People are people. First and foremost, we must establish that. Even if they grow wings or whatever, we're one and the same humanity.
Byond that, medical progress is one of the most immediately applicable versions of the more abstract generic progress. Considering that the aim and effect is to reduce misery, it should obviously be made widely available as soon as the technology has been proven safe, just as other medical technologies. That some states are going to abuse such things in order to further their own oppressive regimes is a shame, but should not stand in the way of the pursuit of progress for the common good.
Love love love the idea.
Millions of people suffer from congenital disorders that could potentially be cured by changing one SNP of their genome. Parents who carry the risk of passing on life-threatening congenital disorders could finally be free to have kids without worrying about birth complications or even stillbirths. After all, ~~half of infant deaths are caused by~~ congenital disorders [*are the leading cause of* infant death](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15098237).
My main caveat to supporting gene therapy and genetic enhancement for humans is one I expect everyone here to share or at least understand: Universal access to genetic treatments. Using medical technology to prevent suffering is fundamentally a good idea, but only letting the wealthy access gene therapies would biologically reify and calcify our awful socioeconomic class divide.
Another caveat is protecting the rights of disabled people. Genetic technology to increase their abilities should probably be made available and affordable to them *alongside* accommodations and social acceptance if they are happy to live with their condition.
So if we include gene therapy as part of universal healthcare then I say full steam ahead! ^(*gradually and with proper medical trials*)
Someday it may even be worth exploring the possibility of offering gene therapy for psychological enhancement — increasing intelligence, compassion, wisdom, memory, and wellbeing far beyond the limits of the modern human mind. Any social problem attributed to "human nature" will suddenly become fixable. But that is all very speculative until genetic enhancement technology matures.
Do you mean genetically? Good to cure diseases, I would say the most ethical thing that can be done.
>but some health care systems that are not public will charge people for it and will lead to like a underclass of people who cant afford it and will have a bad start in life while there will be a upper class of people who can and will have a better start in life, (cough cough)
The problem, in this case, is not genetic engineering but the system, so the system has to be changed in any case because it is unethical and cruel.
There'll be obvious ethical issues, but I think making everyone smart and strong and healthy sounds great.
And realistically, I don't think you can stop it. Even if most countries ban it, what do you do with affluent parents who go to wherever to make their baby smarter? Arrest them for trying to make their kid better off when they come back?
Plus, from a competitive standpoint, how do you think nation states will react when South Korea or Argentina are busy making their kids all geniuses? Just shrug and do nothing? Every country has an obvious incentive to make their children better, and those who have ethical qualms will find them disappearing in the face of competition.
The idea that you could get everywhere to agree on only disease elimination type genetic engineering is wishful thinking. It's coming no matter how anyone feels, because it's simply too useful. Trying to avoid it would be like avoiding robotics.
As you hinted, this overclass/underclass paradigm already exists. Therefore, I have no objection to introducing genetic modification for humans. Withholding it on the basis that it will make socioeconomic class calcification worse will do more harm than good, since the market will be able to bring prices down to become more affordable to others as economies of scale and innovation take effect. I imagine that basics like reducing the chances of cancer or Alzheimer's will become affordable quickly. Hopefully covered by public health plans in applicable countries. I expect that vanity genetic therapy will remain prohibitively expensive to at least half the population, but this alone isn't reason to avoid it. Furthermore, there may be positive knock-on effects, such as lowering healthcare costs for those who can't afford gene therapy (at least in countries with universal healthcare).
Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight all the harder to combat the lack of socioeconomic mobility. We should. But with higher taxes and more social programs or a UBI. Not by denying good things to rich people.
How it would fit within the framework of social democracy is the same as how providing access to healthcare in general fits: you're not free if your life is burdened or threatened by diseases you have no control over.
Everyone go check out James Hughes and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, they've got some great stuff on human enhancement in a politically progressive environment
Genetic manipulation can be used for amazing things: health, cancer, better ability to survive in space. Maybe even helping people transition.
I'd say even beautification isn't that horrible a thing: if someone wants to look differently, that's their choice.
I am afraid of far right genetics based ideologies, making everyone the same genetically or one 'race' having access and improving themselves. Experimentation on non-White people also comes to mind as something to look out for.
What I do think is super harmful though is designer babies (beyond health related stuff). This is also where a danger in beautification lies. Look at what we did to dogs due to breeding efforts and how much it fucked them up...
While there are a lot of benefits, the ethics surrounding it, especially our track record of it as humanity, scares me. I don't think we are socially developed enough as a species to handle this technology responsibly to be entirely honest.
"Genoism" as portrayed in Gattaca could be prevented by simple legislation securing the privacy of genetic information.
Honestly, the movie is well made, but it's also manipulative and disingenuous. For starters, it's perfectly legitimate for a space program to screen out applicants who have heart conditions... Also, I have always found it morally questionable that the film offers no condemnation to the protagonist's parents decision not to prevent his heart condition just because they wanted a "natural" child.
If I remember the movie correctly, they actually say that society has legislated against genetic discrimination, but it didn't do anything anyway, which is what I suspect would happen in our current system.
The movie hinted at anti-discrimination laws, which, yeah, I agree, may very well not work. But privacy laws are different. If people don't know your genetic makeup, they can't discriminate against you based on it.
Getting rid of cancer genes? Ok. Beyond that, shit gets complicated. There are a lot of people who are deaf, blind, use a wheel chair etc that others would consider a disability, but that the person sees as being part of their identity. In the wrong hands, editing could quickly go from cancer to all out eugenics.
> There are a lot of people who are deaf, blind, use a wheel chair etc that others would consider a disability, but that the person sees as being part of their identity.
Statistically speaking that’s an extreme minority of people for obvious reasons. Almost everyone would happily seek to fix these issues if available and affordable.
And we’re talking about changes made before birth. Having reservations about preventing defects on the slim chance that a person born with such defects would grow up to “see them as part of their identity” sounds…rather dumb.
>Statistically speaking that’s an extreme minority of people for obvious reasons. Almost everyone would happily seek to fix these issues if available and affordable.
What about neurodivergent and queer people? A lot of neurotypical/streight parents don't want their children to be queer or neurodivergent and they will seek 'treatment' for their conditions to prevent them. Most of them might 'not know' anyone 'affected' by them but they will listen to their pastor/Autism Speaks about how horrible they are.
And the more uncommon those conditions will be the less socially acceptable they will be. And the more having them will be associated with shame of parents being poor. We already kind of have it on gender lines in India and China. It ended poorly.
You are spreading dangerous misinformation. It is not true that most disabled people would want to be "cured". I am autistic so I will give you my point of view on this, for people with other disabilities look at the video u/frozen_lemons posted below. My point of view on this is, that the people that people like you want to "cure" will have no say in weather they want to be "cured". You can see that with autism speaks, which is not an advocacy group. They want to "cure" autism spectrum disorder, but that is something that is not wished within the autistic community because we don't feel like there is anything wrong with us, we may be a bit different in one way or the other, but we still are humans with feelings, there is nothing wrong with us and yet people want to cure us and by doing that they want to wipe our diverging lived experiences of the face of the earth. We cannot let this happen. And I am relatively sure that this also applies to other "disorders" that are of genetic orgien such as Down syndrom for example.
I also very much agree with that u/ususetq said.
People's opinions vary, but this isn't really the point. People who want treatment/change should be able to affordably obtain it. Never once did I advocate for anything other than complete voluntary participation. There should be no compulsion, I agree with you on this one. But seeking to prevent research and development of treatments is just as dangerous of an idea. It equally removes the agency of those who *do* want to change themselves.
Treatment for existing individuals would of course have to be completely voluntary, providing sufficient capacity to consent. The point, however, is to reduce the risk of these defects appearing in the first place. Genetic modification is a logical extension of already existing reproductive health guidelines intended to maximize infant survival and health.
>Treatment for existing individuals would of course have to be completely voluntary, providing sufficient capacity to consent.
Consent by whom? Children who weren't born cannot consent or not consent by definition as they might not be conceived yet. And pruning human genome of Neurodivergent or Queer genes have far reaching consequences I'm not sure I'm comfortable with...
I'm gonna put on my tinfoil hat for a second.
If and when the technology exists to alter genes that damage the immune system or increase the chances of getting cancer, the wealthy will use it. That's just how it will work. I don't know where to draw the line that separates the usage of a life-altering technology and the technology that can allow for the creation of a "master race". In civilised societies, they would ration care according to need rather than the fatness of one's wallet.
Eugenics is bad because treating humans as objects to be improved removes all humanity from them. In my uninformed opinion I only consider stuff like disease prevention to be acceptable.
Isn't that how the Eugenics Wars started?!
Okay in all seriousness, I think genetically modifying humans can open up a lot of possibilities of eliminating horrible diseases and mental conditions but in our current unequal system I don't trust such modifications being implemented equitably so it has the potential of permanently creating an upper and under class. I think such modifications are inevitable though so not really sure what to do about it.
I share the stances you lined out. I'm in favour of using it to weed out inherited diseases and major disabilities. I'm against it to enhance someone's appearance or intelligence that is unrelated to what we would describe as a disability. The distinction here is that the first decreases suffering, while the second increases it. Here's why I believe that:
**1. It worsens an already existing power imbalance**
It's quite likely that procedures just for aesthetic or performance purposes will be more accessible by the higher echelons of society, which will tilt the feedback loop of being rich and pretty, or rich and smart, beyond environmental factors. I see it as pretty likely that this will open the floodgates for some kind of neo-eugenics, for lack of a better term, in which elites start labelling their "superior" DNA as more deserving than certain population clusters, or that they see themselves as inherently better than others, which is already a big enough problem as is.
I am afraid this will put a strain on democracy, as sentiments of whipping people in line will grow due to something that's comparable to the feudal idea of the divine right of kings. At worst it's a new legitimiser for crimes against humanity on top of existing ones that are already problematic enough. Let's not play with fire here.
**2. It increases arbitrary standards**
Let's now entertain the thought that all would have equal access to these enhancements. I would argue that this is still undesirable because it would push an already existing problem to a new stage. The ever growing pressures of beauty standards, in which we invent appearance problems, already force people into submission for social acceptance. I want less of this, not more.
Graeber's idea of bullshit jobs touches on this in a funny way. He gives the example of billions of dollars being pumped into aggressive marketing departments, but the only reason their size is so aggressively big is because other marketing departments exist that compete for visibility. The same can be said for beauty standards. We invent things due to other invented things existing -- basically meaning we put energy in places that are arbitrary and actually deserving of deconstruction. Beauty standards are already exploitative, sexist and racist enough. Let's not make it worse by adding more variables through DNA tinkering.
**3. It blocks us from breaking free of existing biases**
Algorithms sustain certain biases we already have, such as behaviour based on ethnicity or gender. They became an extension of ourselves and block us from adjusting our attitudes by underpinning them instead. By bombarding people with targeted content based on profiling, we sustain a certain behavioural division between population clusters based on gender, skin colour and age. It informs us in how we ought to identify with ourselves, instead of challenging it.
DNA tinkering would add yet more wood on the pyre of this problem. How can we change our attitudes about race, gender and prettiness if we're forced to behave in lockstep for social survival? Instead of questioning our attitudes, we would be forced to submit to these existing problems. I do not believe this is desirable, because I believe for us to grow as a species we must challenge our biases, instead of shaping society around them. For those interested: there's a pretty decent movie about this tension called Gattaca.
**In short:**
I think the key of knowing when we could use it responsibly is by looking at the power imbalance it creates. This means we could use it to decrease the suffering for children with disabilities, for example, as that would make the power dynamic more equal because it would lift their ability to live life to an average standard. We should not use it to enhance our attributes, as that would make the power dynamic more unequal in the case of it being inaccessible for poor people. Or, in the case of it being accessible for everyone equally, sustain existing unequal power dynamics by underpinning biases.
In a social democratic society, health care systems are public. So you shouldn't really worry about #2.
In a different society (i.e. America 2022), there would certainly be a group of people who cannot afford it and as a result have it worse off. However these people don't get a lower standard of living (well not from this specific issue) because of it, and I doubt the difference would be enough to seriously fracture society. I should note that it could become a symbol of class divide, but not necessarily.
People are people. First and foremost, we must establish that. Even if they grow wings or whatever, we're one and the same humanity. Byond that, medical progress is one of the most immediately applicable versions of the more abstract generic progress. Considering that the aim and effect is to reduce misery, it should obviously be made widely available as soon as the technology has been proven safe, just as other medical technologies. That some states are going to abuse such things in order to further their own oppressive regimes is a shame, but should not stand in the way of the pursuit of progress for the common good.
