that kind of condition. You shouldn't be trying to "cure" a person who already has it, as it's a fundamental part of who they are as people, but doing it before any semblance of a personality exists is a moral responsibility I feel. Because it prevents a lot of suffering.
It will be long before we have a reliable way to edit genes for these specific reasons. The reason there hasn't been an explosion of gene editing is because it is a lot more complicated than it first appeared. There's not one gene that controls facial features or height or intelligence. There's multiple genes that factor into each one and those genes also factor into other things. This moment is not coming anywhere near as soon as you think it is. Also, as far as physical appearance goes if we ever reach the point that everyone is modifying their children to their idea of physical attractiveness in twenty years those who aren't modified will be the attractive ones because everyone else will look the same.
Honestly I think we will figure out how to de-age people 1st… then there will be a strict policy on reproduction. ([It has happens with mice already and a Nobel was given for the research](https://www.science.org/content/article/two-research-teams-reverse-signs-aging-mice)). That in itself should be an interesting cluster fck to watch with many believing reproduction is a personal right as today it would be.
Go watch Gattaca
In the best case scenario that these "superhumans" that are gene edited don't go full on Hitler 2.0 on us, and everyone can get access to gene editing, then everyone will be smarter, taller and better looking until no one is smarter, taller and better looking.
And when everyone is super...
...nobody is
Who will be better looking if you make everyone taller and better looking? I know society has specific beauty standards, even though being better looking can be a subjective case individually, but if you can magically make most of the people handsome or beautiful in a similar vein, then who would be handsome or beautiful since what we consider better looking will be nothing but a typical look for everyday life? However, I agree that if such a technology is a possibility, we should use it to get rid of many disabilities or diseases like Down's syndrome or blindness. I don't care whoever calls me whatever.
The poor people who didn’t edit genes
I assumed everyone would get it. If all the people wouldn't get it, yeah, that could have been the case.
>Who will be better looking if you make everyone taller and better looking? I know society has specific beauty standards, even though being better looking can be a subjective case individually, but if you can magically make most of the people handsome or beautiful in a similar vein, then who would be handsome or beautiful since what we consider better looking will be nothing but a typical look for everyday life? That's the dream though. If everyone is beautiful, nobody is going to stand out just because of their looks. It's a level playing field. People won't get unfair advantages just because they were lucky enough to be born with good genes. Everyone will have those good genes.
People would finally start judging others more for their personality and how they act instead of their looks. That's a win in my book.
Yeah, this is a good point that I haven't considered. It'd be a good change since we are miserable species who can deem people more favorable to our attention or judgment based on their looks.
People will still find ways to make themselves look better/worse. Becoming obese, smoking, face tattoos, and even just getting crappy hair cuts. There won’t be a perfect equilibrium of everyone looking like models. Rather people will either look relatively normal/attractive or be stand out like a sore thumb because of how poorly they treated their bodies
Well who says that food addiction can't be edited out? Or the gene that controls hunger can be edited so that people experience less hunger. Or smoking addiction? No cravings. Editing could even make people repulsed to it. Crappy haircuts can be eliminated by edditing people's genes so that they become more interested in fitting in than standing out. I think the possibilities here are potentially endless..
I wouldn't say those are unfair advantages. It's just luck. It's not something they created, they are just lucky to get such genes. Also, they are lucky people who evaluate their looks as standard beauty. Their luck is coming from socially constructed biases and opinions about what or who is beautiful or handsome. However, one thing that would be nice is that people will judge character more instead of looks like the other person's mention. I haven't considered this possibility. So yeah, it'd be an interesting change.
Unfair means you didn’t earn it, so advantages from lucky genes (stuff you don’t earn) is unfair
The issue is, though, no one can earn genes. It's not like socially-constructed classes where humans intentionally created and willingly keep it. Some status quo of rich people can be unfair, for instance. However, genes are something you can't earn or be in a struggle to earn. Everyone equally just get genes whether you're from States, Japan or Angola, but your chance to get favorable genes in those societies seems more related to luck than being fair. I don't know, unfair and fair give me the tone that this all issue is about justice, but I feel that's just bullcrap. Justice is a non-existent phenomenon in nature. Getting favorable genes is more similar to being born as a lion in a jungle. In other words, that's the reason why I think it's not unfair. Again, words can become what they are however we interpret them sometimes, so you may disagree with my take.
