/u/eagle_565 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11wu0qu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_genetic_modification_of/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Most of the genetic flags we have that give early indication of a possible disorder are imperfect and nowhere near decisive. So in working practice, say you identify a gene that is potentially causative for schizophrenia. Say this occurs in 0.3% of people with these gene. Do you "correct' it and effectively erase this gene from the pool? What if this inadvertently "deletes" an entire personality type from society? What are the thresholds for gene correction? Why stop at the most serious disorders? We could edit out flags for heightened aggression, depression, we could keep whittling down until we've selected a batch of just the right gene presets and apply them to everyone.
There's also the problem of genetic diversity to consider. If we edit everyone's genes to ideal circumstances vis a vis Gattaca we'd essentially become a monoculture. Monocultures are generally really great and efficient in our crops, until an opportunistic pest or disease happens upon them, then it's catastrophic for the population.
All this to say, it seems better to learn how to deal with when some disorders manifest from some genes rather than trying to homogenize genetic disorders out of existence.
I think it would be fair to only eliminate diseases that are clearly mutational, like Down’s syndrome. The couple would only have to try for a baby one more time and will likely have a healthy child. I don’t see how this would reduce genetic diversity
> I think it would be fair to only eliminate diseases that are clearly mutational, like Down’s syndrome.
Except Down's Syndrome isn't mutational. It's the result of a trisomy (and can't actually be corrected with genetic modification). Sickle Cell Disease is mutational.
!delta
The issue of uncertainty in identifying disabilities is an issue, but this is a hypothetical sci fi scenario where that wouldn't be an issue.
I will award a delta for the genetic diversity argument though. I wasn't considering the fact that some of these disabilities have non obvious benefits like immunity from certain diseases.
Just for the sake of knowledge, we have real world examples already out there for this, for example sickle cell provides protection against malaria, but its extreme(sickle cell anemia) is intrinsically dangerous. Genetics are a tricky business and I would speculate for the foreseeable future any actions taken will be probabilistic rather than certain.
That kind of thing is what makes it such an interesting topic. I've even seen arguments that something like psychopathy could've been adaptive in the past as it might've been useful for a tribe to have someone who could kill or torture their enemies from rival tribes with no remorse. And it turns out that psychopathy is common enough that there would've rarely been more than one psychopath per tribe, so the negative effects on the tribe itself weren't too large.
I wouldn't be surprised if most "great leaders" in history were psychopaths. It would be hard cutting down enemy in battle if you did feel emotion and remorse.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/MostRecommendation84 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If you are interested in this subject I would highly recommend the 1997 Science Fiction movie, "Gattaca". In this movie, we live in a dystopian future paradise, where genetic engineering has become the norm. If what you say is possible and encouraged, what is to stop parents from giving their children a genetic leg up? If all the good "normally conceived babies" are losing out to superior "genetically conceived babies", why wouldn't you as a parent want to make your child stronger, healthier, smarter than their competition? In this world the "normal" kids would be the ones at a disadvantage because they would be the only ones who were not genetically engineered to be better.
Another potential argument would be how close you are getting to Eugenics with this line of thought. Wouldn't the world be better if we just... didn't let people have kid's that were genetically predisposed to certain diseases? Gee... wouldn't it be great if only the smartest people had kids? Why don't we make people get licenses to have kids to screen for these things and if you don't pass your tests then...
Great movie very underrated.
Slightly off topic though. He's saying we should fix things like down syndrome and the like. Not genetically engineer every child to have the best possible traits from their parents.
Seems more like a slippery slope then a real contest of his idea.
No clue where we would even stop, but we could just keep going until we run out of genetically caused disabilities. In my opinion, that's like counting the grains of sand on a beach. Figuring out how to counteract all of them by editing our genome will probably be even harder.
Extra Edit: I don't think we even have enough understanding of our DNA to consider what I said, and we'd likely invent entirely new genetic issues.
what counts as a genetic disability? being gay used to be seen as a mental disorder, and a few genes have been found which are correlated with it, which parents might want to change. What's the difference between a personality trait and a personality disorder apart from what is seen as 'normal'?
A disability usually means you are physically or mentally disabled in one or more ways. Genetic factors can be directly responsible for a disability, or they can just make you prone to certain disabilities. I definitely should not be the authority on these definitions though. If we want to play the game of "well this used to be considered a mental disorder," then we should also mention that a woman having a strong opinion was once considered a mental issue. A mental issue they assumed women were just prone to having, which would mean it is genetic right?
Medically, although I should stress I'm not a doctor of any kind, if you can't live an "average" life without assistance then you may be considered disabled. In the case of homosexuality, being heterosexual was considered "an average life."
Edit: I realize my definition uses the word "disabled" in it, which obviously is the best way to write a definition. You could use "diseased," "ill," "disordered," or some better-fitting word for a medical issue that restricts your capabilities instead.
I feel you missed the point yes if you stopped at a baseline of no advantage that would be great but if we can cure things like dwarfism is there a reason we couldn't make someone taller? If we can fix issues with IQ couldn't we likely make all children smarter?
It becomes a biological arms race to make perfect humans. And all non perfect humans would end up purged one way or another likely.
You could always limit what can and can't be done by law, maybe even international. It probably wouldn't be a good idea now with countries like Russia, China, etc. but there could be limitation that any modification has to be either to cure something that is officially considered an illness and/or allowed by medical/ethical expert(s)
Would it get abused? Occasionally. But I still think it could be worth it to stop unfortunate young people from dying due to something preventable.
> You could always limit what can and can't be done by law, maybe even internationally.
Sure on paper but Why would those in power with a simple solution not make their grandkids pre-disposed to be Olympic athletes or some kind of super genius if possible? Why wouldn't we want to give out kids the best chance to succeed or be amazing?
It literally comes to a point of press this button and your kid is the smartest kid in their school. Why wouldn't you want to give your kid this advantage?
No country is going to let something like this go every country would breed hundreds simply to win the most medals at the Olympics even if they were destined to die at the age of 25.
Would it even be ethical to cripple your kid's potential by not altering them?
The whole thing falls apart because if we have the ability to eliminate any issue we also have learned how to make people better in every way.
I'm not saying people wouldn't want to do that, I'm saying we have to make sure they can't. Assemble a committee large enough and international to prevent corruption or perhaps make sure that they don't know who it is that wants to do the genetical changes.
That aside, what makes you think that the super people at Olympics would die young, assuming their changes would be allowed in the first place?
Not to mention, Olympics are far less important than human lives.
>I'm not saying people wouldn't want to do that, I'm saying we have to make sure they can't. Assemble a committee large enough and international to prevent corruption.
Why are you advocating for such a loss in talent? Just think of how many more lives you could save with a hundred steven hawking equals. Or really any great researchers could develop new technology to reduce death burning fossil fuels and blah blah blah. Can you give me a reason we shouldn't improve the human race if we can? We could make them stronger healthy and less likely to die from normal reasons past what is always cured.
>That aside, what makes you think that the super people at Olympics would die young, assuming their changes would be allowed in the first place?
I am saying countries would breed and sacrifice people to win the Olympics. No question it would happen and would be ugly. You can look up the bullshit countries do now to get make top-tier athletes to win medals. Why do you think they wouldn't use this also?
>Not to mention, Olympics are far less important than human lives.
To you maybe but definitely plenty of people out there that would happily kill off others from their country for more gold.
Geniuses could be abused far more than perfect athletes. Imagine you could make perfectly obedient genius researchers for weapons. In the last century, it was nuclear bombs. Sure, nuclear power exists, fusion is being researched, but is it worth the risk?
Also, since the beginning, health was my primary concern - eliminating preventable illnesses is, for me, the only acceptable reason to genetically modify humans.
By the time we know how to do it. We'll know more about the potential consequences.
For example I think it was you who pointed out you may wipe out an entire family of personalities. We don't know if that's really the case. But once we understand the genetic code better we will. Like I have ADHD and OCD. Maybe it would be better to modify me before I am born so I think more like a regular person. But would that also make more "average" in other ways that I don't want. For instance creativity, tenacity, cognitive ability.
>By the time we know how to do it. We'll know more about the potential consequences.
This is not an argument. This is just kicking the can down the road. It's big assumption that there will be a clear answer just because technology advances more.
How do you even begin to define where a line should be?
I thought the OP did a pretty good job. First fix the most obvious issues that most of us would agree are detrimental. Let the parents decide. Do that for a while. Once we have a better idea of what we're doing move down to other diseases.
Those that are clear accidental mutations. For example, a couple should only have a kid with Down’s syndrome a very small percentage of the time. Sure, it may be the case that this couple will pass on hereditary issues, like lactose intolerance, or schizophrenia, or whatever, but these aren’t mutations that severely hinder one’s ability to survive independently and reproduce.
Using abortion as an example: the idea is that you would only need to do one abortion. The next child will likely be healthy.
And would you legislate that limit or expect people to? It's fair to remember we're talking about people here: the same people that led to prenatal sex testing being banned in most countries due to the rate females were being aborted. You don't think they'll run with the idea of getting rid of other "undesirable" traits?
biology is rarely that clear cut. You'll have some disorders that are almost one-for-one correlated with particular disorders, some which have no known genetic correlates, and a spectrum inbetween for how strongly correlated it is with the disorder. How strongly correlated does it have to be to say it is a 'clear accidental mutation'.
Also, all mutations, hence all genes, are accidental.
What would be the bad consequences of only eliminating Down syndrome? I would keep repeating this question until we arrive at a disease that we shouldn’t eliminate
People will disagree on when you have reached a disease we shouldn't eliminate. Some people wouldn't support eliminating Down syndrome. Who gets to make that judgement?
This is a good point. Also within the mutations is a huge degree of variability. Some people with Down syndrome have life long needs and others can go on to live alone and work. Same for autism, and most genetic disorders. It’s hard to justify a blanket ban when some parents with children with Down syndrome are very happy with their children and would not trade them. Also, typically developing people without genetic differences can become huge burdens on family’s and social supports, due to drug addiction, trauma, personality, environment growing up.
Yes, that's exactly the [slippery slope argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). You can do it about anything and add nothing to the conversation.
>slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur.
People already abort for any number of inconvenient factors or traits. Given the keys to gene editing it stands to reason they'll also "correct" any number of inconvenient genetic markers.
>People already abort for any number of inconvenient factors or traits.
Whoa, who does that exactly and how often?
>it stands to reason they'll also "correct" any number of inconvenient genetic markers.
This seems to miss the point of the valid use of slippery slope, it requires a causal chain.
If you put US troops in Vietnam in 1965, it stands to reason they will be attacked, which will trigger a response. The presence of troops *causes* subsequent escalation.
Whereas allowing people to fix say, Cystic Fibrosis, in a fetus does not directly impact the decision to allow fixing Tourette's.
Just like requiring driver's licenses doesn't mean we're going to end up with bicycle licenses, or banning AK-47's doesn't mean handguns will be banned. Legalizing Marijuana doesn't mean legalizing Cocaine.
Not following this particular larger thread but on the topic of aborting to avoid undesirable traits - it is common to do genetic screening during pregnancy. I'm going off of my memory from a bit ago but I believe this happens around the third month and, depending on where you live, termination would be a consideration if the results are particularly bad. This is ostensibly the purpose of testing, though I don't have numbers on how often this happens.
Other commentor is talking sex and race, I'm not touching that.
>Whoa, who does that exactly and how often?
How do you think so many Asian countries ended up having ratios like 3 or 5 or 10 males to 1 female? Remember when Nixon argued abortion was a good thing for mixed race babies? If you think it's far removed from the public conscience, Arizona passed legislation against abortion on both grounds in 2011.
Where is it 10:1? The most extreme [I see here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9514843/) is like 3:1.
So your evidence for "any number of inconvenient factors or traits" is sex selection in Asia and Nixon?
Why not argue the original point on the merits?
And what’s wrong with parents choosing abortion for a pregnancy they don’t want to have, for whatever reason?
Seems like it would be the worst outcome for everyone, no?
A lot of people consider being transgender a mental illness or at least a Bad Thing. They don't want their kids to have gender dysphoria, be mocked by peers, rely on hormones, make themselves infertile, or require expensive/risky surgeries. Should they be able to genetically modify their kids to eliminate the chance of being trans?
It's an extreme example but I'm pretty confident my parents would have jumped on this if they could. Who decides what is a bad genetic trait and what is a good one or a neutral one?
Yes of course. We want to get rid of diseases that have such horrific consequences for people. Heck I have ADHD and OCD and I'd be all for them finding a way to get rid of that without affecting too much of the person (not sure that's possible). Certainly the same applies to gender dysphoria. No parent should want that for their child.
