Codydw12 t1_j8pqrmx wrote
Reply to comment by deepoutdoors in Americans are ready to test embryos for future college chances, survey shows by ChickenTeriyakiBoy1
What part of my comment made you think I believe people can go full mad science?
Let's say you come from a family with a history of cancer or mental disorders like I do. Wouldn't you want to screen your child to either remove that genetic predisposition or limit it?
deepoutdoors t1_j8prh2t wrote
This already exists, so I can tell you are not a parent. Both of my children were screened neonatal for 198 genetic disorders. The parent can choose to abort fetus. This is why downs syndrome is becoming rare, it’s being actively removed from the gene pool.
Natural evolution is a lot cooler than something we have no idea what the unintended consequences of meddling in genetics would be +1 Gen.
Codydw12 t1_j8prznb wrote
So your answer is abortion. Ok fair. I haven't had the chance to have a child on account of being fucking broke but I'd like to one day. But if a couple continues to try for a child and continues to have an issue such as downs syndrome or a massive chance of becoming cancer ridden, or have crippling anxiety all their life there's not many better options. We're going to edit genes, if not today then tomorrow. We might as well get the ethics of doing as such down right now.
deepoutdoors t1_j8psxbf wrote
I agree with you. The current option is to not have a child. We all must strive to make the informed choices and it is ourselves that ultimately must live with them.
I know a person who chooses not to have children due to the extremely high probability of breast cancer. Would genetic screening to remove that risk be cool? Yes.
But once that box is opened and widespread who knows. We are talking bioethics yet we can’t even agree as a society on the results of the 2020 election.
Codydw12 t1_j8pvme8 wrote
You're right in all regards. Not having kids, bioethics and politics. But the thing is there is no example in any iteration of Pandora's Box where the box doesn't get opened. It'll be much the same with AI, robotics, space exploration and colonization and probably a whole lot more this century.
To me if someone wants to go in and edit their genetics so they grow to be 7'6", I really don't care. If someone wants to have purple eyes or bright pink hair or elf ears. If people want to get stronger or smarter or more agile or almost anything else. Fuck they could splice in Firefly genes to become bioluminescent and I wouldn't really care much the same I don't care if someone gets a tattoo, piercing or physical reassignment surgery. If you're happy and aren't hurting people I don't really care.
For gene editing their kids there's a lot that I support like improving health, removing defects or just trying to give them a good quality of life. For the more excessive things like turning their skin purple or having them grow four arms then yeah, I have an issue because you don't have the kids consent and can't get it. Now if the kid grows up and says "I want to have four arms!" then since it's them consenting I don't really care. Now we'll have another issue when two people with four arms want their own baby Shokan but that's like 50 years off at least.
I think in some regards Cyberpunk pretty accurately predicted the future. We as a society are going to have to figure shit out pretty fast.
Kyotokyo14 t1_j8ptt9f wrote
Here's an alternative to eugenics. Better health care.
Codydw12 t1_j8pw6kw wrote
I get how this is seen as eugenics by removing some genes but I am not calling for anyone to die here. Hell I want more people on this Earth and get called crazy for it. But I don't see how saying "This gene causes a significantly higher risk for literal cancer" and then saying "We should probably change that to benefit the life of a person" is anywhere near wanting to genocide people.
Additionally, we can have both. Hell I'd call gene editing a healthcare procedure if you're fixing an illness.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments