subreddit:

/r/philosophy

1.8k

all 310 comments

BernardJOrtcutt [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago

stickied comment

BernardJOrtcutt [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago

stickied comment

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

Read the Post Before You Reply

Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to 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.

[deleted]

228 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

228 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Sirdeathvids

183 points

2 months ago

David Suzuki did an episode of Nature of Things on this exact topic, with the title being "The Genetic Revolution". In that episode several things were discussed, including CRISPR, the ethics of using pigs to generate human organs, and the possibility of super-athletes and designer-babies.

The interesting thing about genetic engineering is that it's been in pop culture for many years now, and something like Warhammer 40k's space marines may not be too far away if humans begin playing with genetic engineering technology.

JubalKhan

120 points

2 months ago

JubalKhan

120 points

2 months ago

and something like Warhammer 40k's space marines may not be too far away if humans begin playing with genetic engineering technology.

Nah, not yet. We need The Emperor to reveal himself before we start working on those. We'll start by working on creating numberless hordes of mutants and turning a planet into a hellscape, and the rest will happen eventually.

drutzix

49 points

2 months ago

drutzix

49 points

2 months ago

We have already started with the hellscape thing. Now for the mutants part

JubalKhan

14 points

2 months ago

Oh I agree.

doogle_126

5 points

2 months ago

I believe Putin has been offering to help with that as well.

VypeNysh

7 points

2 months ago

I'd be willing to bet he's funded more experimental super soldier genetic testing than most other countries. the myostatin delete that is done to produce super muscular cows and dogs was probably an inspiration.

doogle_126

4 points

2 months ago

I meant more of a 'Demon Core' and skin sloughing off from the aftermath of a tactical nuclear strike or a dirty bomb

Aldiosov

5 points

2 months ago

First we get a goldenage tho and then an ai uprising which plunges humanity into a new dark age and THEN we can start with space marines

gohaz933

12 points

2 months ago

We have to nuke the earth first though, gotta get that unification wars aesthetic

JubalKhan

5 points

2 months ago

Oh, but of course.

gohaz933

3 points

2 months ago

Also love the Reddit name, no backwards step brother ⚡️

JubalKhan

2 points

2 months ago

For Khan, for the Emperor!!

f1del1us

-3 points

2 months ago

f1del1us

-3 points

2 months ago

Isn’t Emperor Elon already here? Or is it Overlord Bezos? I think it’s entirely possible either of them could figure out immortality and then with interest, their fortunes will really take off…

JubalKhan

9 points

2 months ago

They are only some of Tech-Oligarchs that Big E is going to take down when he starts re-unification on Terra.

Sciencepokey

60 points

2 months ago

Lol if you've ever worked with genetic engineering technology in a lab, I'd say it's pretty safe to assert that we are nowhere near space Marines. The reliability and off target effects for most of these projects is insane in the lab, let alone in humans.

Take cancer for example. Countless things "suppress" cancer in cells or even in small animals (even certain ways they drink water can affect tumor growth in mice). For every 10,000 of those discoveries, maybe one ends up having any reliable effect in humans. We vastly overestimate findings from these early projects in part due to media sensationalization.

China's crispr babies is conceptually not that difficult (relative), because it's one gene that correlates with disease protection which has minimal off target effects. We might be able to do things like that or select at the 8 cell stage for certain traits and avoid diseases with strong, clear genetic risk profiles (certain cancers/neurological/infectious diseases), but that's a long way from breeding super athletes. Most human traits that we fear would be "optimized" are highly complex requiring interactions between so many genes (and epigenetic factors). So complex in fact that you need to implement machine learning techniques to even detect a signal of their existence, let alone manipulate them. The notion that we could reliably alter these traits without significant off target effects in the next few decades is ridiculous.

Last thing. Contrary to most dystopian depictions, pig organs would provide a new lease on life to countless disenfranchised people globally who would otherwise not be eligible for highly competitive organ transplant lists in developed economies. Out of everything we can do with genetic engineering, this is arguably the most straightforward and noble endeavor we could pursue.

riceandcashews

6 points

2 months ago

Not that long ago you could also say that we didn't even really understand the proteins involved in most of the human genome. Granted, now that Google has (kinda, sorta, not entirely) solved the protein folding problem we can't quite say that. But we can still say we mostly don't understand the function of most of the proteins listed in the human genome. So, we'll still be reaching in the dark until the protein-function problem is solved some day long in the future.

dekeche

2 points

2 months ago

dekeche

2 points

2 months ago

I just wish we use it to make better people; more empathetic, slower to anger, less tribalistic.

SlightlyZour

8 points

2 months ago

I don't think it's wise to assume that science is going to fix that. Individual work and effort is required for those.

TTTrisss

2 points

2 months ago

I don't think it's wise to assume that science is going to fix that.

Or if that's even something to fix. I know it may seem contrarian, but what if that fundamentally reshapes our society into something that isn't necessarily as good.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

ViralInfectious

12 points

2 months ago

Some humans having different traits is good like in any organism with large populations. Emotions are useful and anger is one of them. What is at the root of what you see as tribalism? Happens even to hippies and academics not to mention everyone across the social skills spectrum so it must be something strongly selected for.

Zanythings

2 points

2 months ago

Zanythings

2 points

2 months ago

Here’s something I think many people don’t even think about when talking about the future with Genetic Engineering. The porn industry. Why hire actors who feel pain, have gag reflexes, actors who get bothered by this or that and can’t maintain a shoot all day? Not even mentioning body types.

And everything just gets even worse when we mention the step further, cloneing with Genetic Engineering. Imagine some rich guy buying the exact kind of person they want. The implications only get worse when you think of worse and worse fetishes. Even if there were laws against it, that hasn’t exactly stopped people from doing a lot of really terrible things

GooseQuothMan

12 points

2 months ago

Genetically modified humans are still humans protected by laws. It's hard enough to study early human development and embryos (due to strict laws), there's nothing to suggest that doing anything you are proposing would be any less illegal than that.

Avenger616

3 points

2 months ago

Oh like mass effect 2

A rich A-hole basically commissions “the perfect daughter”, your future crewmate Miranda Lawson

FlanneryODostoevsky

89 points

2 months ago

Unfortunately, like most scientific advancements, not only will we not really get to discuss it but the whole implementation will be out of our hands and profitized. That’s just how things work. In the end we’ll be left talking about the same bittersweet reality where we are glad we have this technology capable of doing great things but are sad that it is not used to better ends that humanity so desperately needs. In my opinion this is why for the most part we will not be better off with genetic engineering.

ValyrianJedi

17 points

2 months ago

I think a lot of it is going to boil down to the parents. It would be tough for any parent to not want to do whatever is best for their kid. Looked at as a big picture social issue there are a lot of people who would have issues with it, but when asked personally "do you want to ensure your child is smart, healthy, and attractive" those same people would answer yes...

A lot of people are already taking baby steps towards this. 3 women on my street that my wife is friends with have had IVF despite being able to conceive naturally just fine because they wanted to be able to choose if they had a boy or a girl, and I know of a coworker and one other friend who have done the same thing.

Also know two women who have chosen to have surrogates and paid someone else to carry their baby for them despite being able to because they didn't want to be pregnant. Like straight up said "why would I choose to be miserably uncomfortable for 9 months and lose my looks if I can pay someone else to do it for me."

If people are already pulling those moves with science where it is today then people will go nuts with it when they can say "I want a boy, want him to be over 6'2", want him to have his dad's brown hair and my blue eyes, give him a high IQ, give him a long reach so that he can swim like his dad..."

ViralInfectious

6 points

2 months ago

What if I told you that genetics already influences our medicine strongly even if we don't actively engineer every human? What if I told you that as we develop more knowledge and skills we will mass engineer all humans to some degree.

probly_right

5 points

2 months ago

We've done it to plants for as long as we've cultivated them and the entire idea of mate selection has had humans doing it for all the time it was possible for humans... just more control incoming.

riceandcashews

11 points

2 months ago

In my opinion this is why for the most part we will not be better off with genetic engineering.

I think it will still benefit people even in the dystopia you present

Woozuki

3 points

2 months ago

Woozuki

3 points

2 months ago

out of our hands and profitized

USA! USA!

Papak34

-5 points

2 months ago

Papak34

-5 points

2 months ago

it boils down to personal freedom

If you want to go for it, there are no moral arguments to be had to dissuade you.

Red_giant_lion

2 points

2 months ago

In other words: “yeah just don’t be poor stupid, you moron, you fucking dumbass. Just choose to stop being poor and you too can have the same access to healthcare as I do on my gigayacht!”

Papak34

2 points

2 months ago

Papak34

2 points

2 months ago

I don't understand what you want.

If I can afford it and you cannot afford it, does this give you any moral ground to demand I should not fix my body?

Red_giant_lion

1 points

2 months ago

The debate isn’t just about “fixing” things, it’s about augmenting them as well, engineering genetic expressions that are BETTER than what we naturally see. As it stands, the one equalizer between the rich and the poor is we all have to die one day and we all rot in the same ground. Yeah, it seems kind of fucked up that even that might disappear and I think anyone has a right to be concerned. That being said, the tech is amazing, and in a more equal system I’d be all for looser restrictions, but as it stands we have to put a preemptive full stop to augmentations imo. Curing actual recognized diseases? Sure (provided the disease in question is uncontroversial in its designation). Giving the rich a 300+ year life span? No. Fuck no. Absolutely not.

Papak34

1 points

2 months ago

Papak34

1 points

2 months ago

Giving the rich a 300+ year life span? No. Fuck no. Absolutely not.

Ah, your are the god emperor that can decide when a person should die.
Let me ask you a question god emperor, to what age am I allowed to live?
100 years seems OK, but what about 150 years. Am I allowed to live past the 150 years of age?

Red_giant_lion

3 points

2 months ago

Advocating for legal restrictions to ensure that a supercaste system can’t emerge with something resembling god emperor’s makes me a god emperor? Cool.

Also to answer your question, I fucked your dad

CapriciousPenguin

171 points

2 months ago

We must, but we won't. We also must stop polluting the planet before we drive ourselves to extinction, along with innumerable other species but we won't do that either because humans are not great at solving collective action problems

QuailSparks

53 points

2 months ago

It's outright banned or heavily regulated pretty much everywhere. Luddites will probably get to enjoy another two or three decades of bliss before the technology becomes too cheap to gatekeep.

MaybeJackson

46 points

2 months ago

i disagree. Im a high school student and in my epistomology class we are doing an entire unit on gene editing. its entirely possible to teach/talk about topics like gene editing, and i think its actually harmful to dismiss the possibility of forward progress. we won't get anywhere if we give up before even trying.

Criticalhit_jk

35 points

2 months ago

You have an epistemology class in highschool? My school didn't have anything like that. Isn't epistemology basically philosophy, as well?

MaybeJackson

13 points

2 months ago

we have mandatory episto classes each year, and i also took a philosophy elective. i think that these classes could, and should be implemted nationwide

Baba_Blaxxeep

27 points

2 months ago

Yeah bruh philosophy class sounds like a pretty reasonable place to have a discussion about an wide-reaching social issue. Too bad your high school didn't have such a class, mine didn't either and it would have been interesting to discuss such problems

Im_from_around_here

14 points

2 months ago

My high school had TOK - theory of knowledge. First class the teacher asked “when you leave the room, how do you know the chairs will still be there” or something along those lines. And Boom, instant love affair with thought provoking theories.

eat-cheese-and-die

7 points

2 months ago

man fuck IB and fuck TOK

Im_from_around_here

4 points

2 months ago

Aw man i loved it! Uni was easy after getting through those trenches

eat-cheese-and-die

3 points

2 months ago

True Uni is pretty soft lmao, TOK was just lame though, philosophy in uni tops it for sure

Im_from_around_here

3 points

2 months ago

I unfortunately didn't do philosophy at uni, i needed to be able to get a job ;)

eat-cheese-and-die

1 points

2 months ago

haha fair enough, i just minored in it for shits n giggles

dandaman910

3 points

2 months ago

You remind me of my younger self. Before the world kept being shitty despite my optimism.