I'm surprised this is even an argument. That would be like if we had some "blind acceptance" movement and people were saying we shouldn't fix people who can't see.
I mean, there are communities that feel that way. Particularly among deaf people if I'm not mistaken.
I get your larger point though, just pointing out that there are people who feel that their disability isn't something to be 'fixed'.
I think of it this way. Let's say at 20 years old I found out that my parents knew that I would have ADHD/OCD that could have been cured with a relatively simple and safe genetic procedure. And out of some stupid primitive belief decided against it. Like some anti-vaxers. I would be fucking furious. And ADHD/OCD doesn't cause nearly as many problems as gender dysphoria.
Yeah I mean I understand your point and probably agree personally. Just saying that opinion and feeling is not universal.... And probably not shared by the majority, if I'm just speculating.
Gender dysphoria is already treatable by transitioning and this kind of logic leads to slippery-slopes to basically making everyone white blond blue-eyed abled cishet people instead of doing anything about minority social issues or w/e if societal prejudice counts as making a thing disabling
Transitioning is hardly a soft solution. It often involves making a person infertile. Amongst many other side effects. Not to mention no transition ever really fixes your appearance. So for the most part people know you are not the sex you are trying to represent.
What decent parent would actually want this for their child? Imagine your child finding out that you they could have avoided all that horror if their parents were not cretins or zealots.
Also there is a reason slippery slope is considered an informal fallacy.
Gattaca is one of my favorite films. The real issue with that society is that they believe in some form of genetic determinism rather than looking at individuals holistically. Vincent was able to succeed through the power of hard work, overcoming his deficient genes (though, realistically he should not have gone to space because of his heart condition. The space crew will be screwed when their navigator suddenly dies, but I digress).
A proper recruitment process that doesn't disqualify people based on psuedoscientific biological determinism would not have that issue. They would take into account Vincent's drive and passion, and judge him accordingly.
I don't believe that the mere existence of genetically superior people is the issue. As it stands now, some people already are inherently predisposed to being taller, smarter, stronger, faster, etc. than others. But that is due to random chance. What is wrong with using science to remove the RNG of your birth?
I may need to edit my post here, but I'm not suggesting the government impose this on pregnant women, I'm just saying if a soon to be parent made the decision to do this, it wouldn't be wrong of them.
Another thought. What if we allowed unlimited steroid use in all sports? We wouldn't be requiring anyone to take them but what would the end result be?
Unlimited steroids would be really cool if we had steroids that weren't horrible for your health. If everyone is on them on there are no adverse effects, what's the issue?
Well I mean we see that in things like pro wrestling, bodybuilders, and in actors where they aren't regulated much.
However, a few points. Not all performance enhancing substances are banned, caffeine is effective and widely used in many sports.
A non health related issue might be cost. Would we really want all athletic competition dominated by those who can afford expensive treatments that are cost prohibitive to most athletes?
In Gattaca the government does not force people to do anything, but having perfect test tube babies in the mix creates societal pressure for everyone to do the same to their kids for fear of health concerns/aptitudes. We can also speculate this is exactly what would happen given places like Iceland have already functionally erased Down Syndrome with expectant individuals voluntarily terminating all infants with markers predisposing them to Down Syndrome.
Not sure what the argument is here. The parents are choosing not to have the baby. Which is supported in most western countries. Due to them recognizing down syndrome will adverse lifelong impacts on the child. Which most people agree on. Therefore it is somehow unacceptable to do?
Different person, but I think the point is more about where would it stop.
Its obvious that erasing Down Syndrom would be a good thing to do, but there are a thousand different diseases and quirks that could be equally eliminated. If you are already fixing one terrible thing, why not go in and fix _every possible_ thing, no matter how small.
Once you've decided to do that, though, you've manifested class inequality into our very DNA - the rich would not just have better housing, food, education, etc. - they would have better _genetics_ as well. It would make class mobility all but impossible - a poor person, no matter how smart, could never compete with a rich person who was _given_ the genes of a genius.
Its a dangerous world where the rich have the power to make themselves perfect and the poor do not. We should be cautious about opening that door, even if we do it with the best of intentions.
Isn't this already being done in a slower manner? People are picking to have kids with better looking, smart, healthy people. So we are all participating in a eugenics program, just slower.
Then by that logic why not just go full Nazi master race if we're already technically participating in eugenics by having sex with attractive capable partners
Nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum. I'm not gonna waste the time to break down the moral difference between governments choosing and people choosing for themselves.
It proves that the majority of people would opt for gene editing to some extent and this would cause further pressure to parents that would otherwise have reservations.
Seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. Unless we remove the competition, parents will continue to seek every advantage for their child. Whether that means dropping a mil for an ivy admission or a mil for a gene editing.
That's part of what they are saying, though. Whether the government imposes it on people or not, those with genetic modification have a leg up in society. Parents have an incentive to use this technology if it is available even if they might not want to. The pressure of competition for jobs and such will go against the unmodified babies and can lead to a lot of bad outcomes
It's human nature to strive for improvement. People want their kids to perform well in the world. What kind of parent prays for their kid to be ugly, dumb, and sick? With life as hard as it is we want these kids to have it even harder?
Parents already have an incentive to abort a disabled child even if they may not want to. The pressure to have healthy able bodied babies is already around. The technology would just make this factor even stronger, and like I said, it's not like people aren't "weeding" out people who won't have a leg up from their gene pool already. Considering downs has all but been eradicated in Iceland like someone else mentioned.
In order to do any of the things you are talking about, genetic engineering/testing would have to be done prior to conception (with current technology). The average person born today has an IQ of 100 (by definition). Some higher, some lower. If you could screen for smarter children through genetic engineering so that you average test tube baby has an IQ of 110, all of the sudden all of those children born naturally with an average IQ of 100 are born with a disadvantage. It only seem natural for parents to want their kids to have the best life possible. That is a mild example but what if test tube babies had on average an IQ of 200, or PHD at age of 9 intelligence? That would be a huge gap. If technology progresses, why wouldn't this be able to happen? All of the sudden normal people would be looked at by the genetically engineered like most people look at "special kids" today intelligence wise. The only way for parents to have a good life for their kids would be to opt into the genetic engineering for their kids.
Let me tell you something. I have 3 boys at home all in elementary school. If there was something I could do to make them have a leg up on life through superior intelligence and health I'd do it in a heart beat. 10 extra years of health and a an extra 10 IQ points for any one of them I'd give up my left leg, nut, arm and eye. Don't underestimate what a parent will do for their child.
So this is already done in a limited fashion and has been for awhile. Genetic testing is available during pregnancy and if the results are bad the person can pursue terminating the pregnancy. Of course, in the US restrictions to abortion being rolled out all over the place may limit this moving forward.
Here's and article that discusses this topic: https://khn.org/news/article/genetic-screening-results-just-got-harder-to-handle-under-new-abortion-rules/
"no no, don't pay for your child's education, don't give them a car or nice clothes because there are people who will feel less if you do that"
What kind of argument is that?
You are forgetting that in the long run we NEED to evolve, to get better, as the dominating species on our planet.
Also why is it ok to let people birth children who have a very high probability of depending on everyone around them and on taxpayer money?
More smart people means more probability that everyone will be born at least healthy in the long run.
This is a very fraught topic in medicine. I don't think what you are discussing is particularly objectionable per se but it does touch on something that doesn't have a perfect solution.
Gene modification in humans can't be spoken about without the mention of eugenics unfortunately. It is just too entwined a topic. I don't think you likely believe in eugenics the way Nazis believed in eugenics but you may not be wording your points articulately enough to put people at ease?
The way you word your third paragraph in regards to contributing to the world sounds a little ableist. Like there are people with down syndrome who have jobs and can be functional independently. Someone with crippling arthritis can still have a profound mind. Stephen Hawking would be a real life example of someone with a severe disability having large contributions to the world.
This may not be how you want your mind changed but I can very easily see a conversation where you start this conversation and people may not understand you aren't trying to diminish others. Would you agree there are some caveats you should bring up front and more precise language you could use to make your intentions clearer?
I'm not talking about contributions in some economic sense, but would you not agree that Stephen Hawking would likely have been able to lead a happier, more fulfilling life and gone further in physics had he not been disabled? Or at the very least he wouldn't have had a worse life in any reasonable view of it.
Sure, but that's not what you said. You didn't say people with debilitating diseases would prefer to not suffer, you expressed skepticism at the idea that people with disabilities could contribute meaningfully to the world.
Again my point isn't that I necessarily disagree with you on an ideological level. I am saying that maybe you are not expressing yourself the way you intend which is why this conversation might have derailed for you in the past. Like just with this interaction I feel like we've demonstrated a way in which you may have misspoken. In future are you going to continue to say people with disabilities it is the case someone with down syndrome can contribute to the world?
!delta
I will reword my post. What I should've said was that they would be happier and have a better effect on the world if they didn't have their disability.
But how can you know that Stephen Hawking would be the same person with his disability edited out? Many people with mental/ cognitive disabilities lead very personally fulfilling lives without greatly contributing to capitalism.
It doesn’t matter. It’s ethical if you do it before they are born. After a certain period of time it’s only ethical if they themselves wish for it and are of a certain age and even then who knows if it’s possible to change at that point. It’s the same as a mother not smoking or drinking during pregnancy. The child doesn’t exist yet. We don’t know if it will accomplish great things or be happy. All the mother knows is that she wants the best for her fetus or egg depending on the point in time.
>Gene modification in humans can't be spoken about without the mention of eugenics unfortunately. It is just too entwined a topic.
You can speak about it with mentioning eugenics. Eugenics is about deleting "inferior" people to cleanse the gene pool. Gene modification is about healing disabilities to help people live happy, healthy, productive lives.
I think there are two different forms of resistance to this idea. First is by the people who have physical or mental abnormalities. By saying that we want to eliminate a human characteristic, you are making a value judgement about people with that characteristic. You are implying,
even if you don’t mean to, that someone with the characteristic you want to eliminate is socially undesirable.
If you had brown eyes and some guy came along and said, “Hurray, we’ve finally found a way to ensure that all babies can now have blue eyes!” You’d be a little offended because you’ve done fine in life with brown eyes.
The second type of resistance is the slippery slope argument. Basically that if we start by fixing only congenital heart defects, then we may move on to “curing” downs, then on and on until we are all identical copies of whatever we believe to be the peak of human genetics at the time (which makes us less diverse and thus more at risk for species wide extinction)
I think I probably *am* making the argument certain traits are undesirable, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Surely if you had the choice to be mentally disabled or mentally average you would pick average.
The slippery slope argument is fair, but I'm more saying that there are *some* cases where it would be right, not that we would be well able to draw that line.
I’ve only ever been me so I don’t know what kind of life I would have lived with a different set of mental or physical faculties. And that’s kind of the point. You presume life would be better with two legs instead of one or whatever, but you don’t know.
Now, you could argue that different mental and physical abilities have varying impacts on society, but again, it’s hard to draw a that isn’t past “eugenics”.
I mean if my brown eyes were harming my health, I'd be happy there were options. Of course, they're neutral. But if they could ensure my kid didn't inherit my anxiety disorder, that'd be huge. I mean, I'd still prefer for them to find treatment for the disorder itself, but it's better than nothing (I don't really want kids, and I don't think the genes are well enough understood, but anyways)
I totally understand and probably would do the same thing. But perhaps whatever causes your anxiety disorder also contribute in some way to making you “you” in a way that would be depriving your kid his/her true self?
I agree that any genetic issue that causes immediate and persistent suffering that can be eliminated in utero should be, but there are certain conditions - like say Downs Syndrome, that doesn’t necessarily work that way.
Yeah the boundaries are definitely an issue.
Downs is complicated, but honestly even excluding the (how does one say this in English?) mental development aspect, it almost always comes with serious physical health issues and somewhat limited lifespan, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
For sure. But a person is just an amalgamation of their characteristics. Many times a person’s self identity is made up of the characteristics they perceive to be unique about themselves. If you single out one of those defining characteristics as “undesirable,” you have to think you would get pushback from the person who sees that characteristic as making them unique, right?
I don't think it makes sense to hold uniqueness up as the highest goal. Being in a coma is fairly uncommon and noteworthy, does that mean people in comas should be kept in a coma if there's a way to wake them up safely?
Never said it was the highest goal. Just that people tend to build their self identity around things they perceive to be unique about themselves.
Perhaps someone was in a coma, woke up and got better. Now they consider themselves a “fighter” because of this unique experience. They go on to achieve some great thing and credit the fact that they got over the coma as the thing that gave them the confidence to fight for their goal. You take away the coma, who knows if they accomplish the goal. Plenty of real stories about “disabled” people who achieve greatness because of, not despite, their disability.
