Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KermitMadMan t1_je9zup6 wrote

hello GATTACA

28

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jea2bxm wrote

Wasn't that genetic engineering to improve the genes rather than selecting from the "best" gene combo?

6

ctrl_alt_excrete t1_jea67s0 wrote

It was, but the implications are similar. Essentially, this process would likely only be available to those who can afford it, leaving those with lower incomes to actually become objectively inferior to the upper class and furthering to enlarge the already huge class divide.

21

Johnny_Fuckface t1_jeankp4 wrote

It's more likely that this will be used to screen for disease more than anything. Our concept of what genes result in what positive traits we have is shaky. Often a subtle combo of various interactions.

3

PragmaticBodhisattva t1_jeap1vo wrote

If only the rich have the ability to be screened for diseases, that puts those who can’t afford this at a massive disadvantage. The inequity would be stark. I have a disability due to chronic illness and I am treated as sub-human by (far too many of) those with the means to be able to afford treatments etc. Disability payments allow for next to no quality of life. This would be disastrous if only those with wealth could access it.

7

TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_jeb7bup wrote

And we all know that wealth will greatly determine access, especially while the tech is new.

Frankly, this all is way too close to eugenics for me to be comfortable with it.

3

PragmaticBodhisattva t1_jebbroo wrote

This is how I feel about AI technology right now, too. What happens when those with capital have access to AI to boost their economic output, and everyone else who might have been working more menial jobs are replaced by AI? This has been haunting me recently, especially with AI companies firing their AI ethics teams…

0

Johnny_Fuckface t1_jef7mgg wrote

Yeah, but at some point it's gonna get cheap enough.

1

PragmaticBodhisattva t1_jeffabi wrote

I think you are missing the point of the rising inequality gap.

2

Johnny_Fuckface t1_jefrdp6 wrote

No, I get it. But I think filtering useful tech because of human stupidity and greed when, as a culture we're too complacent to do anything about human stupidity and greed, isn't technology's fault.

2

KermitMadMan t1_jea2lga wrote

it’s been so long since I saw it that I’m not sure.

1

Silent0n3_1 t1_jeadbvq wrote

Does anyone commenting here have kids? Genuine question.

Let's say a number of embryos and their prospective parents had the ability to lessen the chance of a debilitating disease of the one chosen for fertilization. By making that choice, is that equivalent to increasing the likelihood of the flourishing of another human being?

If, once in the throes of an opioid induced overdose, does it remove the personal choice and individuality of the victim, who has a percentage chance of recovering "naturally", to apply a Narcan treatment to reverse the effects? Does it affect the outcome of future human evolution to choose to treat that person?

It smacks of pro-life "It's God's will" arguments then paired with the naturalistic fallacy of "violating genetic evolution" to say no in these scenarios. Wearing glasses for short sightedness is a violation of genetic evolution. If you wear them, you should be dead from a predator already and not be able to have kids. Does anyone here wear glasses or contacts?

The argument of "insidious capitalism" is the tool that will lead to the Gattaca scenario is drivel as well. Will there be unscrupulous actors? Yes. In every system, in every environment, capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. there are always bad actors. In Soviet Russia, athletes were routinely doped, and it was state sponsored by a communist regime. So much for capitalism being the only source of evil. At least you are given the choice rather than having the state choose for you.

I have had friends who went through the process on this very subject, and none of the drivel brought up was ever a part of the process or even a concern. The parents knew it was only a probabilistic decrease of their health concerns and not a guarantee. They also knew that of the 2 kids they had with it, one was a "better quality" embryo than another. Both kids were born anyway and are enjoying a happy family life. The "better quality" embryo is in more trouble on a daily basis than his brother. Go figure.

If I had the choice to screen my future possible embryos as a choice I would do so because I have also seen what it is like to have a child born with a debilitating genetic disease, and if a choice could be made prior, or the risks lowered, it is a no brainer when presented with the reality of that choice. From the child suffering in the hospital treatments and anguish of the parents seeing their child suffering while it is happening, to the economic consequences of the entire family losing the college money of siblings to afford the treatments for the afflicted child. If these arguments were to be believed, the family would not give these treatments because "Gattaca!" bs. But they do, because we're human and love our children regardless.

How about posing this way - if you had the choice of possibly lessening the suffering of other human beings through knowledge, would you deny yourself that choice? Would you just say, "meh, that's nature for you" to just roll the dice without trying to get a better outcome?

And then, if you could lessen the possibility of your own child suffering through knowledge, would you choose to do so? Or would you just say "I'll roll the dice, because if my child suffers, that's God's plan."

15

TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_jeb91yd wrote

I don’t see why the Gattaca/eugenics parallels are “drivel.”

Put yourself in that Rawlsian “veil of ignorance.”

Pretend you’re a disembodied soul and can end up absolutely anywhere in the world, and in any body. Now what if you’re the one with a debilitating disease, or you’re the parent to the child with one, and you’re too poor to access this service.

Or let’s say you were born already several generations into this gigantic social experiment, but you happen to belong to a line of people who had been “left behind” by this technology, as it were. What are the real implications for living as a member of that biological underclass?