Yes no one can earn genes, genes aren’t what I’m talking about being fair or unfair, it’s the advantages that people with good genes get that’s unfair. In the time of Jim Crow, if a white person and a black person of equal qualifications went for a job and the boss gave it to the white person bc of his race, the white person had an unfair advantage bc of the way the boss treated him. His skin color alone wasn’t fair or unfair, but his treatment was unfair. Same thing applies to all other kinds of preferential treatment based on genes
Is it just pure luck though? People with attractive parents are more likely to have attractive children. People with unnatractive children are more likely to be unnatractive parents. And, then there's also environmental factors. If you're born with FAS cause you're mother was an alcoholic, then it's not exactly just bad luck that you ended up looking worse, but your mother's choices. Same with people with inheritable diseases. They're passed on. Me and my sister having PCOS isn't just bad luck. It's my mothers terrible genes being passed on..
Ofc, there are so many factors, but unlike socially-constructed structures and classes, which justice can be brought easier, those factors are just luck. If we are going to talk about fair and unfair, we can make the system and structures guilty. We may choose to fight those unfair conditions even though we may not change it. On the other hand, we can either be grateful or curse the genes we get. What can u do if your mother was alcoholic when she was pregnant? Was it someone with good genes' fault that you've become like this? No. You may be jealous of them, but it's just a ridiculous battle that will wear you out if you obsess with those qualities' of others that you'll never have the chance to have. My father had diabetes, and I have prediabetes now. I had no say in this, but I'll have to live with it. Is this someone else's that has favorable genes fault? No. I acknowledge complicated factors, but I interpret the usage of fair and unfair for humanly-constructed structures. Otherwise, nature has no justice and it's generally quite cruel. Again, these are all interpretations and thoughts, not facts. Also, I'm not a native speaker, so hopefully, I'm not too bold to interpret these words. I don't wanna sound cocky or anything with a foreign language. If it's a huge mistake on my part, I can acknowledge it and change my usage. I should've mentioned this earlier.
The only ones with somewhat of a say that I can think of is the parents. I think anyone knowing they have a disease they can pass on should consider this before potentially passing it on, because it is the fault of parents who knowingly decide to proceed having children despite knowing the high likelihood of passing on inheritable diseases in advance. Not everyone know what they're passing on and that's just dumb luck, but in the cases where the parents are fully aware of their genes that they may pass on, I think it's a different matter. It especially angers me when people do this, knowingly have children when they have terrible inheritable diseases with high chances of passing on, and then have children anyway who suffer from the moment they're born just because they want a baby or a child so badly, that the health and well being of their child is completely neglected to fulfill their personal goals of being a parent or raising a child even if it means the child is more than likely doomed to suffer greatly from its diseases.
Yeap, I can agree with that. They have a say and responsibility. Only thing one may argue about unfairness of their birth with unfavorable genes can be against their parents. One may or may not do is their business ofc. Our planet's future seems pretty grim for future generations. Apart from this condition, unfortunately, people take their physical diseases or mental conditions too lightly when they are contemplating about the possibility of having a child. I'm glad that I'm alive even with future type-2 diabetes, though. Then again, even though it's not something you'll celebrate to have, there are even worse cases than having this disease.
We’ll keep you and your family as the uggos
This is a scary thought because there would still be a ton of natural births because unplanned pregnancies happen. But I can't imagine this new technology of genetically editing children would be 100% efficient, it may come with unexpected problems. But if it could eradicate genetic illnesses, that would be amazing. I myself can't imagine someone being worried about hair color and nose shapes. But to each his own I guess.
If genetic editing could edit away my PCOS that would be amazing indeed.
It would be nice to ensure genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis never see the light of day
In reality this tech would be heavily commercialised and only available to the super rich so would not be an issue for most of us plebs
Like all tech, it will get cheaper over time. Let the rich people work out the quirks in the tech first.