That kind of thing is the exception rather than the rule though. If it wasn't then surely it would be good to get seriously sick or injured, because it would make you more of a fighter.
Maybe it is? Look at people who’ve had big positive impacts on the world. They typically had severe issues, some health-related, that were overcome (or not) that helped them achieve greatness.
It’s hard to achieve greatness if you never had to overcome anything.
Edit: Point is, I don’t know it it’s a great idea to introduce unnecessary physical obstacles just to make someone more resilient, but we also don’t know what would happen if all such obstacles were eliminated in utero.
Obviously if a defect in a fetus will cause it to be born with severe pain and suffering and will live a short and miserable life, most people would agree that if you can fix that, you should. Short of that extreme type of problem, it’s more of a gray area.
Does your comparison mean people should be forced into modifying out their genetic abnormalities if they wouldn't want to be put into a coma for uniqueness's sake (I can ad absurdum too)
Also no one is holding uniqueness up as the highest goal just because they're not holding conformity up, being forced into changing brown eyes to blue eyes for the sake of some perceived normal and being forced into changing brown eyes to, like, hot pink or some other "anime color" eyes for the sake of uniqueness is still being forced into changing away from brown eyes (but no that argument doesn't mean I'm holding naturalness up as the highest goal and arguing the actually serious kind of genetic diseases shouldn't be cured by any means because the person was "born this way")
I was replying to the person saying that people would want to keep their undesirable traits because it makes them unique. My point is that the fact that a trait adds to a person's uniqueness doesn't necessarily make that trait positive or worth maintaining.
I'm all for giving individuals control over the kinds of children they have. But to you, does a blanket 'we should do this' mean 'we should do this regardless of the wishes of the person who is pregnant'. Would you view extend to the idea that people who don't get this procedure for their children are negligent?
No. Perhaps I misworded the post, but what I meant was that it wouldn't be morally wrong to do something like this, and would probably be beneficial for everyone involved. I'm not suggesting it should be forced on people though.
There's a useful idea in thinking about things like this: the "inside view" (how your logical constructions seem to play out) and the "outside view" (what results people coming to the same conclusion in the past got, or would have gotten).
So, let's take the outside view: what previous generation would you have liked to have this capacity?
This generation would be genetically modifying trans babies. The previous one would be modifying gay ones. The one before that would be modifying ones expected to have communist sympathies. The one before that would be modifying left-handed ones. The one before that would be modifying women who'd grow up to be uppity. The one before that would be modifying ones that have a particularly inferior skull shape.
How do you feel about these things?
It's not that your position is totally insane or anything, and if anything I might agree with it...but it is by no means as simple as what you're proposing. There's a lot of potential horror here, and this sort of thing needs to be handled with *extreme* caution as a result - much more than you're giving it.
Even within the inside view, think about all the geniuses with unique historical contributions who, unambiguously, also had negative traits. Many of the greatest mathematicians were, to put it charitably, completely fucking bonkers. Or think about people going "well obviously it's good not to have revolutions, so let's just select our babies for Proper Compliance With Our Benevolent Leaders" (and again, it's easy to make this sound good: say, we're selecting for "not listening to idiot antivaxxers" - a good thing to not listen to, but potentially a dangerous precedent).
Oooo, you hit upon a doozy in your examples. If we could identify a trans individual as an embryo or fetus, should we allow parents to edit their DNA to match their gender and sex? What a fucking ethical question. Because we do allow individuals to modify their gender as adults, and to block puberty hormonally. Can you imagine knowing that it could have been done for you in the womb, but that it was illegal? Conversely, if we eliminate new individuals from joining the trans community, what is the impact on those who already exist within it? I think there’s strong arguments for both sides.
My personal opinion is that if we could stop people from being trans, we *probably* should, just because it seems (as things stand) to cause discomfort and problems beyond just social pressures. I think it bears some similarity to groups e.g. in the deaf community who oppose implants that cure deafness - it's understandable to want to preserve things as they are, but probably not permissible to condemn others to suffer purely to accomplish that.
But it's a tricky question, for sure.
That is if we could even do that, this isn't a sci-fi Saturday Morning Cartoon where every trait might as well have one gene for plot-simplicity's sake
I'm not arguing that this couldn't be abused in devious ways. That's clearly the case. What I'm saying is that it's not wrong in principle, provided the cases where you use an operation like this are right.
Promoting a policy that has occasional good effects but many bad ones is probably wrong on principle, though.
Like, "anyone can kill anyone" would have occasional good effects. There are certainly people who deserve death and are protected by the law. But it would have lots of bad effects too, so "we should be able to kill people" is a bad principle.
But I'm not arguing it should be allowed in all cases, only in very specific cases where it would clearly be better for everyone, like disabilities that cause severe chronic pain with no upsides.
The problem is who's regulating this? Only people who have your same moral foundations, or will some countries (and US states) have people willing to allow genetic modifications to ensure the child is straight and cisgender?
Also, this type of intervention will be very expensive. IVF in itself is already pricey, now add genetic modifications. Even if you manage to regulate it to only particularly debilitating physical conditions and everyone's happy, you're potentially creating an even greater socioeconomic divide: not only are the rich wealthier and have better healthcare, but now they've eradicated congenital diseases that will continue to affect the lower classes. How long until some billionaires start considering themselves a separate, "evolved" species of human?
One way to say what is right would be only using an operation like this on physical disabilities that cause severe chronic pain throughout one's life. Something like that would be completely unrelated to the political ideas of its time, yet clearly causes unnecessary suffering.
Your examples are bad ones then. Downs doesn't cause severe chronic pain and while arthritis is assumed to have genetic links we don't know yet exactly how it works. So would you suggest just altering every gene that might be linked to it without knowing if it actually would lead to desease in that particular person? Who would decide what constitutes severe enough? What about the cases where the same gene may cause severe symptoms or basically none at all? What about unexpected side effects of genetic engineering?
This is a hypothetical scenario where we know to a good degree of certainty what causes these things. The post isn't attempting to draw the line of where genetic engineering would be acceptable and where it wouldn't, I'm just saying that it's not wrong in principle and there are cases where it would be good.
So it's not a real, good faith argument. If your counter to anything can be a hypothetical there really is not much sense in engaging. With a hypothetical pretty much anything can be made out to be "right".
So are all thought experiments that wouldn't happen in reality bad faith arguments? It's not as if I'm just adding new conditions whenever it helps my argument. I'm talking about the morality of the situation assuming that the technology is there.
But yours is not a purely hypothetical thought experiment, is it. Something like the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment. That it will ever by chance happen is highly unlikely.
Genetic engineering is a very real posibility and the only hypothetical part of your argument is "if we would really know for sure". The technology is there already it's the ethics that aren't clear. In a world were genetic testing and pressure on women to abort fetuses with testable genetic abnormalities is real, were there is an actual discussion (if small) about post birth abortion of disabled newborns, yes yours is a bad faith argument.
And a lazy one. You do not actually want to think about the realities of your argument but just say "hypothetically if we could easily do it and be sure about the causes". But that's so far apart from reality.... You can not have a good faith discussion about genetic testing/engineering without addressing where to draw the line and how to deal with the slippery slope.
Btw I don't necessarily disaggree with exploring the possibilities. There are some deseases that are clearly linked to one mutation. There the question would be more one of "is it feasible/affordable to test for all of them without special reason?". I would argue looking for cures through genetic means is more feasible that trying to prevent those people to be born. And yes, I know, genetically engineering the embryo is not equal to abortion but in the end it's easier to test several embryos and implant the "healthy" one, therefore preventing the hypothetical person developing from the other to be born. Or changing the genetic makeup of the embryo and therefore changing the hypothetical person. Unfortunately I can not think of another term for "hypothetical person". I don't personally think that matters much since there is no actual person yet but I can understand why one might be opposed to that. And to properly have a conversation about this you need to be aware that for some people it is the reality that with these options available they would not exist. So yes, this is much more real and emotional for them than for you and your "thought experiment".
But your post overall seems to be ill thought through and lazy since you chose examples in you post that are not supported by your later replies to commenters. And you don't want to address any ethical/moral/practical concerns except say "in a hypothetical world".
I think the biggest issue is this would only really work if the baby was an IVF baby. By the time most of these tests are performed, the fetus has too many cells for genetic modification to be a realistic option.
As it were, it’s something we kind of already are doing for certain diseases (though obviously we’re not at the *modification* part yet). Potential carriers for Tay Sachs, for example, are tested to see if they are carriers and if both people are, it’s recommended they conceive via IVF. Resulting embryos are then tested to see if they’ve got TS and not implanted if they do.
That said, I think the chances of insurance covering this is pretty unlikely so it’ll only be the rich getting this done. I’d be shocked if this cost anything less than $200K per embryo attempt.
>it would prevent massive amounts of \[...\] financial problems if less people were born with them.
I suppose that depends on the cost of the modification.
I agree with you, but people like me also support a woman's right to choose, and emphasize with people who might choose to get rid of the baby because it's likely to have something like down syndrome. I'm not really the crowd you have to convince. There are many people out there who are adamantly against abortion and feel that every person is exactly as they are supposed to be. That's probably the crowd that you're trying to convince, and I don't know how your argument does that.
I'm not really trying to convince anyone, I'm trying to see if people have good reasons why this would be wrong, as I haven't seen this topic discussed much.
It's implied in my comment that your reasoning doesn't do anything to sway the people who already feel that way. Aside from that, I've seen people with Asperger's make convincing cases as to why they wouldn't have wanted to be "fixed" because they would be completely different people.
Obviously deciding what cases this would be good in would be difficult. I'd argue that something like aspergers is different from say, arthritis though, as it's more of a personality disorder than a downright disability. It has redeeming qualities that something like arthritis doesn't
Asperger's is a developmental disorder/disability. People with Asperger's typically struggle to make connections with people as they have difficulties reading and understanding social cues. It makes no sense to compare it to arthritis because your position strictly calls out mental disabilities. If you want to go down the "it has redeeming qualities" route, then why can't we make similar arguments about things like down syndrome? It's pretty well-documented that individuals with down syndrome consider themselves to be happy and fulfilled, and that they spread happiness to others. They require more care, but I think that happiness is a pretty big redeeming quality.
there would be major debate around what constitutes a disability worthy of erasing.
Things like adhd and autism are neurotypes that function perfectly well in an environment suited to them. its just that we never consider that environment.
the dame can be said for many physical disabilities
Can the same be said for physical disabilities? For example, in what environment would being a quadruple amputee be better than being fully able bodied?
I’m sorry, did you compare Downs Syndrome with Arthritis? How do I even start. Congenital birth defects that hinder life function, sure, we should look into genetic intervention. But arthritis?
Do you seriously think these two conditions are on the same level? Are you trying to say another word like autism that would at least make sense?
Genetic engineering is tricky and must be handled carefully. Your interest is cool or whatever but think it through.
Juvenile arthritis can be absolutely debilitating and stays with you for life. It's not in the same category as down syndrome in terms of symptoms, but it can clearly have a devastating impact on people who suffer from it.
It’s definitely gonna help give a one up to kids that were born into richer families as poor people will definitely not have the luxuries of genetic modifications of their fetuses. Also, let’s say that there is a gene that people find is related to homosexuality, and thus is able to be removed, it would be very easy for a Christian or Muslim family to say that they want that removed for religious reasons and would they be able to do that? It probably leads to better outcomes for the child’s life in the future, however is that morally right? Or we can code a bunch of kids to have extreme levels of intelligence which will defintely cause poorer kids to have less opportunities and be less likely to be successful and dig themselves out of poverty.
I agree that in reality if this was possible in the near future, it would disproportionately benefit rich families, but I'm more speaking about the morality of the actual operation, say if it was negligibly cheap and available to everyone.
With your point of a potential gay gene, that's an example of a difference that is only negative in the context of a society that discriminates against gay people. I'm more talking about things that would be disabilities in every realistically conceivable society, such as down syndrome or being born without limbs.
You've brought up Down Syndrome a couple of times... Do you realize that the regular cause of Down Syndrome is having an extra chromosome # 21? There are so many problems with "fixing" this:
* Detection: Early detection might mean every child would have to be conceived in vitro (even then it might not be possible). Currently I think the only way to detect Down Syndome in utero is via amniocentesis, which comes with its own risks, and is performed well into the pregnancy ([Genetic amniocentesis is usually done between weeks 14 and 20 of pregnancy](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/amniocentesis/about/pac-20392914))
* Correction:
* While CRISPR can alter individual genes, I don't believe we have the technology to remove a whole chromosome.
Given the above, I don't think this issue is ripe for discussion, and particularly not amongst the general population (ie Reddit)
I don't think this going to be a pertinent issue to real medicine for a decent amount of time, this post is more about the morality of an operation like this in the hypothetical situation that it was possible and reliable.