Are those lives that can sincerely said to be better off because of this?

Why is being critical of this technology “rolling the dice,” but its uncritical embrace is somehow not also a gamble?

0

Shield_Lyger t1_jebj3h8 wrote

> Pretend you’re a disembodied soul and can end up absolutely anywhere in the world, and in any body. Now what if you’re the one with a debilitating disease, or you’re the parent to the child with one, and you’re too poor to access this service.

Then you're in the same situation that you would be in if the service had never been created. The presumption that no lives should be improved unless all lives are improved strikes me as vapid. Ridding the world of opportunity is not a good solution to the problem of opportunity hoarding.

9

Silent0n3_1 t1_jebhw1o wrote

I don't have to pretend. A member of my family has a child with a debilitating disease, and she goes through hell while in the hospital with him. We all still love him and support her as much as we can while watching both of them go through hell. That's what most families do. I have no idea what the wandering soul parable has to do with anything that touches real lives other than to obfuscate with abstraction.

As far as being "left behind," yes, that is less ideal as we extrapolate in time the effects when compared to the group lucky enough to have first access vs those who don't. But that is also just empty moral finger wagging.

To condemn those who were able to take the first doses of antibiotics or vaccines that became available as "unethical" because there were groups in other countries that didn't have them available at the same exact time is empty of any real criticism. Maybe to deny them access is what you mean. That would be immoral.

The hope, I would think, is that this technology is allowed to grow and become more cost efficient so that, one day hopefully sooner rather than later, those "left behind" will also be able to have the choice to engage with this technology. That it is cheaper, safer, more effective, and thus able to become more widespread.

Also, note the wording of "choice." The choice to engage or not. Just like vaccines, who have plenty of superior moral fingers wagging at the perceived opposition in regards to the existence and utilization of that technology.

Do we regret my family experience? No. He is a gem that we love and care for. But if we could even just lower the possibility of it happening to others in the future? Then unequivocally, the answer is yes.

3

lepercake t1_jea1sco wrote

Problems for two generations and then everyone is Brave New World ready.

14

Factsaretheonlytruth t1_jeaimh3 wrote

Its really only an ethical problem for the religious who would think this somehow goes against their god which, of course, does not exist.

5

Alone-Quail4915 t1_jeaz541 wrote

Interesting, to make an absolute statement like that about a God or deity is impossible you should’ve instead said which I don’t believe does. Further implications come into play when thinking about the value of life of someone with one of those diseases and whether or not they have the same value or right to life as someone without it. Thats where the moral and ethical issues come in not necessarily because you believe in a god.

4

TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_jeb7w0l wrote

What about concerns about wealth and access to this technology, and the further implications about generating a whole biologically inferior underclass of humans in a few generations?

This feels very eugenics-y to me.

2

PhysicalLobster3909 t1_jee7c3l wrote

The real question is the level of "defects" which would justify termination. Wanting to avoid debilitating diseases is a thing, doing the same for an increased probability of illness in life is another level of selection.

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_jeebve3 wrote

Much of the concerned raised against such a practice comes from those deride it as eugenics. If that is the case, what is it that those people worship?

1

Agamemnon420XD t1_jeb1qbl wrote

There are no ethical problems, there’s just narcissists crying about progress.

One day, my disease, UC, will be gone, and the ‘culture’ and lifestyle habits surrounding UC will also be gone. It will be amazing, and anyone who says losing your culture for the sake of objective progress is a ‘bad’ thing is a fucking narcissist and I hope they suffer, because they’re standing for the suffering of others.

5

bildramer t1_jee1eb6 wrote

But what if rich people get to be disease-free first? Clearly that's historically unprecedented, rich people being better off is astounding, nay, unacceptable, we might as well be putting minorities in camps.

3

Agamemnon420XD t1_jeecanu wrote

“Let’s halt progress because the wealthy get priority to it!”

“Nobody deserves wealth!”

“Wealthy people exist; let’s start rounding up minorities and putting them in concentration camps!”

🥴

3

angleonyourshoulder t1_jea2w1z wrote

I feel like if you can’t handle the idea that your kid isn’t gonna be perfect you shouldn’t have kids period.

4

RedhandedMan t1_jecqewv wrote

I feel like if you don't do everything you reasonably can to give your kids a good life you don't deserve them.

7

PhysicalLobster3909 t1_jee7zyk wrote

Both of you are right. The concern about how it could modify our view of disability and illness in general is legitimate however.

The second problem is the level of defect that would be "acceptable" or "unacceptable" between severe disability and markers making depression, diabetes or any slight problem more likely.

The first is undoubtedly a progress, the second blurs the line between that and a more dubious "optimisation".

2

tyorqa t1_jea5cdh wrote

Question: Will this type of artificial selection damage the future of humans ability to adapt? Genuine question.

3

TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_jeb9h29 wrote

That’s an unknown unknown.

But if it eliminates generic variety, I’d land towards saying yes.

3

someguy67598 t1_jefiuib wrote

We of course should try to make our kids as healthy as possible,however this technology could have some darker uses and effects,but that's unfortunatley not really preventable with scientific progress

2

[deleted] t1_jebsptm wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_jecrx6a wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1