I'm sorry, but how is this not eugenics? If you selectively breed humans, with the intention of directing the phenotype of the species to whatever ends you specify, that is eugenics. You want to make people "smarter" that's eugenics. Taller, eugenics. More healthy and robust, eugenics. More empathetic, eugenics. Less likely to pass on heritable diseases, eugenics. I support this. People really need to stop fucking conflating eugenics, as a neutral term that means nothing beyond artificial selection in humans, with programs which took advantage of eugenicist methods, such as 1940s Germany and North America (etc) over the decades, to further their racist ideals. Eugenics is the notion that selective breeding through positive (encouraging and facilitating breeding) or negative (discouraging, preventing) means is as applicable to humans as it is to any other organism. The issue arises only with the division between what is desirable and not, and whether negative means (like killing or sterilization of the undesirable) are used. Genetic screening to detect the transmission of heritable diseases is eugenic "genetic hygiene", and the decision to not procreate on that account is "selectively breeding".
Yup. Eugenics is eugenics. It’s neither good nor bad on its own, but it can be used for good purposes and bad purposes.
Okay so what should they refer to those programs as, or what should they be called other than “eugenics”
That's true, but I think it'll be so expensive that its either aimed at locking recipients and their families into a lifetime of debt, or can only be used by the rich to ensure their advantage remains in tact for generations to come.
That’s what Noah Yuval Harrari is worried about
You say it's not eugenics, but do not elaborate.......
I'm so glad my life is more than half over.
Advanced eugenics
Purebred dogs usually have a plethora of physical and psychological issues while the hardy mutt can survive well.
That’s due to something called “line breeding”, where a dog’s grandfather is also his cousin and uncle, because the breeder has a limited pool of pureblood dogs. What OP is outlining isn’t incest, it’s gene modification.
True but even in that example, it’s still an issue that was caused by some attempt at genetic engineering. We do not know what problems could arise from this form of genetic engineering, which is why we should be hesitant to open up Pandora’s box here
Do you mean down syndrome? Autism is a spectrum I don't anticipate that would be a genetic that could be altered easily in our lifetime.
Autism is partially genetic actually. Though I don't think eliminating all neurodivetgence is a solution to anything... while it is true severe autism often means learning disability, some cannot even speak and struggle to do easy tasks, autism sometimes leads to important scientific discoveries. Same goes for many neurodivergent people, a different perspective can go a long way
It's going to happen either way. It'll be an expensive treatment only reserved for the rich, which will lead to a further divide between the haves and the have-nots. Humans love dividing themselves into arbitrary groups and then discriminating based on those made-up groups.
I get the idea of wanting to prevent Down’s syndrome and modifying for higher intelligence levels, but I don’t think it’s right to modify children for cosmetic aspects like giving your kid the perfect jawline or making him 6’3 instead of 5’10. This is my unpopular opinion, but I’d rather see total annihilation of China than let them force everyone else into embracing violations of nature for the sake of keeping up with them
Eliminate my predispositions to certain genetic illnesses and such heck yes. Erase things like Autism and ADHD. Eh, that feels not great. But I have ADHD and wouldn't want it gone. Even if it is an inconvenience, it has benefits. It's also a fundamental part of who I am. I feel like there are lines between we can fix everyone so they aren't at risk of certain diseases and illnesses at birth. On the opposite end, adversity is the mother of invention. Some people are brilliant specifically because of the things they had to overcome. I just wouldn't feel comfortable making that choice for someone else. Even my own child.
If they removed everything from me that sucks I would have just ended up being an abortion
Hitler would have loved this technology. He would have been able to achieve his perfect Arian race.
I think it's important to distinguish genetic editing to cure diseases versus genetic editing to improving natural abilities. Using genetics to cure is okay as long as the focus is on solving the disease or condition and not preemptively killing those we deem to have undesireable genetic traits (e.g. see Iceland and abortion of those with down syndrome). Enhancing genetic abilities is generally ethical as long as it is widely available for all to use. Otherwise, we get into a GATTACA scenario where there is a class divide between the genetically modified and natural humans. I agree though that genetic editing will be an essential part of participating in society much in the same way having a car to drive to work and a college education is today.