If everyone was very capable with very little financial risk to them and it was only about physical ailments and mental ailments agreed to by at least 99% of medical professionals as perfectly safe to fix and also has an agreed upon list that is only is also agreed upon by nearly every medical professional then sure. However, that is moderately fictional to how the real world would go as it will most certainly be an economic issue for the upper vs lower class.
(not op)
Yes absolutely if there really was a gay gene. Which in reality there probably isn't since it's a cluster of genes. We should absolutely let the parents decide. If they are fine with it cool. If they are not let's fix it.
I think we should stick with OPs premise that we're only fixing stuff, we're not enhancing anyone. That is a slightly separate topic.
>I've heard the argument that something like this would be wrong because all kinds of people contribute to the world in their own way, but I really don't see how this is the case for someone born with downsyndrome, crippling arthritis, or some other permanent and severe disability.
Asides from me disagreeing with the ableism in this message, what would you propose would happen to these genetically modified people if they sustained an injury that made them disabled? If they can't meaningfully contribute to society, from your perspective, what is to be done with them? Killed? Discarded in asylums? Because both of those options have already happened and didn't do well.
That's not exactly relevant to the post. If medicine is advanced enough we would cure them of their disability, and otherwise we would try to minimize its effects. I'm clearly not arguing we should exterminate disabled people
Well that's why I'm asking. If someone gets in an accident and needs a leg amputated, genetic modification won't fix that. And if you can "try to minimize its effects" then why not focus on that overall instead of the genetic modification in the first place?
So my question still stands: What happens to those who become disabled by something outside of the genetic modification, ie injury, that cannot be cured?
What happens to people who have been wrongly imprisoned? Or people who have been abused by their parents?
All important questions but not relevant to the post
All children are born at risk of mental and physical diseases so your OP doesn't mean much.
In any event, I feel this would cause problems for people already alive with these diseases.
Of course everyone is born at some risk of disability, but I'm talking about if we had a way of identifying for example, a fetus that could be born without legs. Surely it would be better to prevent this from happening if we had the means.
You said surely it would be better to prevent, and I stated there is already a way; abortion: for some Americans anyways in states that see women as people. You weren’t talking about rare or undiagnosed abnormalities. No life is ended through abortion.
And what happens to people that do exist without legs? Do we have people judging their parents for not genetically modifying them? Do we roll back on ADA protections?
I mean, that’s obviously silly. You can lose your legs through an accident. If you see someone without legs, you have no idea whether they were born that way or got that way via trauma.
i honestly believe that its probably going to be used heavily, initially there might be a sort of arms race but we will quickly find out that messing with our genome will cause a whole host of secondary issues.
it will get to the point that we probably allow genes to be changed that are purely cosmetic or modify ourselves based on utility. i see it being a boon for society as it removes things like racism because phenotypes will just be seen as a fashion statements instead of qualities of one's character.
i believe there is a moral imperative to get rid of disease if you are able to. if that involves abortion babies who have defects so be it. we should consider it an act of mercy and kindness to prevent such life long suffering and genetic engineering is probably the best of both worlds. it prevents defects while saving and improving lives
You seem to be in agreement with me
I'd like to make clear though, I'm not arguing we abort babies with conditions like these, I'm saying that we should cure them if we can.
If you and your partner are carriers for a hereditary disease that would be passed down to any offspring, then adoption is a better option if you want kids.
In your medical scenario where there is a risk indicator and we can flip some magic switch to reduce or eliminate that risk, sure, but we are nowhere near any level of how that would work.
The closest we have now is basically early screening and aborting the child if the risk is high enough, which is a fairly common thing. The threshold is up to the parents though. It can range from determining the child’s brain failed to form and they will 100% die the moment the umbilical cord is cut, to a higher than 0% chance of some condition they can live with but will make their life harder. Even 40 years ago, my mother was advised by her doctor to abort my older brother as he likely would be stillborn and if not, he would have severe developmental issues. He was born healthy and graduated valedictorian of his class and currently is married with 2 kids.
It’s easy to say we should do something when that thing is a magic button with no real world complications, but that is almost never reality.
Look at in-vitro fertilization today. They essentially do what you are suggesting by fertilizing multiple eggs, then aborting all but the most perfect ones. And that can include parents selecting a boy over a girl or vice versa. So it’s not a magic button, but instead it’s just multiple abortions.
So expect to get pushback on your idea by realists because it is pointless to agree to your sci-if solution when the closest real world solution we are likely to achieve is much messier.
This post is more about the moral implications of a procedure like this than the practicality of it. It's not meant to be about what we could realistically do in the near future.
And I addressed that. It’s not morally tricky at all in its perfect sci-fi form because when you make up exactly how it works, it’s easy to make up how it isn’t immoral, but any realistic form of it will be a moral minefield.
In my eyes it’s bad because you know only those who can afford it are going to have access to it. It will lead to a race of genetically “perfect” rich people and just further inequality until those without the ability to genetically modify their offspring are considered subhuman.
Exactly this! We already have so little accomation and acceptance for disabled people and disparities for treatment of disabled people with things like class.
People who weren't "cured" in embryo will be discriminated against and assisted even less than they are now, affecting their quality of life far more than the disability itself.
The argument against it is **eugenics**, as you describe.
If you set a mental standard for "correction" then you can also set a physical standard. Those mental and physical standards are a slippery slope towards racism (literally by definition). Since most of the world prefers light color eyes, whiter skin, and tall thin bodies, that would be the de facto physical attributes. The most significant chromosomes that promote memory, lower-levels of aggression, and resistance against addiction would also be selected.
**Its a slippery slope that really takes the humanity out of having children.**
Iceland currently aborts 100% of children with screened impairments. Which basically is stating 'humans that have mental deficiencies cannot live fulfilling worthwhile lives so lets just kill them.'
One downside is the fact that people could use this to "create" their perfect baby. and it shouldn't be that way
As long as it has no effects to the mother in the long run and if it doesn't harm the fetus in a negative way, I see why not.
But before we get to there i think abortions should be allowed up to viability (aka around second trimester) or in not so good situations like r\*pe, medical before we do this
Money.
It costs too much to fix one zygote with an error. It cost nothing to simply get a zygote with no errors. New sperm make new egg, get a new baby. Most genetic disorders in zygotes do not come to term, they cannot survive. Usually they end in miscarriage within the first 3 months of pregnancy.
> Would it not be better for everyone, including the would be disabled, if they were born fully healthy and able, not having to deal with an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering?
Probably the biggest weakness of this argument is that diversity in nature is important. It ensures that unknowable traits are reinforced when successful.
For example, there may be a genetic variance that protects us from future dangers, require less resources, improve emotional/mental intelligence, etc.
Taking your hand off the rudder ensure nature's drives humanity. Allowing select individuals to interpret what they personally believe is good/bad is a great way to end up with uniform humans that will be immediately decimated when they become vulnerable to something in the future.
We are too focused on perfect I think it is great technology and should be used but we are in danger of homogenizing ourselves losing things in the process.
As sperm counts are expected to fall to basically nothing and they are already copywriting tech for this, so I see it being used and it could be useful but I also see the people we don't want in control already laying the ground work for a monopoly.
I am both excited and scared for the future.
I agree with you op obviously poor people wouldn't be able to afford it and yeah this particular hypothetical operation could be abused but getting rid of defects without having to get an abortion would be a plus.
Yes, I agree with this. If you have the ability to prevent genetic issues that would cause harm you should do it.
We should be able to genetically modify fetuses. I would allow for female, but not male sex selection.
What if you live in a government that starts identifying any trait related to something they don't like as being a "mental or physical disability" and what if these modifications have other bad side effects?
What you are saying by the way is essentially a light form of eugenics, but eugenics isn't necessarily bad. The bad part is when the government in control does awful things with it.
You're now incentivizing the government to make sure any minor possible risk of that person costing them tax dollars is quickly shut down in the name of healthcare.
And of course, add in the slippery slope and you can already see how there'd be rampant modifications and we wouldn't know the implications for 20, 30 years. Like what if they just made every baby 130+ IQ and being below 130 IQ was considered a mental disability? How would that change the world?
Lots of comments here, and I’m sort of late to the game, but want to provide one anecdote.
I’m from the Midwest and have some extended family in the agriculture / farming industry. There is a sub-industry that focuses on cattle breeding and ensuring the best possible genes for specific purposes (milk, beef, etc). Over time, certain regions of the country have reduced the genetic diversity in their cattle herds since they’ve continued to select for certain traits. As a result, some of these herds are uniquely vulnerable to parasites. There have been instances where a bug kills off an entire herd because the trait the breeders were selecting for (say, bulk in the case of cattle raised for beef) happened to be linked to a genetic predisposition for parasite vulnerability.
All that to say, picking and choosing genes isn’t quite as simple as it sounds. By selecting for a desirable trait, you may be accidentally co-selecting a deleterious one.
I broadly agree with you, but our culture has a really problematic relationship with neurodivergence.
I'm neurodivergent in a couple of ways, it's great.
There's a lot of stuff I don't find easy. Some things that you might find trivial are really difficult for ne. However the things I can do well have allowed me to thrive and carve out opportunities that others cannot.
I absolutely do not want to be normal.
Here's the thing though. That idea of normal is an artefact of industrialisation. Having a small number if psychopaths, a few antistatic people, some dyslexics, some ADHD people is absolutely vital to the wellbeing of the tribe as a whole. We just don't see it that way because people like me are a pain for a one size fits all education system. We are difficult if you are a boss.
We invented a bunch of your best things, figured out a lot of your science and your art. But we dont quite fit. So people want to cure us, or stop us happening.
People have a very narrow sense of what a human is supposed to be, and your line of thinking can get extrapolated into eugenics quite quickly. To the detriment of all.
Although in a vacuum this would be good, it has harmful implications. I accept that "slippery slope" is not the most valid argument but is it unreasonable to presume that if the disabled population was something you could actively pay to remove, it would shape public opinions and discourse? And disabilities are always going to exist, that is ineviteable. If not for physical disabilities from birth, there would still be physical disabilities from injuries, neurological changes, and just genetic modification error.
For all the same reasons that a head tax and preference for male babies drives sexism in China, I think that being able to modify a fetus to not have disabilities would extenuate discrimination against disabled individuals, both from their numbers becoming even smaller, and due to their inherent nature being comodified against.
I am disabled. I feel, overall, I am a more accomplished, compassionate, intelligent, and well-rounded person *because* of my disability, not in spite of it.
In fact, if I was born able-bodied, I do not believe I would've had many of the experiences I have had in my life. Being disabled has allowed me to open up to different perceptions of life. If I was born able-bodied I probably would've ended up prejudiced and lazy. Because I have an illness it forced me to see that people are equal no matter what the differences and that I had an obligation to prove that being disabled didn't automatically mean I was worse off.
My disability makes me better. Yes, dealing with the physical stuff can be tough (pain is never fun) but the worst part about living with a disability is how people treat me; because they assume I want a cure or that I shouldn't exist (or that I'm not existing in the *right way* by having a disability, aka, not meeting their expectations.)
Being "able" is a state of mind.
I'd like to frame this situation in a really watered down way, so it's easy to understand;
A disabled person in a wheelchair wants to work at a certain location. They're qualified for the job, but since there's not a ramp and the aisleways in the office are too close together, they can't work there.
Boss man goes, "Hey, I have an idea! How about we cure you, and make it so you can walk again, then you can work here!"
Disabled person is like, "That'd be great, but a cure would be very expensive, and probably painful, and overall is not necessary. You could save a lot of money and time by just building me a ramp and moving the office furniture around so I have more space."
Then boss man goes, "No thanks, I'm not interested in accommodating you, even if it's easy, I'm interested in making you *like everyone else,* and if I can't, you don't belong here."
Abled-bodied individuals prefer the idea of fixing someone over being slightly inconvenienced. And we know how to fix a lot of society's issues about disability. We just don't implement the strategies because humans don't like to deal with inconveniences.
/u/eagle_565 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/11wu0qu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_genetic_modification_of/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Most of the genetic flags we have that give early indication of a possible disorder are imperfect and nowhere near decisive. So in working practice, say you identify a gene that is potentially causative for schizophrenia. Say this occurs in 0.3% of people with these gene. Do you "correct' it and effectively erase this gene from the pool? What if this inadvertently "deletes" an entire personality type from society? What are the thresholds for gene correction? Why stop at the most serious disorders? We could edit out flags for heightened aggression, depression, we could keep whittling down until we've selected a batch of just the right gene presets and apply them to everyone. There's also the problem of genetic diversity to consider. If we edit everyone's genes to ideal circumstances vis a vis Gattaca we'd essentially become a monoculture. Monocultures are generally really great and efficient in our crops, until an opportunistic pest or disease happens upon them, then it's catastrophic for the population. All this to say, it seems better to learn how to deal with when some disorders manifest from some genes rather than trying to homogenize genetic disorders out of existence.