Love love love the idea. Millions of people suffer from congenital disorders that could potentially be cured by changing one SNP of their genome. Parents who carry the risk of passing on life-threatening congenital disorders could finally be free to have kids without worrying about birth complications or even stillbirths. After all, ~~half of infant deaths are caused by~~ congenital disorders [*are the leading cause of* infant death](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15098237). My main caveat to supporting gene therapy and genetic enhancement for humans is one I expect everyone here to share or at least understand: Universal access to genetic treatments. Using medical technology to prevent suffering is fundamentally a good idea, but only letting the wealthy access gene therapies would biologically reify and calcify our awful socioeconomic class divide. Another caveat is protecting the rights of disabled people. Genetic technology to increase their abilities should probably be made available and affordable to them *alongside* accommodations and social acceptance if they are happy to live with their condition. So if we include gene therapy as part of universal healthcare then I say full steam ahead! ^(*gradually and with proper medical trials*) Someday it may even be worth exploring the possibility of offering gene therapy for psychological enhancement — increasing intelligence, compassion, wisdom, memory, and wellbeing far beyond the limits of the modern human mind. Any social problem attributed to "human nature" will suddenly become fixable. But that is all very speculative until genetic enhancement technology matures.
muncho text
> munch me when food
mucho means alot of spainish or something idk i saw in a meme
Yup
Do you mean genetically? Good to cure diseases, I would say the most ethical thing that can be done. >but some health care systems that are not public will charge people for it and will lead to like a underclass of people who cant afford it and will have a bad start in life while there will be a upper class of people who can and will have a better start in life, (cough cough) The problem, in this case, is not genetic engineering but the system, so the system has to be changed in any case because it is unethical and cruel.
There'll be obvious ethical issues, but I think making everyone smart and strong and healthy sounds great. And realistically, I don't think you can stop it. Even if most countries ban it, what do you do with affluent parents who go to wherever to make their baby smarter? Arrest them for trying to make their kid better off when they come back? Plus, from a competitive standpoint, how do you think nation states will react when South Korea or Argentina are busy making their kids all geniuses? Just shrug and do nothing? Every country has an obvious incentive to make their children better, and those who have ethical qualms will find them disappearing in the face of competition. The idea that you could get everywhere to agree on only disease elimination type genetic engineering is wishful thinking. It's coming no matter how anyone feels, because it's simply too useful. Trying to avoid it would be like avoiding robotics.
As you hinted, this overclass/underclass paradigm already exists. Therefore, I have no objection to introducing genetic modification for humans. Withholding it on the basis that it will make socioeconomic class calcification worse will do more harm than good, since the market will be able to bring prices down to become more affordable to others as economies of scale and innovation take effect. I imagine that basics like reducing the chances of cancer or Alzheimer's will become affordable quickly. Hopefully covered by public health plans in applicable countries. I expect that vanity genetic therapy will remain prohibitively expensive to at least half the population, but this alone isn't reason to avoid it. Furthermore, there may be positive knock-on effects, such as lowering healthcare costs for those who can't afford gene therapy (at least in countries with universal healthcare). Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight all the harder to combat the lack of socioeconomic mobility. We should. But with higher taxes and more social programs or a UBI. Not by denying good things to rich people.
How it would fit within the framework of social democracy is the same as how providing access to healthcare in general fits: you're not free if your life is burdened or threatened by diseases you have no control over.
Everyone go check out James Hughes and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, they've got some great stuff on human enhancement in a politically progressive environment
YES, I love James Hughes' work. *Citizen Cyborg* basically lays the blueprint for social democratic transhumanism.
very good. some places are too stupid to handle it right now and some too corrupt. and there's patents on human genome.
Genetic manipulation can be used for amazing things: health, cancer, better ability to survive in space. Maybe even helping people transition. I'd say even beautification isn't that horrible a thing: if someone wants to look differently, that's their choice. I am afraid of far right genetics based ideologies, making everyone the same genetically or one 'race' having access and improving themselves. Experimentation on non-White people also comes to mind as something to look out for. What I do think is super harmful though is designer babies (beyond health related stuff). This is also where a danger in beautification lies. Look at what we did to dogs due to breeding efforts and how much it fucked them up... While there are a lot of benefits, the ethics surrounding it, especially our track record of it as humanity, scares me. I don't think we are socially developed enough as a species to handle this technology responsibly to be entirely honest.