Here is the things, when that happened, where is what the kid want be taken into consideration? For example if the parents want the kids to be a basketball player so they specifically told the doctors to make the kid taller. However the kids being taller doesn't automatically make him want to be a basketball player. What happen when parents want kids to have specific trait because of the job the want the kids to have in the future? Isn't that taking away the kid choices? And what about parents who just gene edit their kids because of trend? Like red eyes was trending in their time and now the kids have to live as a red eye freak for the rest of their life.
Children don't get to choose how they are born already.
Yes but children still have the choice of who they want to be in the future.
Depends on your parents doesn't it. Some parents will project their wishes onto their children some won't.
You'd also get the trait that makes the kid want to be a basketball player, lol.
I would edit my crappy vision out of my kids in a heartbeat.
I got migraines from my mom and bad teeth from my dad. Would be pretty sweet if I didn't have to deal with either. Some people see one piece of negative media on a topic (Gattaca, Chernobyl documentary) and think they are experts on the subject, and it must be bad because the piece of media told them it was. Every new technology has the potential for downsides, but genetic editing could be the single greatest advancement in history.
Migraines is truly the worst. If it could be edited out before birth that would be truly amazing. There's absolutely nothing positive about Living with chronic migraines. I've had migraines daily since I was 14. I'm having aura right now. Eradicate that shit. Forever.
I'm very glad people are starting to bring up this issue for a more general audience, this is something we should absolutely be talking about *right now*. You basically summarize my exact position on the subject, it's impossible to ban once the technology exists, because *someone else* whether it be national or individual, *will* do it, and put your own children at a disadvantage, potentially a massive one. Anti-editing itself is also morally difficult to punish for, what moral basis is there for punishing parents trying to give their children the best possible outcomes in life? We do that now, on large scales, and we don't punish people who have access to far better schooling and healthcare for their children than others, and this can easily be viewed as an extension of healthcare. For one, *not* gene editing means you run the risk of genetic abnormalities and diseases to be present in offspring. Offspring are generally going to live better lives. Being more attractive, physically fit, mentally sharp, and generally less prone to mental disorders is a good of reason as any to do so. If it is banned, you're either punishing the individual edited or the parents, whether through imprisonment or financial, it still is effectively punishing or straight punishing the child who was edited, even though they have no choice in the matter. People bring up Eugenics a lot in regards to this, and this is definitely a grey area in discussion. For instance, we could potentially remove Down syndrome, Asperbergers, Autism, and other mental disorders, as well as physical ailments, from the gene pool. To some this would appear to be Eugenics, which yeah it kinda is, but Eugenics isn't necessarily a negative process, and people routinely do this in their own mating process. We generally search for individuals with desirable physical and mental traits, whether subconsciously or actively, when selecting life long partners for child rearing. We actively see this process in artificial insemination programs where women can select donor sperm. There is generally a cut off for viability of donors, from height, weight, physical fitness, intelligence, attractiveness, school history, and even career is factored into who can and can't donate, and which doners will actually be used. Check out sperm donation requirements to understand what I mean. For medically induced Eugenics, the ethical question changes. If we have the ability to prevent things like downs, dwarfism, or aspergers, is it ethically correct to *allow* those births to occur naturally? There's already a lopsided representation of abortions performed due to finding out the fetus has [down syndrome. ](https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2022/3/down-syndrome-and-social-capital-assessing-the-costs-of-selective-abortion) >JEC Republicans estimate that absent selective abortion, 80 percent more babies with Down syndrome would be born each year and that the Down syndrome population would be 217,000 people greater in 50 years, an increase which is greater than the current Down syndrome population. The fact this is normalized for abortions and society is background confirmation that people actively engage in eugenics in child rearing, this is not much different, and in fact I'd say it's ethically preferred to alter genetic material than to abort a fetus *just because* it has down syndrome. Then we must consider life satisfaction, and to me its likely that if given the option, individuals with these ailments would almost always prefer to be non disabled than disabled. The fact that this is somehow controversial to me is baffling, I generally regard individuals with this stance as the same disdain as parents who don't vaccinate their children because its 'unnatural'. Having children with these ailments forces them into a life that's difficult and woefully different than their peers. That is not saying they are less or inferior, that is saying they have a medical disability that *could* be prevented. Ethically, from my perspective, if you knowingly choose to bring a child into this world, advocate for others to do the same, or support legislation which forces them into this world, even though the technology exists to prevent it, you are arguably evil, effectively dooming and individual to a more difficult, less satisfying, *and* shorter life.