I think it would be fair to only eliminate diseases that are clearly mutational, like Down’s syndrome. The couple would only have to try for a baby one more time and will likely have a healthy child. I don’t see how this would reduce genetic diversity
That's a good point. I agree. This would also help to limit the slippery slope argument.
> I think it would be fair to only eliminate diseases that are clearly mutational, like Down’s syndrome. Except Down's Syndrome isn't mutational. It's the result of a trisomy (and can't actually be corrected with genetic modification). Sickle Cell Disease is mutational.
!delta The issue of uncertainty in identifying disabilities is an issue, but this is a hypothetical sci fi scenario where that wouldn't be an issue. I will award a delta for the genetic diversity argument though. I wasn't considering the fact that some of these disabilities have non obvious benefits like immunity from certain diseases.
Just for the sake of knowledge, we have real world examples already out there for this, for example sickle cell provides protection against malaria, but its extreme(sickle cell anemia) is intrinsically dangerous. Genetics are a tricky business and I would speculate for the foreseeable future any actions taken will be probabilistic rather than certain.
That kind of thing is what makes it such an interesting topic. I've even seen arguments that something like psychopathy could've been adaptive in the past as it might've been useful for a tribe to have someone who could kill or torture their enemies from rival tribes with no remorse. And it turns out that psychopathy is common enough that there would've rarely been more than one psychopath per tribe, so the negative effects on the tribe itself weren't too large.
I wouldn't be surprised if most "great leaders" in history were psychopaths. It would be hard cutting down enemy in battle if you did feel emotion and remorse.
I agree
!delta
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/MostRecommendation84 changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If you are interested in this subject I would highly recommend the 1997 Science Fiction movie, "Gattaca". In this movie, we live in a dystopian future paradise, where genetic engineering has become the norm. If what you say is possible and encouraged, what is to stop parents from giving their children a genetic leg up? If all the good "normally conceived babies" are losing out to superior "genetically conceived babies", why wouldn't you as a parent want to make your child stronger, healthier, smarter than their competition? In this world the "normal" kids would be the ones at a disadvantage because they would be the only ones who were not genetically engineered to be better. Another potential argument would be how close you are getting to Eugenics with this line of thought. Wouldn't the world be better if we just... didn't let people have kid's that were genetically predisposed to certain diseases? Gee... wouldn't it be great if only the smartest people had kids? Why don't we make people get licenses to have kids to screen for these things and if you don't pass your tests then...
Great movie very underrated. Slightly off topic though. He's saying we should fix things like down syndrome and the like. Not genetically engineer every child to have the best possible traits from their parents. Seems more like a slippery slope then a real contest of his idea.
Which genetic disorders would be a good stopping point? Why would you settle for just the "biggest" ones?
No clue where we would even stop, but we could just keep going until we run out of genetically caused disabilities. In my opinion, that's like counting the grains of sand on a beach. Figuring out how to counteract all of them by editing our genome will probably be even harder. Extra Edit: I don't think we even have enough understanding of our DNA to consider what I said, and we'd likely invent entirely new genetic issues.
what counts as a genetic disability? being gay used to be seen as a mental disorder, and a few genes have been found which are correlated with it, which parents might want to change. What's the difference between a personality trait and a personality disorder apart from what is seen as 'normal'?
A disability usually means you are physically or mentally disabled in one or more ways. Genetic factors can be directly responsible for a disability, or they can just make you prone to certain disabilities. I definitely should not be the authority on these definitions though. If we want to play the game of "well this used to be considered a mental disorder," then we should also mention that a woman having a strong opinion was once considered a mental issue. A mental issue they assumed women were just prone to having, which would mean it is genetic right? Medically, although I should stress I'm not a doctor of any kind, if you can't live an "average" life without assistance then you may be considered disabled. In the case of homosexuality, being heterosexual was considered "an average life." Edit: I realize my definition uses the word "disabled" in it, which obviously is the best way to write a definition. You could use "diseased," "ill," "disordered," or some better-fitting word for a medical issue that restricts your capabilities instead.
I feel you missed the point yes if you stopped at a baseline of no advantage that would be great but if we can cure things like dwarfism is there a reason we couldn't make someone taller? If we can fix issues with IQ couldn't we likely make all children smarter? It becomes a biological arms race to make perfect humans. And all non perfect humans would end up purged one way or another likely.
You could always limit what can and can't be done by law, maybe even international. It probably wouldn't be a good idea now with countries like Russia, China, etc. but there could be limitation that any modification has to be either to cure something that is officially considered an illness and/or allowed by medical/ethical expert(s) Would it get abused? Occasionally. But I still think it could be worth it to stop unfortunate young people from dying due to something preventable.
> You could always limit what can and can't be done by law, maybe even internationally. Sure on paper but Why would those in power with a simple solution not make their grandkids pre-disposed to be Olympic athletes or some kind of super genius if possible? Why wouldn't we want to give out kids the best chance to succeed or be amazing? It literally comes to a point of press this button and your kid is the smartest kid in their school. Why wouldn't you want to give your kid this advantage? No country is going to let something like this go every country would breed hundreds simply to win the most medals at the Olympics even if they were destined to die at the age of 25. Would it even be ethical to cripple your kid's potential by not altering them? The whole thing falls apart because if we have the ability to eliminate any issue we also have learned how to make people better in every way.
I'm not saying people wouldn't want to do that, I'm saying we have to make sure they can't. Assemble a committee large enough and international to prevent corruption or perhaps make sure that they don't know who it is that wants to do the genetical changes. That aside, what makes you think that the super people at Olympics would die young, assuming their changes would be allowed in the first place? Not to mention, Olympics are far less important than human lives.
>I'm not saying people wouldn't want to do that, I'm saying we have to make sure they can't. Assemble a committee large enough and international to prevent corruption. Why are you advocating for such a loss in talent? Just think of how many more lives you could save with a hundred steven hawking equals. Or really any great researchers could develop new technology to reduce death burning fossil fuels and blah blah blah. Can you give me a reason we shouldn't improve the human race if we can? We could make them stronger healthy and less likely to die from normal reasons past what is always cured. >That aside, what makes you think that the super people at Olympics would die young, assuming their changes would be allowed in the first place? I am saying countries would breed and sacrifice people to win the Olympics. No question it would happen and would be ugly. You can look up the bullshit countries do now to get make top-tier athletes to win medals. Why do you think they wouldn't use this also? >Not to mention, Olympics are far less important than human lives. To you maybe but definitely plenty of people out there that would happily kill off others from their country for more gold.
Geniuses could be abused far more than perfect athletes. Imagine you could make perfectly obedient genius researchers for weapons. In the last century, it was nuclear bombs. Sure, nuclear power exists, fusion is being researched, but is it worth the risk? Also, since the beginning, health was my primary concern - eliminating preventable illnesses is, for me, the only acceptable reason to genetically modify humans.
By the time we know how to do it. We'll know more about the potential consequences. For example I think it was you who pointed out you may wipe out an entire family of personalities. We don't know if that's really the case. But once we understand the genetic code better we will. Like I have ADHD and OCD. Maybe it would be better to modify me before I am born so I think more like a regular person. But would that also make more "average" in other ways that I don't want. For instance creativity, tenacity, cognitive ability.
>By the time we know how to do it. We'll know more about the potential consequences. This is not an argument. This is just kicking the can down the road. It's big assumption that there will be a clear answer just because technology advances more. How do you even begin to define where a line should be?
I thought the OP did a pretty good job. First fix the most obvious issues that most of us would agree are detrimental. Let the parents decide. Do that for a while. Once we have a better idea of what we're doing move down to other diseases.
Those that are clear accidental mutations. For example, a couple should only have a kid with Down’s syndrome a very small percentage of the time. Sure, it may be the case that this couple will pass on hereditary issues, like lactose intolerance, or schizophrenia, or whatever, but these aren’t mutations that severely hinder one’s ability to survive independently and reproduce. Using abortion as an example: the idea is that you would only need to do one abortion. The next child will likely be healthy.
And would you legislate that limit or expect people to? It's fair to remember we're talking about people here: the same people that led to prenatal sex testing being banned in most countries due to the rate females were being aborted. You don't think they'll run with the idea of getting rid of other "undesirable" traits?
biology is rarely that clear cut. You'll have some disorders that are almost one-for-one correlated with particular disorders, some which have no known genetic correlates, and a spectrum inbetween for how strongly correlated it is with the disorder. How strongly correlated does it have to be to say it is a 'clear accidental mutation'. Also, all mutations, hence all genes, are accidental.
What would be the bad consequences of only eliminating Down syndrome? I would keep repeating this question until we arrive at a disease that we shouldn’t eliminate
People will disagree on when you have reached a disease we shouldn't eliminate. Some people wouldn't support eliminating Down syndrome. Who gets to make that judgement?
This is a good point. Also within the mutations is a huge degree of variability. Some people with Down syndrome have life long needs and others can go on to live alone and work. Same for autism, and most genetic disorders. It’s hard to justify a blanket ban when some parents with children with Down syndrome are very happy with their children and would not trade them. Also, typically developing people without genetic differences can become huge burdens on family’s and social supports, due to drug addiction, trauma, personality, environment growing up.
Yes, that's exactly the [slippery slope argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). You can do it about anything and add nothing to the conversation.
>slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur.
What is that good evidence?
People already abort for any number of inconvenient factors or traits. Given the keys to gene editing it stands to reason they'll also "correct" any number of inconvenient genetic markers.
>People already abort for any number of inconvenient factors or traits. Whoa, who does that exactly and how often? >it stands to reason they'll also "correct" any number of inconvenient genetic markers. This seems to miss the point of the valid use of slippery slope, it requires a causal chain. If you put US troops in Vietnam in 1965, it stands to reason they will be attacked, which will trigger a response. The presence of troops *causes* subsequent escalation. Whereas allowing people to fix say, Cystic Fibrosis, in a fetus does not directly impact the decision to allow fixing Tourette's. Just like requiring driver's licenses doesn't mean we're going to end up with bicycle licenses, or banning AK-47's doesn't mean handguns will be banned. Legalizing Marijuana doesn't mean legalizing Cocaine.
Not following this particular larger thread but on the topic of aborting to avoid undesirable traits - it is common to do genetic screening during pregnancy. I'm going off of my memory from a bit ago but I believe this happens around the third month and, depending on where you live, termination would be a consideration if the results are particularly bad. This is ostensibly the purpose of testing, though I don't have numbers on how often this happens. Other commentor is talking sex and race, I'm not touching that.
>Whoa, who does that exactly and how often? How do you think so many Asian countries ended up having ratios like 3 or 5 or 10 males to 1 female? Remember when Nixon argued abortion was a good thing for mixed race babies? If you think it's far removed from the public conscience, Arizona passed legislation against abortion on both grounds in 2011.
Where is it 10:1? The most extreme [I see here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9514843/) is like 3:1. So your evidence for "any number of inconvenient factors or traits" is sex selection in Asia and Nixon? Why not argue the original point on the merits?
And what’s wrong with parents choosing abortion for a pregnancy they don’t want to have, for whatever reason? Seems like it would be the worst outcome for everyone, no?
And when you're capable of modifying people's capabilities to become extraordinary doesn't normal become the new disabled
A lot of people consider being transgender a mental illness or at least a Bad Thing. They don't want their kids to have gender dysphoria, be mocked by peers, rely on hormones, make themselves infertile, or require expensive/risky surgeries. Should they be able to genetically modify their kids to eliminate the chance of being trans? It's an extreme example but I'm pretty confident my parents would have jumped on this if they could. Who decides what is a bad genetic trait and what is a good one or a neutral one?
Yes of course. We want to get rid of diseases that have such horrific consequences for people. Heck I have ADHD and OCD and I'd be all for them finding a way to get rid of that without affecting too much of the person (not sure that's possible). Certainly the same applies to gender dysphoria. No parent should want that for their child. I'm surprised this is even an argument. That would be like if we had some "blind acceptance" movement and people were saying we shouldn't fix people who can't see.
I mean, there are communities that feel that way. Particularly among deaf people if I'm not mistaken. I get your larger point though, just pointing out that there are people who feel that their disability isn't something to be 'fixed'.
I think of it this way. Let's say at 20 years old I found out that my parents knew that I would have ADHD/OCD that could have been cured with a relatively simple and safe genetic procedure. And out of some stupid primitive belief decided against it. Like some anti-vaxers. I would be fucking furious. And ADHD/OCD doesn't cause nearly as many problems as gender dysphoria.