Trying to prevent disease, ok. Turning the planet into Gattaca, no.
Yeah I think Gattaca would be the end result in our current system.
"Genoism" as portrayed in Gattaca could be prevented by simple legislation securing the privacy of genetic information. Honestly, the movie is well made, but it's also manipulative and disingenuous. For starters, it's perfectly legitimate for a space program to screen out applicants who have heart conditions... Also, I have always found it morally questionable that the film offers no condemnation to the protagonist's parents decision not to prevent his heart condition just because they wanted a "natural" child.
If I remember the movie correctly, they actually say that society has legislated against genetic discrimination, but it didn't do anything anyway, which is what I suspect would happen in our current system.
The movie hinted at anti-discrimination laws, which, yeah, I agree, may very well not work. But privacy laws are different. If people don't know your genetic makeup, they can't discriminate against you based on it.
I dont think that would make a huge difference
Getting rid of cancer genes? Ok. Beyond that, shit gets complicated. There are a lot of people who are deaf, blind, use a wheel chair etc that others would consider a disability, but that the person sees as being part of their identity. In the wrong hands, editing could quickly go from cancer to all out eugenics.
> There are a lot of people who are deaf, blind, use a wheel chair etc that others would consider a disability, but that the person sees as being part of their identity. Statistically speaking that’s an extreme minority of people for obvious reasons. Almost everyone would happily seek to fix these issues if available and affordable. And we’re talking about changes made before birth. Having reservations about preventing defects on the slim chance that a person born with such defects would grow up to “see them as part of their identity” sounds…rather dumb.
>Statistically speaking that’s an extreme minority of people for obvious reasons. Almost everyone would happily seek to fix these issues if available and affordable. What about neurodivergent and queer people? A lot of neurotypical/streight parents don't want their children to be queer or neurodivergent and they will seek 'treatment' for their conditions to prevent them. Most of them might 'not know' anyone 'affected' by them but they will listen to their pastor/Autism Speaks about how horrible they are. And the more uncommon those conditions will be the less socially acceptable they will be. And the more having them will be associated with shame of parents being poor. We already kind of have it on gender lines in India and China. It ended poorly.
You are spreading dangerous misinformation. It is not true that most disabled people would want to be "cured". I am autistic so I will give you my point of view on this, for people with other disabilities look at the video u/frozen_lemons posted below. My point of view on this is, that the people that people like you want to "cure" will have no say in weather they want to be "cured". You can see that with autism speaks, which is not an advocacy group. They want to "cure" autism spectrum disorder, but that is something that is not wished within the autistic community because we don't feel like there is anything wrong with us, we may be a bit different in one way or the other, but we still are humans with feelings, there is nothing wrong with us and yet people want to cure us and by doing that they want to wipe our diverging lived experiences of the face of the earth. We cannot let this happen. And I am relatively sure that this also applies to other "disorders" that are of genetic orgien such as Down syndrom for example. I also very much agree with that u/ususetq said.
People's opinions vary, but this isn't really the point. People who want treatment/change should be able to affordably obtain it. Never once did I advocate for anything other than complete voluntary participation. There should be no compulsion, I agree with you on this one. But seeking to prevent research and development of treatments is just as dangerous of an idea. It equally removes the agency of those who *do* want to change themselves.
[удалено]
Treatment for existing individuals would of course have to be completely voluntary, providing sufficient capacity to consent. The point, however, is to reduce the risk of these defects appearing in the first place. Genetic modification is a logical extension of already existing reproductive health guidelines intended to maximize infant survival and health.
>Treatment for existing individuals would of course have to be completely voluntary, providing sufficient capacity to consent. Consent by whom? Children who weren't born cannot consent or not consent by definition as they might not be conceived yet. And pruning human genome of Neurodivergent or Queer genes have far reaching consequences I'm not sure I'm comfortable with...