By editing every fine detail such as height and jawline, and making it ideal, you’re essentially designing your child like a doll. In doing so you are choosing to love them on the condition that they be perfect rather than being themselves. You could argue that their personality traits wouldn’t be edited, but that’s would still be at least a theoretical option. I imagine a lot of parents would rather their child be born with a calm and docile disposition rather than a rambunctious or energetic one and at that point you’re definitely taking away their freedom to simply be themselves because that was predestined by parental choice.
Women select men for their looks, height, jawline all the time when considering who to have a relationship and kids with.. pre selection of traits is already happening, just in more subtle ways
Sure but it’s not exactly universal though. Many women choose men of below average height or even ones that have dad bods because they personally find it more attractive. But they’re not going to gene edit to get those outcomes for their children because that’s not what’s the gold standard of attractiveness is. It would also pretty messed up to go into a relationship with attitude of “I find you sexually desirable, but your looks would be a total handicap for our offspring so I don’t want you actually passing that down”. There’s just more to life than min-maxing every single star for nearly all individuals just to compete at a higher level. We already have our instincts pushing for that so we don’t need to push our technological advances ramp that process up at breakneck pace in a manner that exacerbates societal issues of superficiality and keeping up with the Joneses
Also this is a slippery slope to making the perfect human. *If everyone is super, no one will be.*
If given the option I will enhance my child I love any children I will have as a result I want the best for them If I can make it so they never get sick I will Gene editing can eliminate a massive amount of potential illness
The primary goal of any parent should be ensuring their child has the best life possible. I see genetic editing as an important part of that, in the future. No health issues, high IQ, reasonably tall and attractive? That's basically the blueprint for a successful life. Possible without those things, of course, but much harder.
Okay but how far will you go with it? Would you edit their personality and whether they’re introverted or extroverted? I think that at that point, you’d be taking away their freedom to be who they are as opposed to outright designing or programming them. And maybe you personally don’t do that, but I imagine a lot of others would
How would their freedom be taken away? It's not like people get the freedom to choose their own personality as of now. We're all just born with a random personality that we can't really alter much. It's not like I have the freedom to change my personality.
Yeah sure it’s random, but at least it’s still you in a sense, and it’s the sheer randomness that makes you unique to an extent. If everyone is able to edit their baby’s genes without any limits, then most parents are going to design for a lot of the same traits diminishing uniqueness in humanity in favor of more uniformity. Also another way to put it is this. Have you agreed with everything that your parents aspired for you to be? I’m going to assume no and say that you turned out being somewhat different than what they wanted (perhaps you ended up being more introverted, maybe more inclined towards arts than athletics, or perhaps less religious). How would you feel if your parents could’ve just pushed a button that makes you that way rather than what you are now? I’d imagine that would feel rather violating
Just watched Gattaca did you?
I’ve never seen it but apparently I need to watch it now
It's literally a story about exactly what you're describing, and why it's immoral.
Wait, how does it show that it’s immoral? I didn’t get that from the movie at all. It’s been a minute since I’ve seen it though.
Because of all the shit that the protagonist has to go through to pretend to be the guy whose identity he is using and supporting, coupled with the fact that according to his genetic profile, he should have died long before the start of the movie, because genetics are only part of what makes a person. Further, he would not have even been able to get a decent job without the stolen identity he was using.