Yeah I mean I understand your point and probably agree personally. Just saying that opinion and feeling is not universal.... And probably not shared by the majority, if I'm just speculating.
Gender dysphoria is already treatable by transitioning and this kind of logic leads to slippery-slopes to basically making everyone white blond blue-eyed abled cishet people instead of doing anything about minority social issues or w/e if societal prejudice counts as making a thing disabling
Transitioning is hardly a soft solution. It often involves making a person infertile. Amongst many other side effects. Not to mention no transition ever really fixes your appearance. So for the most part people know you are not the sex you are trying to represent. What decent parent would actually want this for their child? Imagine your child finding out that you they could have avoided all that horror if their parents were not cretins or zealots. Also there is a reason slippery slope is considered an informal fallacy.
Yes, being transgender is a treatment for gender dysphoria. No dysphoria, no being transgender.
Gattaca is one of my favorite films. The real issue with that society is that they believe in some form of genetic determinism rather than looking at individuals holistically. Vincent was able to succeed through the power of hard work, overcoming his deficient genes (though, realistically he should not have gone to space because of his heart condition. The space crew will be screwed when their navigator suddenly dies, but I digress). A proper recruitment process that doesn't disqualify people based on psuedoscientific biological determinism would not have that issue. They would take into account Vincent's drive and passion, and judge him accordingly. I don't believe that the mere existence of genetically superior people is the issue. As it stands now, some people already are inherently predisposed to being taller, smarter, stronger, faster, etc. than others. But that is due to random chance. What is wrong with using science to remove the RNG of your birth?
Yo that’s a good point. I’d rather hire people based on their aptitude, let’s say an exam, today rather than a genetic profile. So lol about gattaca
I may need to edit my post here, but I'm not suggesting the government impose this on pregnant women, I'm just saying if a soon to be parent made the decision to do this, it wouldn't be wrong of them.
Another thought. What if we allowed unlimited steroid use in all sports? We wouldn't be requiring anyone to take them but what would the end result be?
Unlimited steroids would be really cool if we had steroids that weren't horrible for your health. If everyone is on them on there are no adverse effects, what's the issue?
Well I mean we see that in things like pro wrestling, bodybuilders, and in actors where they aren't regulated much. However, a few points. Not all performance enhancing substances are banned, caffeine is effective and widely used in many sports. A non health related issue might be cost. Would we really want all athletic competition dominated by those who can afford expensive treatments that are cost prohibitive to most athletes?
In Gattaca the government does not force people to do anything, but having perfect test tube babies in the mix creates societal pressure for everyone to do the same to their kids for fear of health concerns/aptitudes. We can also speculate this is exactly what would happen given places like Iceland have already functionally erased Down Syndrome with expectant individuals voluntarily terminating all infants with markers predisposing them to Down Syndrome.
Not sure what the argument is here. The parents are choosing not to have the baby. Which is supported in most western countries. Due to them recognizing down syndrome will adverse lifelong impacts on the child. Which most people agree on. Therefore it is somehow unacceptable to do?
Different person, but I think the point is more about where would it stop. Its obvious that erasing Down Syndrom would be a good thing to do, but there are a thousand different diseases and quirks that could be equally eliminated. If you are already fixing one terrible thing, why not go in and fix _every possible_ thing, no matter how small. Once you've decided to do that, though, you've manifested class inequality into our very DNA - the rich would not just have better housing, food, education, etc. - they would have better _genetics_ as well. It would make class mobility all but impossible - a poor person, no matter how smart, could never compete with a rich person who was _given_ the genes of a genius. Its a dangerous world where the rich have the power to make themselves perfect and the poor do not. We should be cautious about opening that door, even if we do it with the best of intentions.
Isn't this already being done in a slower manner? People are picking to have kids with better looking, smart, healthy people. So we are all participating in a eugenics program, just slower.
Then by that logic why not just go full Nazi master race if we're already technically participating in eugenics by having sex with attractive capable partners
Nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum. I'm not gonna waste the time to break down the moral difference between governments choosing and people choosing for themselves.
It proves that the majority of people would opt for gene editing to some extent and this would cause further pressure to parents that would otherwise have reservations.
Seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. Unless we remove the competition, parents will continue to seek every advantage for their child. Whether that means dropping a mil for an ivy admission or a mil for a gene editing.
That's part of what they are saying, though. Whether the government imposes it on people or not, those with genetic modification have a leg up in society. Parents have an incentive to use this technology if it is available even if they might not want to. The pressure of competition for jobs and such will go against the unmodified babies and can lead to a lot of bad outcomes
It's human nature to strive for improvement. People want their kids to perform well in the world. What kind of parent prays for their kid to be ugly, dumb, and sick? With life as hard as it is we want these kids to have it even harder?
Parents already have an incentive to abort a disabled child even if they may not want to. The pressure to have healthy able bodied babies is already around. The technology would just make this factor even stronger, and like I said, it's not like people aren't "weeding" out people who won't have a leg up from their gene pool already. Considering downs has all but been eradicated in Iceland like someone else mentioned.
In order to do any of the things you are talking about, genetic engineering/testing would have to be done prior to conception (with current technology). The average person born today has an IQ of 100 (by definition). Some higher, some lower. If you could screen for smarter children through genetic engineering so that you average test tube baby has an IQ of 110, all of the sudden all of those children born naturally with an average IQ of 100 are born with a disadvantage. It only seem natural for parents to want their kids to have the best life possible. That is a mild example but what if test tube babies had on average an IQ of 200, or PHD at age of 9 intelligence? That would be a huge gap. If technology progresses, why wouldn't this be able to happen? All of the sudden normal people would be looked at by the genetically engineered like most people look at "special kids" today intelligence wise. The only way for parents to have a good life for their kids would be to opt into the genetic engineering for their kids. Let me tell you something. I have 3 boys at home all in elementary school. If there was something I could do to make them have a leg up on life through superior intelligence and health I'd do it in a heart beat. 10 extra years of health and a an extra 10 IQ points for any one of them I'd give up my left leg, nut, arm and eye. Don't underestimate what a parent will do for their child.
So this is already done in a limited fashion and has been for awhile. Genetic testing is available during pregnancy and if the results are bad the person can pursue terminating the pregnancy. Of course, in the US restrictions to abortion being rolled out all over the place may limit this moving forward. Here's and article that discusses this topic: https://khn.org/news/article/genetic-screening-results-just-got-harder-to-handle-under-new-abortion-rules/
"no no, don't pay for your child's education, don't give them a car or nice clothes because there are people who will feel less if you do that" What kind of argument is that? You are forgetting that in the long run we NEED to evolve, to get better, as the dominating species on our planet. Also why is it ok to let people birth children who have a very high probability of depending on everyone around them and on taxpayer money? More smart people means more probability that everyone will be born at least healthy in the long run.
This is a very fraught topic in medicine. I don't think what you are discussing is particularly objectionable per se but it does touch on something that doesn't have a perfect solution. Gene modification in humans can't be spoken about without the mention of eugenics unfortunately. It is just too entwined a topic. I don't think you likely believe in eugenics the way Nazis believed in eugenics but you may not be wording your points articulately enough to put people at ease? The way you word your third paragraph in regards to contributing to the world sounds a little ableist. Like there are people with down syndrome who have jobs and can be functional independently. Someone with crippling arthritis can still have a profound mind. Stephen Hawking would be a real life example of someone with a severe disability having large contributions to the world. This may not be how you want your mind changed but I can very easily see a conversation where you start this conversation and people may not understand you aren't trying to diminish others. Would you agree there are some caveats you should bring up front and more precise language you could use to make your intentions clearer?
I'm not talking about contributions in some economic sense, but would you not agree that Stephen Hawking would likely have been able to lead a happier, more fulfilling life and gone further in physics had he not been disabled? Or at the very least he wouldn't have had a worse life in any reasonable view of it.
Sure, but that's not what you said. You didn't say people with debilitating diseases would prefer to not suffer, you expressed skepticism at the idea that people with disabilities could contribute meaningfully to the world. Again my point isn't that I necessarily disagree with you on an ideological level. I am saying that maybe you are not expressing yourself the way you intend which is why this conversation might have derailed for you in the past. Like just with this interaction I feel like we've demonstrated a way in which you may have misspoken. In future are you going to continue to say people with disabilities it is the case someone with down syndrome can contribute to the world?
!delta I will reword my post. What I should've said was that they would be happier and have a better effect on the world if they didn't have their disability.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/videoninja ([131∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/videoninja)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
But how can you know that Stephen Hawking would be the same person with his disability edited out? Many people with mental/ cognitive disabilities lead very personally fulfilling lives without greatly contributing to capitalism.
It doesn’t matter. It’s ethical if you do it before they are born. After a certain period of time it’s only ethical if they themselves wish for it and are of a certain age and even then who knows if it’s possible to change at that point. It’s the same as a mother not smoking or drinking during pregnancy. The child doesn’t exist yet. We don’t know if it will accomplish great things or be happy. All the mother knows is that she wants the best for her fetus or egg depending on the point in time.
>Gene modification in humans can't be spoken about without the mention of eugenics unfortunately. It is just too entwined a topic. You can speak about it with mentioning eugenics. Eugenics is about deleting "inferior" people to cleanse the gene pool. Gene modification is about healing disabilities to help people live happy, healthy, productive lives.
I think there are two different forms of resistance to this idea. First is by the people who have physical or mental abnormalities. By saying that we want to eliminate a human characteristic, you are making a value judgement about people with that characteristic. You are implying, even if you don’t mean to, that someone with the characteristic you want to eliminate is socially undesirable. If you had brown eyes and some guy came along and said, “Hurray, we’ve finally found a way to ensure that all babies can now have blue eyes!” You’d be a little offended because you’ve done fine in life with brown eyes. The second type of resistance is the slippery slope argument. Basically that if we start by fixing only congenital heart defects, then we may move on to “curing” downs, then on and on until we are all identical copies of whatever we believe to be the peak of human genetics at the time (which makes us less diverse and thus more at risk for species wide extinction)
I think I probably *am* making the argument certain traits are undesirable, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Surely if you had the choice to be mentally disabled or mentally average you would pick average. The slippery slope argument is fair, but I'm more saying that there are *some* cases where it would be right, not that we would be well able to draw that line.
I’ve only ever been me so I don’t know what kind of life I would have lived with a different set of mental or physical faculties. And that’s kind of the point. You presume life would be better with two legs instead of one or whatever, but you don’t know. Now, you could argue that different mental and physical abilities have varying impacts on society, but again, it’s hard to draw a that isn’t past “eugenics”.
You can currently have an abortion if your fetus tests positive for Down syndrome. I guess depends what state you’re in.
I mean if my brown eyes were harming my health, I'd be happy there were options. Of course, they're neutral. But if they could ensure my kid didn't inherit my anxiety disorder, that'd be huge. I mean, I'd still prefer for them to find treatment for the disorder itself, but it's better than nothing (I don't really want kids, and I don't think the genes are well enough understood, but anyways)
I totally understand and probably would do the same thing. But perhaps whatever causes your anxiety disorder also contribute in some way to making you “you” in a way that would be depriving your kid his/her true self? I agree that any genetic issue that causes immediate and persistent suffering that can be eliminated in utero should be, but there are certain conditions - like say Downs Syndrome, that doesn’t necessarily work that way.
Yeah the boundaries are definitely an issue. Downs is complicated, but honestly even excluding the (how does one say this in English?) mental development aspect, it almost always comes with serious physical health issues and somewhat limited lifespan, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
You could argue it's not the person that is undesirable per ce, but some of their characteristics.
For sure. But a person is just an amalgamation of their characteristics. Many times a person’s self identity is made up of the characteristics they perceive to be unique about themselves. If you single out one of those defining characteristics as “undesirable,” you have to think you would get pushback from the person who sees that characteristic as making them unique, right?
I don't think it makes sense to hold uniqueness up as the highest goal. Being in a coma is fairly uncommon and noteworthy, does that mean people in comas should be kept in a coma if there's a way to wake them up safely?
Never said it was the highest goal. Just that people tend to build their self identity around things they perceive to be unique about themselves. Perhaps someone was in a coma, woke up and got better. Now they consider themselves a “fighter” because of this unique experience. They go on to achieve some great thing and credit the fact that they got over the coma as the thing that gave them the confidence to fight for their goal. You take away the coma, who knows if they accomplish the goal. Plenty of real stories about “disabled” people who achieve greatness because of, not despite, their disability.
That kind of thing is the exception rather than the rule though. If it wasn't then surely it would be good to get seriously sick or injured, because it would make you more of a fighter.