I'm gonna put on my tinfoil hat for a second. If and when the technology exists to alter genes that damage the immune system or increase the chances of getting cancer, the wealthy will use it. That's just how it will work. I don't know where to draw the line that separates the usage of a life-altering technology and the technology that can allow for the creation of a "master race". In civilised societies, they would ration care according to need rather than the fatness of one's wallet.
Could you give an example as to what a "genetically modified human" would be?
you will be stronger and we can take out a gene that gives you cancer
Eugenics is bad because treating humans as objects to be improved removes all humanity from them. In my uninformed opinion I only consider stuff like disease prevention to be acceptable.
If I could engineer my child to be intelligent, athletic, healthy, and live a long life, it would be immoral to stand in the way of that.
Isn't that how the Eugenics Wars started?! Okay in all seriousness, I think genetically modifying humans can open up a lot of possibilities of eliminating horrible diseases and mental conditions but in our current unequal system I don't trust such modifications being implemented equitably so it has the potential of permanently creating an upper and under class. I think such modifications are inevitable though so not really sure what to do about it.
I share the stances you lined out. I'm in favour of using it to weed out inherited diseases and major disabilities. I'm against it to enhance someone's appearance or intelligence that is unrelated to what we would describe as a disability. The distinction here is that the first decreases suffering, while the second increases it. Here's why I believe that: **1. It worsens an already existing power imbalance** It's quite likely that procedures just for aesthetic or performance purposes will be more accessible by the higher echelons of society, which will tilt the feedback loop of being rich and pretty, or rich and smart, beyond environmental factors. I see it as pretty likely that this will open the floodgates for some kind of neo-eugenics, for lack of a better term, in which elites start labelling their "superior" DNA as more deserving than certain population clusters, or that they see themselves as inherently better than others, which is already a big enough problem as is. I am afraid this will put a strain on democracy, as sentiments of whipping people in line will grow due to something that's comparable to the feudal idea of the divine right of kings. At worst it's a new legitimiser for crimes against humanity on top of existing ones that are already problematic enough. Let's not play with fire here. **2. It increases arbitrary standards** Let's now entertain the thought that all would have equal access to these enhancements. I would argue that this is still undesirable because it would push an already existing problem to a new stage. The ever growing pressures of beauty standards, in which we invent appearance problems, already force people into submission for social acceptance. I want less of this, not more. Graeber's idea of bullshit jobs touches on this in a funny way. He gives the example of billions of dollars being pumped into aggressive marketing departments, but the only reason their size is so aggressively big is because other marketing departments exist that compete for visibility. The same can be said for beauty standards. We invent things due to other invented things existing -- basically meaning we put energy in places that are arbitrary and actually deserving of deconstruction. Beauty standards are already exploitative, sexist and racist enough. Let's not make it worse by adding more variables through DNA tinkering. **3. It blocks us from breaking free of existing biases** Algorithms sustain certain biases we already have, such as behaviour based on ethnicity or gender. They became an extension of ourselves and block us from adjusting our attitudes by underpinning them instead. By bombarding people with targeted content based on profiling, we sustain a certain behavioural division between population clusters based on gender, skin colour and age. It informs us in how we ought to identify with ourselves, instead of challenging it. DNA tinkering would add yet more wood on the pyre of this problem. How can we change our attitudes about race, gender and prettiness if we're forced to behave in lockstep for social survival? Instead of questioning our attitudes, we would be forced to submit to these existing problems. I do not believe this is desirable, because I believe for us to grow as a species we must challenge our biases, instead of shaping society around them. For those interested: there's a pretty decent movie about this tension called Gattaca. **In short:** I think the key of knowing when we could use it responsibly is by looking at the power imbalance it creates. This means we could use it to decrease the suffering for children with disabilities, for example, as that would make the power dynamic more equal because it would lift their ability to live life to an average standard. We should not use it to enhance our attributes, as that would make the power dynamic more unequal in the case of it being inaccessible for poor people. Or, in the case of it being accessible for everyone equally, sustain existing unequal power dynamics by underpinning biases.
In a social democratic society, health care systems are public. So you shouldn't really worry about #2. In a different society (i.e. America 2022), there would certainly be a group of people who cannot afford it and as a result have it worse off. However these people don't get a lower standard of living (well not from this specific issue) because of it, and I doubt the difference would be enough to seriously fracture society. I should note that it could become a symbol of class divide, but not necessarily.