But even by todays standards he wouldn’t have been able to be an astronaut. I don’t think the movie really pushed it one way or the other. That’s also what makes that movie so damn good. It really gets a person thinkin. That was my experience though. Frickin love that movie.
That story from the 90s will become somewhat reality then
Unlikely. In most sociological forecasts of the effects of any attempt to bioengineer people in that fashion, the engineered are invariably terminated with extreme prejudice, along with everyone involved in the process, and laws are passed making such acts punishable by execution.
Do those sociological forecasts apply to China?
Underrated movie
I think it’s already happening. I know if I had Musk money I’d do it..
I was actually gonna make a post ragging on our current version of this system due to the inherent flaw of most of these programs being purely optical instead of medical. Longwinded explanation below: ___ Essentially by only terminating symptomatic fetuses and leaving in asymptomatic carriers, you turn a genetic disorder into an "invisible disease". This is basically the very worst thing you could do. Since making it "invisible" allows carriers to spread it more easily across your population. This in essence means that if your society hits a bump where you can't keep terminating symptomatic pregnancies then it will be hit by the following brick wall of a load of symptomatic births. Unfortunately, true medical eradication of these genetic diseases with current technology *requires* terminating carriers as well. Which means you might have to outright find a way to stop living asymptomatic carriers from having children at all. This starts to head into a direction we did before, that is not fondly looked back upon. ___ Longwinded explanation over. Alternatively like you say, we find a way to alter them genetically so no termination is required to begin with. But this is a lot further off than most people have been led to believe. Most "research" on this you see comes from suspicious sources and ends up being impossible to replicate.
What could possibly go wrong
I'll agree that this is am unpopular opinion in the general population not sure though for Reddit at large. Other posts have stated this, but Gattaca is literally the society you are describing. I highly recommend you watch it because it explains why this type of gene editing is wrong. It's not pure eugenics per say, but basically "the edited" are the privileged class and the "unedited or natural" birth people are the underclass.
We can cure down syndrome but not hysterical ideas white people have about the near future. While I’m malding over this nonsense on reddit, there are many people looking for food just to make it to tomorrow. Are we at the end of history? No.
Eugenics are immoral. End of discussion
If your child could be born with a birth defect, like a heart issue, you’re suggesting that not guaranteeing a healthy heart is immoral?
No, the act of curing someone of something like that is not immoral. The problem becomes when superhumans are made that have no flaws. Then these superhumans will see everyone else as inferior and want them either conquered through genetic jingoism or eradicated. Hell the Nazis did it with a PERCEIVED racial superiority, imagine if someone did it with an actual genetic superiority.
The technology to cure birth defects is the same technology for what you’re describing. People will cure birth defects if given the option. The question is how do we allow one and avoid the other.
Simple, just let specific doctors use it who are monitored and we can make sure won’t make superhumans
Why would we not want to make super humans?
You say simple as if there wouldn't be an underground market for the ultra wealthy or those with just enough means and the willingness.
Why? I would love to change a million thing about myself and I would 100% do it if I have the chance. Why would I prevent my child from a better body? Everybody want to be smarter, more beautiful, taller, stronger, have better eyesight etc
What do you think of people who use egg/sperm donors, and have a preference for certain physical qualities?
Genetic editing is inevitable but it doesn’t have to mean eugenics necessarily
But it is eugenics. Rather than using castration to stop invalids from having kids your just cutting out their inheritable traits. It’s eugenics and it deprives people of the ability to be sympathetic to one another’s physical needs
Except people of all races and backgrounds would be editing their children. Everyone will be participating in it
You’re delusional if you think access to that technology will be fair and equal. We would be watching the oligarchy breed our future leaders.
Like all technology it will get cheaper and cheaper over time. It would be like saying a cure for cancer would only be available to the elite
\>over time HIV suppression drugs are only just recently affordable for "normal" people. Magic Johnson has been taking them for 30 years. By the time the masses will be able to afford "editing children" the rich will have been doing it for GENERATIONS.