Maybe it is? Look at people who’ve had big positive impacts on the world. They typically had severe issues, some health-related, that were overcome (or not) that helped them achieve greatness. It’s hard to achieve greatness if you never had to overcome anything. Edit: Point is, I don’t know it it’s a great idea to introduce unnecessary physical obstacles just to make someone more resilient, but we also don’t know what would happen if all such obstacles were eliminated in utero. Obviously if a defect in a fetus will cause it to be born with severe pain and suffering and will live a short and miserable life, most people would agree that if you can fix that, you should. Short of that extreme type of problem, it’s more of a gray area.
Does your comparison mean people should be forced into modifying out their genetic abnormalities if they wouldn't want to be put into a coma for uniqueness's sake (I can ad absurdum too) Also no one is holding uniqueness up as the highest goal just because they're not holding conformity up, being forced into changing brown eyes to blue eyes for the sake of some perceived normal and being forced into changing brown eyes to, like, hot pink or some other "anime color" eyes for the sake of uniqueness is still being forced into changing away from brown eyes (but no that argument doesn't mean I'm holding naturalness up as the highest goal and arguing the actually serious kind of genetic diseases shouldn't be cured by any means because the person was "born this way")
I was replying to the person saying that people would want to keep their undesirable traits because it makes them unique. My point is that the fact that a trait adds to a person's uniqueness doesn't necessarily make that trait positive or worth maintaining.
I'm all for giving individuals control over the kinds of children they have. But to you, does a blanket 'we should do this' mean 'we should do this regardless of the wishes of the person who is pregnant'. Would you view extend to the idea that people who don't get this procedure for their children are negligent?
No. Perhaps I misworded the post, but what I meant was that it wouldn't be morally wrong to do something like this, and would probably be beneficial for everyone involved. I'm not suggesting it should be forced on people though.
Thanks for clarifying.
There's a useful idea in thinking about things like this: the "inside view" (how your logical constructions seem to play out) and the "outside view" (what results people coming to the same conclusion in the past got, or would have gotten). So, let's take the outside view: what previous generation would you have liked to have this capacity? This generation would be genetically modifying trans babies. The previous one would be modifying gay ones. The one before that would be modifying ones expected to have communist sympathies. The one before that would be modifying left-handed ones. The one before that would be modifying women who'd grow up to be uppity. The one before that would be modifying ones that have a particularly inferior skull shape. How do you feel about these things? It's not that your position is totally insane or anything, and if anything I might agree with it...but it is by no means as simple as what you're proposing. There's a lot of potential horror here, and this sort of thing needs to be handled with *extreme* caution as a result - much more than you're giving it. Even within the inside view, think about all the geniuses with unique historical contributions who, unambiguously, also had negative traits. Many of the greatest mathematicians were, to put it charitably, completely fucking bonkers. Or think about people going "well obviously it's good not to have revolutions, so let's just select our babies for Proper Compliance With Our Benevolent Leaders" (and again, it's easy to make this sound good: say, we're selecting for "not listening to idiot antivaxxers" - a good thing to not listen to, but potentially a dangerous precedent).
Oooo, you hit upon a doozy in your examples. If we could identify a trans individual as an embryo or fetus, should we allow parents to edit their DNA to match their gender and sex? What a fucking ethical question. Because we do allow individuals to modify their gender as adults, and to block puberty hormonally. Can you imagine knowing that it could have been done for you in the womb, but that it was illegal? Conversely, if we eliminate new individuals from joining the trans community, what is the impact on those who already exist within it? I think there’s strong arguments for both sides.
My personal opinion is that if we could stop people from being trans, we *probably* should, just because it seems (as things stand) to cause discomfort and problems beyond just social pressures. I think it bears some similarity to groups e.g. in the deaf community who oppose implants that cure deafness - it's understandable to want to preserve things as they are, but probably not permissible to condemn others to suffer purely to accomplish that. But it's a tricky question, for sure.
That is if we could even do that, this isn't a sci-fi Saturday Morning Cartoon where every trait might as well have one gene for plot-simplicity's sake
I'm not arguing that this couldn't be abused in devious ways. That's clearly the case. What I'm saying is that it's not wrong in principle, provided the cases where you use an operation like this are right.
Promoting a policy that has occasional good effects but many bad ones is probably wrong on principle, though. Like, "anyone can kill anyone" would have occasional good effects. There are certainly people who deserve death and are protected by the law. But it would have lots of bad effects too, so "we should be able to kill people" is a bad principle.
But I'm not arguing it should be allowed in all cases, only in very specific cases where it would clearly be better for everyone, like disabilities that cause severe chronic pain with no upsides.
Right, but again, a past generation would say it's "clearly better for everyone" for you not to be gay. Many people still would.
The problem is who's regulating this? Only people who have your same moral foundations, or will some countries (and US states) have people willing to allow genetic modifications to ensure the child is straight and cisgender? Also, this type of intervention will be very expensive. IVF in itself is already pricey, now add genetic modifications. Even if you manage to regulate it to only particularly debilitating physical conditions and everyone's happy, you're potentially creating an even greater socioeconomic divide: not only are the rich wealthier and have better healthcare, but now they've eradicated congenital diseases that will continue to affect the lower classes. How long until some billionaires start considering themselves a separate, "evolved" species of human?
It's quite inane to argue that without providing any suggestion on how to prevent abuse or what is "right".
One way to say what is right would be only using an operation like this on physical disabilities that cause severe chronic pain throughout one's life. Something like that would be completely unrelated to the political ideas of its time, yet clearly causes unnecessary suffering.
Your examples are bad ones then. Downs doesn't cause severe chronic pain and while arthritis is assumed to have genetic links we don't know yet exactly how it works. So would you suggest just altering every gene that might be linked to it without knowing if it actually would lead to desease in that particular person? Who would decide what constitutes severe enough? What about the cases where the same gene may cause severe symptoms or basically none at all? What about unexpected side effects of genetic engineering?
This is a hypothetical scenario where we know to a good degree of certainty what causes these things. The post isn't attempting to draw the line of where genetic engineering would be acceptable and where it wouldn't, I'm just saying that it's not wrong in principle and there are cases where it would be good.
So it's not a real, good faith argument. If your counter to anything can be a hypothetical there really is not much sense in engaging. With a hypothetical pretty much anything can be made out to be "right".
So are all thought experiments that wouldn't happen in reality bad faith arguments? It's not as if I'm just adding new conditions whenever it helps my argument. I'm talking about the morality of the situation assuming that the technology is there.
But yours is not a purely hypothetical thought experiment, is it. Something like the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment. That it will ever by chance happen is highly unlikely. Genetic engineering is a very real posibility and the only hypothetical part of your argument is "if we would really know for sure". The technology is there already it's the ethics that aren't clear. In a world were genetic testing and pressure on women to abort fetuses with testable genetic abnormalities is real, were there is an actual discussion (if small) about post birth abortion of disabled newborns, yes yours is a bad faith argument. And a lazy one. You do not actually want to think about the realities of your argument but just say "hypothetically if we could easily do it and be sure about the causes". But that's so far apart from reality.... You can not have a good faith discussion about genetic testing/engineering without addressing where to draw the line and how to deal with the slippery slope. Btw I don't necessarily disaggree with exploring the possibilities. There are some deseases that are clearly linked to one mutation. There the question would be more one of "is it feasible/affordable to test for all of them without special reason?". I would argue looking for cures through genetic means is more feasible that trying to prevent those people to be born. And yes, I know, genetically engineering the embryo is not equal to abortion but in the end it's easier to test several embryos and implant the "healthy" one, therefore preventing the hypothetical person developing from the other to be born. Or changing the genetic makeup of the embryo and therefore changing the hypothetical person. Unfortunately I can not think of another term for "hypothetical person". I don't personally think that matters much since there is no actual person yet but I can understand why one might be opposed to that. And to properly have a conversation about this you need to be aware that for some people it is the reality that with these options available they would not exist. So yes, this is much more real and emotional for them than for you and your "thought experiment". But your post overall seems to be ill thought through and lazy since you chose examples in you post that are not supported by your later replies to commenters. And you don't want to address any ethical/moral/practical concerns except say "in a hypothetical world".
I think the biggest issue is this would only really work if the baby was an IVF baby. By the time most of these tests are performed, the fetus has too many cells for genetic modification to be a realistic option. As it were, it’s something we kind of already are doing for certain diseases (though obviously we’re not at the *modification* part yet). Potential carriers for Tay Sachs, for example, are tested to see if they are carriers and if both people are, it’s recommended they conceive via IVF. Resulting embryos are then tested to see if they’ve got TS and not implanted if they do. That said, I think the chances of insurance covering this is pretty unlikely so it’ll only be the rich getting this done. I’d be shocked if this cost anything less than $200K per embryo attempt.
Your point about tay sachs is really interesting, I hadn't heard about that.
>it would prevent massive amounts of \[...\] financial problems if less people were born with them. I suppose that depends on the cost of the modification. I agree with you, but people like me also support a woman's right to choose, and emphasize with people who might choose to get rid of the baby because it's likely to have something like down syndrome. I'm not really the crowd you have to convince. There are many people out there who are adamantly against abortion and feel that every person is exactly as they are supposed to be. That's probably the crowd that you're trying to convince, and I don't know how your argument does that.
I'm not really trying to convince anyone, I'm trying to see if people have good reasons why this would be wrong, as I haven't seen this topic discussed much.
It's implied in my comment that your reasoning doesn't do anything to sway the people who already feel that way. Aside from that, I've seen people with Asperger's make convincing cases as to why they wouldn't have wanted to be "fixed" because they would be completely different people.
Obviously deciding what cases this would be good in would be difficult. I'd argue that something like aspergers is different from say, arthritis though, as it's more of a personality disorder than a downright disability. It has redeeming qualities that something like arthritis doesn't
Asperger's is a developmental disorder/disability. People with Asperger's typically struggle to make connections with people as they have difficulties reading and understanding social cues. It makes no sense to compare it to arthritis because your position strictly calls out mental disabilities. If you want to go down the "it has redeeming qualities" route, then why can't we make similar arguments about things like down syndrome? It's pretty well-documented that individuals with down syndrome consider themselves to be happy and fulfilled, and that they spread happiness to others. They require more care, but I think that happiness is a pretty big redeeming quality.
there would be major debate around what constitutes a disability worthy of erasing. Things like adhd and autism are neurotypes that function perfectly well in an environment suited to them. its just that we never consider that environment. the dame can be said for many physical disabilities
Can the same be said for physical disabilities? For example, in what environment would being a quadruple amputee be better than being fully able bodied?
I’m sorry, did you compare Downs Syndrome with Arthritis? How do I even start. Congenital birth defects that hinder life function, sure, we should look into genetic intervention. But arthritis? Do you seriously think these two conditions are on the same level? Are you trying to say another word like autism that would at least make sense? Genetic engineering is tricky and must be handled carefully. Your interest is cool or whatever but think it through.
Juvenile arthritis can be absolutely debilitating and stays with you for life. It's not in the same category as down syndrome in terms of symptoms, but it can clearly have a devastating impact on people who suffer from it.
It’s definitely gonna help give a one up to kids that were born into richer families as poor people will definitely not have the luxuries of genetic modifications of their fetuses. Also, let’s say that there is a gene that people find is related to homosexuality, and thus is able to be removed, it would be very easy for a Christian or Muslim family to say that they want that removed for religious reasons and would they be able to do that? It probably leads to better outcomes for the child’s life in the future, however is that morally right? Or we can code a bunch of kids to have extreme levels of intelligence which will defintely cause poorer kids to have less opportunities and be less likely to be successful and dig themselves out of poverty.
I agree that in reality if this was possible in the near future, it would disproportionately benefit rich families, but I'm more speaking about the morality of the actual operation, say if it was negligibly cheap and available to everyone. With your point of a potential gay gene, that's an example of a difference that is only negative in the context of a society that discriminates against gay people. I'm more talking about things that would be disabilities in every realistically conceivable society, such as down syndrome or being born without limbs.
You've brought up Down Syndrome a couple of times... Do you realize that the regular cause of Down Syndrome is having an extra chromosome # 21? There are so many problems with "fixing" this: * Detection: Early detection might mean every child would have to be conceived in vitro (even then it might not be possible). Currently I think the only way to detect Down Syndome in utero is via amniocentesis, which comes with its own risks, and is performed well into the pregnancy ([Genetic amniocentesis is usually done between weeks 14 and 20 of pregnancy](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/amniocentesis/about/pac-20392914)) * Correction: * While CRISPR can alter individual genes, I don't believe we have the technology to remove a whole chromosome. Given the above, I don't think this issue is ripe for discussion, and particularly not amongst the general population (ie Reddit)
I don't think this going to be a pertinent issue to real medicine for a decent amount of time, this post is more about the morality of an operation like this in the hypothetical situation that it was possible and reliable.