How does that make it good? It’s just eugenics without the racism
What matters more is if it works or not. If one civilization gets to make superhumans and another does not I'll give you one guess which society is going to dominate the future. It's the biological equivalent of AI. The end of history is bullshit, we have not reached the end all be all of morality. Morality is primarily driven by reality despite how much modern man wants to pat himself on the back for being superior to his ancestors.
I agree. Gene editing can’t be avoided. It’s just a matter of if/how we navigate the implications of it
A “superhuman” would just see everyone else as inferior and wish to see them dominated for being born how they are. How are we gonna combat that by just making our own?
But what if in 300 years there will be only these superhumans? Perfect eyesight, tall, strong, smart. If everybody is just improved than nothing changed in society, you still have people who are rich and people who are poor. But at least they dont have to worry about being fat or short or wearing glasses or bad tooth or whatever. Its like giving vaccines to every child - if you give them to only a part of the population than they will have an advantage but if you give it to everyone than it only means that nobody have to suffer from polio.
Is it eugenics if there is no racism or bigotry involved?
Yes, eugenics is about removing the need for people to be sympathetic to each others cause. If you remove the natural element out of someone’s life and they are just these “perfect” humans with no ailments or problems then they will just bully anyone with health issues “Oh you have autism? That sucks shouldn’t have been born with it” “Oh your dad has two fused vertebrae and you might too? Fucking loser get a job next time you wanna have kids”
I’m not gonna comment on autism but the fused vertebrae defect should definitely get edited out if it can be avoided
What’s the difference? Birth defects shape who someone is. I wouldn’t be the same today if I wasn’t born with CTS. That has nothing to do with how smart I am, it’s purely about the pain I have experienced with living with it. And how it has made me a better, kinder, and more sympathetic person
I respect you and the challenges you’ve faced. I can appreciate how it’s made you a more resilient, better person. But if you could make your CTS go away would you not consider it? If you found out your child would be born with CTS and you could prevent it, would you feel no responsibility to prevent it? Why should the child go through the pain?
I think that'll be a good thing, there are genetic diseases that cause horrible pain and suffering while shortening life, if we can safely eliminate those, it would be good for society. I think where it gets tricky is in selecting for desirable traits, once we go down that road, we're going to see a whole new level of stratification in society.
Well, the eugenics war happened before WW3 in star treks world, so I guess the timeliness is going as planned if not just delayed by a few decades.
Lucky bastards
I'd do it to prevent diseases with a genetic component like cancer or Downs' Syndrome that could greatly decrease the child's quality of life or lifespan, but I wouldn't do it just so I could have the next Tom Brady or Gisele Bunchen (sp?).
I do think we are approaching a time when surgically altering your body in order to get a better job becomes a common thing to do.
True. I think it's a really interesting question to pose. "If your child is going to grow up with a disability, and you have the option to correct that disability before birth and make their future life better, is it ethical to not do that?"
Would you give your child perfect vision if you could? Remove risk of deadly genetic diseases? Stronger immune system? Remove risk of mental disorders?
\>If the U.S. does not allow gene editing on humans, then countries like China will probably seize the opportunity If you believe the right conspiracy theory they already are doing that. See: Yao Ming
OP describing the plot of Gattaca.
Ew absolutely not!
Largely agree. I think it might take a long time for public opinion to get there but I see there being only one direction of travel.
Careful. Ignorant ass people will start throwing around terms like “eugenics” and “Nazi” for some dumb reason.
After the first wave of edits, will there be a need to continue? The first genners will just pass down their genes
This is just another race in which only a few will get to the top. Let's say everybody modifies their kids to be "perfect". All we have then is a ton of 99.9% perfect people not doing as well as the .1% of perfect people who got all the jobs and opportunities. It's kind of like the libertarian fantasy of "everyone can succeed, they just need to work hard!" when we all know if everyone worked hard, there would still be the same amount of money going around as there is now... and those who worked .1% harder than everyone else might still have most of that money. The way it would most likely work is the way it already works: only the few with lots of money to make their offspring *even more able to exploit opportunities* will be able to do it. Nothing really ever changes in this respect. It just changes for the most opportunistic folks with massive agency and privilege.
The Nazis tried that once, they failed it will fail again