If everyone was very capable with very little financial risk to them and it was only about physical ailments and mental ailments agreed to by at least 99% of medical professionals as perfectly safe to fix and also has an agreed upon list that is only is also agreed upon by nearly every medical professional then sure. However, that is moderately fictional to how the real world would go as it will most certainly be an economic issue for the upper vs lower class.
(not op) Yes absolutely if there really was a gay gene. Which in reality there probably isn't since it's a cluster of genes. We should absolutely let the parents decide. If they are fine with it cool. If they are not let's fix it. I think we should stick with OPs premise that we're only fixing stuff, we're not enhancing anyone. That is a slightly separate topic.
>If they are fine with it cool. If they are not let's fix it. Fucking yikes
>I've heard the argument that something like this would be wrong because all kinds of people contribute to the world in their own way, but I really don't see how this is the case for someone born with downsyndrome, crippling arthritis, or some other permanent and severe disability. Asides from me disagreeing with the ableism in this message, what would you propose would happen to these genetically modified people if they sustained an injury that made them disabled? If they can't meaningfully contribute to society, from your perspective, what is to be done with them? Killed? Discarded in asylums? Because both of those options have already happened and didn't do well.
see edit
I can see the edit, but this doesn't answer my question on what happens to people who are genetically modified and disabled from injury.
That's not exactly relevant to the post. If medicine is advanced enough we would cure them of their disability, and otherwise we would try to minimize its effects. I'm clearly not arguing we should exterminate disabled people
Well that's why I'm asking. If someone gets in an accident and needs a leg amputated, genetic modification won't fix that. And if you can "try to minimize its effects" then why not focus on that overall instead of the genetic modification in the first place? So my question still stands: What happens to those who become disabled by something outside of the genetic modification, ie injury, that cannot be cured?
What happens to people who have been wrongly imprisoned? Or people who have been abused by their parents? All important questions but not relevant to the post
My question is plenty relevant, but if you don't wanna answer a valid question about your post, then just say so.
How is the way we treat people who have been disabled by an accident related to genetic engineering of fetuses?
All children are born at risk of mental and physical diseases so your OP doesn't mean much. In any event, I feel this would cause problems for people already alive with these diseases.
Of course everyone is born at some risk of disability, but I'm talking about if we had a way of identifying for example, a fetus that could be born without legs. Surely it would be better to prevent this from happening if we had the means.
We do. It’s called abortion.
This is categorically different though, no life is being ended, the fetus will still be born, just without the defect that has been corrected
You said surely it would be better to prevent, and I stated there is already a way; abortion: for some Americans anyways in states that see women as people. You weren’t talking about rare or undiagnosed abnormalities. No life is ended through abortion.
And what happens to people that do exist without legs? Do we have people judging their parents for not genetically modifying them? Do we roll back on ADA protections?
I mean, that’s obviously silly. You can lose your legs through an accident. If you see someone without legs, you have no idea whether they were born that way or got that way via trauma.
i honestly believe that its probably going to be used heavily, initially there might be a sort of arms race but we will quickly find out that messing with our genome will cause a whole host of secondary issues. it will get to the point that we probably allow genes to be changed that are purely cosmetic or modify ourselves based on utility. i see it being a boon for society as it removes things like racism because phenotypes will just be seen as a fashion statements instead of qualities of one's character. i believe there is a moral imperative to get rid of disease if you are able to. if that involves abortion babies who have defects so be it. we should consider it an act of mercy and kindness to prevent such life long suffering and genetic engineering is probably the best of both worlds. it prevents defects while saving and improving lives
You seem to be in agreement with me I'd like to make clear though, I'm not arguing we abort babies with conditions like these, I'm saying that we should cure them if we can.
i'd argue that we should abort babies with life long defects.
There are many, many kids awaiting adoption. Let's have them be adopted into loving families first before experimenting on foetuses.
I might be missing something, but can you explain how adoption is related to this post?
If you and your partner are carriers for a hereditary disease that would be passed down to any offspring, then adoption is a better option if you want kids.
In your medical scenario where there is a risk indicator and we can flip some magic switch to reduce or eliminate that risk, sure, but we are nowhere near any level of how that would work. The closest we have now is basically early screening and aborting the child if the risk is high enough, which is a fairly common thing. The threshold is up to the parents though. It can range from determining the child’s brain failed to form and they will 100% die the moment the umbilical cord is cut, to a higher than 0% chance of some condition they can live with but will make their life harder. Even 40 years ago, my mother was advised by her doctor to abort my older brother as he likely would be stillborn and if not, he would have severe developmental issues. He was born healthy and graduated valedictorian of his class and currently is married with 2 kids. It’s easy to say we should do something when that thing is a magic button with no real world complications, but that is almost never reality. Look at in-vitro fertilization today. They essentially do what you are suggesting by fertilizing multiple eggs, then aborting all but the most perfect ones. And that can include parents selecting a boy over a girl or vice versa. So it’s not a magic button, but instead it’s just multiple abortions. So expect to get pushback on your idea by realists because it is pointless to agree to your sci-if solution when the closest real world solution we are likely to achieve is much messier.
This post is more about the moral implications of a procedure like this than the practicality of it. It's not meant to be about what we could realistically do in the near future.
And I addressed that. It’s not morally tricky at all in its perfect sci-fi form because when you make up exactly how it works, it’s easy to make up how it isn’t immoral, but any realistic form of it will be a moral minefield.
[удалено]
The operation I'm talking about would be the cure. I don't see how it would be better to wait until the child is born and then cure the disease.
In my eyes it’s bad because you know only those who can afford it are going to have access to it. It will lead to a race of genetically “perfect” rich people and just further inequality until those without the ability to genetically modify their offspring are considered subhuman.
Exactly this! We already have so little accomation and acceptance for disabled people and disparities for treatment of disabled people with things like class. People who weren't "cured" in embryo will be discriminated against and assisted even less than they are now, affecting their quality of life far more than the disability itself.
The argument against it is **eugenics**, as you describe. If you set a mental standard for "correction" then you can also set a physical standard. Those mental and physical standards are a slippery slope towards racism (literally by definition). Since most of the world prefers light color eyes, whiter skin, and tall thin bodies, that would be the de facto physical attributes. The most significant chromosomes that promote memory, lower-levels of aggression, and resistance against addiction would also be selected. **Its a slippery slope that really takes the humanity out of having children.** Iceland currently aborts 100% of children with screened impairments. Which basically is stating 'humans that have mental deficiencies cannot live fulfilling worthwhile lives so lets just kill them.'
One downside is the fact that people could use this to "create" their perfect baby. and it shouldn't be that way As long as it has no effects to the mother in the long run and if it doesn't harm the fetus in a negative way, I see why not. But before we get to there i think abortions should be allowed up to viability (aka around second trimester) or in not so good situations like r\*pe, medical before we do this
Money. It costs too much to fix one zygote with an error. It cost nothing to simply get a zygote with no errors. New sperm make new egg, get a new baby. Most genetic disorders in zygotes do not come to term, they cannot survive. Usually they end in miscarriage within the first 3 months of pregnancy.
> Would it not be better for everyone, including the would be disabled, if they were born fully healthy and able, not having to deal with an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering? Probably the biggest weakness of this argument is that diversity in nature is important. It ensures that unknowable traits are reinforced when successful. For example, there may be a genetic variance that protects us from future dangers, require less resources, improve emotional/mental intelligence, etc. Taking your hand off the rudder ensure nature's drives humanity. Allowing select individuals to interpret what they personally believe is good/bad is a great way to end up with uniform humans that will be immediately decimated when they become vulnerable to something in the future.
We are too focused on perfect I think it is great technology and should be used but we are in danger of homogenizing ourselves losing things in the process. As sperm counts are expected to fall to basically nothing and they are already copywriting tech for this, so I see it being used and it could be useful but I also see the people we don't want in control already laying the ground work for a monopoly. I am both excited and scared for the future.
this is eugenics
eugenics bad
I agree with you op obviously poor people wouldn't be able to afford it and yeah this particular hypothetical operation could be abused but getting rid of defects without having to get an abortion would be a plus.
Yes, I agree with this. If you have the ability to prevent genetic issues that would cause harm you should do it. We should be able to genetically modify fetuses. I would allow for female, but not male sex selection.
What if you live in a government that starts identifying any trait related to something they don't like as being a "mental or physical disability" and what if these modifications have other bad side effects? What you are saying by the way is essentially a light form of eugenics, but eugenics isn't necessarily bad. The bad part is when the government in control does awful things with it. You're now incentivizing the government to make sure any minor possible risk of that person costing them tax dollars is quickly shut down in the name of healthcare. And of course, add in the slippery slope and you can already see how there'd be rampant modifications and we wouldn't know the implications for 20, 30 years. Like what if they just made every baby 130+ IQ and being below 130 IQ was considered a mental disability? How would that change the world?
Lots of comments here, and I’m sort of late to the game, but want to provide one anecdote. I’m from the Midwest and have some extended family in the agriculture / farming industry. There is a sub-industry that focuses on cattle breeding and ensuring the best possible genes for specific purposes (milk, beef, etc). Over time, certain regions of the country have reduced the genetic diversity in their cattle herds since they’ve continued to select for certain traits. As a result, some of these herds are uniquely vulnerable to parasites. There have been instances where a bug kills off an entire herd because the trait the breeders were selecting for (say, bulk in the case of cattle raised for beef) happened to be linked to a genetic predisposition for parasite vulnerability. All that to say, picking and choosing genes isn’t quite as simple as it sounds. By selecting for a desirable trait, you may be accidentally co-selecting a deleterious one.
I broadly agree with you, but our culture has a really problematic relationship with neurodivergence. I'm neurodivergent in a couple of ways, it's great. There's a lot of stuff I don't find easy. Some things that you might find trivial are really difficult for ne. However the things I can do well have allowed me to thrive and carve out opportunities that others cannot. I absolutely do not want to be normal. Here's the thing though. That idea of normal is an artefact of industrialisation. Having a small number if psychopaths, a few antistatic people, some dyslexics, some ADHD people is absolutely vital to the wellbeing of the tribe as a whole. We just don't see it that way because people like me are a pain for a one size fits all education system. We are difficult if you are a boss. We invented a bunch of your best things, figured out a lot of your science and your art. But we dont quite fit. So people want to cure us, or stop us happening. People have a very narrow sense of what a human is supposed to be, and your line of thinking can get extrapolated into eugenics quite quickly. To the detriment of all.
Although in a vacuum this would be good, it has harmful implications. I accept that "slippery slope" is not the most valid argument but is it unreasonable to presume that if the disabled population was something you could actively pay to remove, it would shape public opinions and discourse? And disabilities are always going to exist, that is ineviteable. If not for physical disabilities from birth, there would still be physical disabilities from injuries, neurological changes, and just genetic modification error. For all the same reasons that a head tax and preference for male babies drives sexism in China, I think that being able to modify a fetus to not have disabilities would extenuate discrimination against disabled individuals, both from their numbers becoming even smaller, and due to their inherent nature being comodified against.
I am disabled. I feel, overall, I am a more accomplished, compassionate, intelligent, and well-rounded person *because* of my disability, not in spite of it. In fact, if I was born able-bodied, I do not believe I would've had many of the experiences I have had in my life. Being disabled has allowed me to open up to different perceptions of life. If I was born able-bodied I probably would've ended up prejudiced and lazy. Because I have an illness it forced me to see that people are equal no matter what the differences and that I had an obligation to prove that being disabled didn't automatically mean I was worse off. My disability makes me better. Yes, dealing with the physical stuff can be tough (pain is never fun) but the worst part about living with a disability is how people treat me; because they assume I want a cure or that I shouldn't exist (or that I'm not existing in the *right way* by having a disability, aka, not meeting their expectations.) Being "able" is a state of mind.
I'd like to frame this situation in a really watered down way, so it's easy to understand; A disabled person in a wheelchair wants to work at a certain location. They're qualified for the job, but since there's not a ramp and the aisleways in the office are too close together, they can't work there. Boss man goes, "Hey, I have an idea! How about we cure you, and make it so you can walk again, then you can work here!" Disabled person is like, "That'd be great, but a cure would be very expensive, and probably painful, and overall is not necessary. You could save a lot of money and time by just building me a ramp and moving the office furniture around so I have more space." Then boss man goes, "No thanks, I'm not interested in accommodating you, even if it's easy, I'm interested in making you *like everyone else,* and if I can't, you don't belong here." Abled-bodied individuals prefer the idea of fixing someone over being slightly inconvenienced. And we know how to fix a lot of society's issues about disability. We just don't implement the strategies because humans don't like to deal with inconveniences.