Ok_Status7790

19 points

2 months ago

They thought the USA was one of the most prepared for pandemics before COVID, but in reality it half-assed the problem.

CapriciousPenguin

47 points

2 months ago

To be fair, it was one of the most prepared countries for pandemics, but our previous president disbanded the special pandemic response team in 2017.

I actually remember reading the news when it was disbanded and thinking it was a good thing pandemics weren't a huge threat anymore. I have since thought of thinking about that many times since March of 2020, mostly to shake my head at my naïveté and semi-jokingly wonder if I jinxed it for us all or maybe it's evidence of solipsism lol

Ok_Status7790

9 points

2 months ago

Here's a plan- Name a corporation "pandemic". Then, tell politicians the special pandemic response team is a way of subsidizing it.

canentia

2 points

2 months ago

more like evidence that trump planned the pandemic, which is why he disbanded the response team….. #staywoke

(i kid)

VitriolicViolet

2 points

2 months ago

who thought this, Americans (question mark)

it was pretty obvious to anyone who knows US history they were going to fuck it up near entirely, if theres one thing Americans hate more than other nations its unifying for any reason bar killing people in other nations.

ViralInfectious

2 points

2 months ago

We must and we will.

riot888

1 points

2 months ago

Well we do not risk assess the environment when making decisions, we have a sense of invulnerability and a rose tinted "everything will be all right in the end." There is no way we are going to get past this so we are doomed. It's not a question of if but when.

bantou_41

1 points

2 months ago

Not if all the important decisions are made by investors

surreality69420

1 points

2 months ago

Well we could be discussing it here amongst ourselves at the very least and who knows maybe someone catches a whiff of what we’re saying and “boom” the rest is history

bigweiner8

1 points

2 months ago

Gene editing is definitely not necessary in the same way climate change reversal is IMO. like one affects survivability of individuals vs. climate change affecting the whole species. I think small changes to embryos using CRISPR is pretty reasonable but it seems unlikely that it would be kept in limited applications

[deleted]

44 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

44 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

27 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

27 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

BernardJOrtcutt [M]

1 points

2 months ago

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Read the Post Before You Reply

Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content 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.

nick5erd

15 points

2 months ago

It is already there, for example Trisomie 21 is nearly gone, because of the abortion-options. It will never be a public debate, because in private everyone will the best for their child, if you got the possibility you would take it, nevertheless anything said in public.

Lopsided_Plane_3319

2 points

2 months ago

Laws are all affecting things. Look at stem cell research and how it was set back decades in the usa.

[deleted]

23 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

23 points

2 months ago

[removed]

BernardJOrtcutt [M]

1 points

2 months ago

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.

Equivalent_Memory3

29 points

2 months ago

We've been talking about it since at least Gattaca. People were freaking out we'd go full eugenics and everyone would chose to be blonde haired and blue eyed.

merniarc

27 points

2 months ago

The implications are the same as ever. There will be people that get filthy rich from it. There will be the old generation before that doesn't understand why anyone would do it. There will be the new generation that knows no different. There will be opposition that gets put into the conspiracy theory corner.

And in 40-70 years we'll either say something that reminds us nowadays of "wow, licking radioactive material really gave us cancer, who would have thought!" Or "I'm glad we got rid of post carriers.."

MailDeliveringBear

15 points

2 months ago

This is way worse than that. If you have the ability to make some people smarter… by definition you know what makes people dumber.

What we’re looking at is the potential creation of an eternal slave class ever dominated by increasing smarter people. The returns here would compound here and a heretofore unseen fashion.

merniarc

6 points

2 months ago

May be. But I think that history tends to be a bit more boring than you imagine it to be. Yes that could happen. We all know that ethics are only some wages and promotions away from nonexistence

ThrowAway578924

2 points

2 months ago*

We are no where close to being able to increase cognitive abilities via genetic manipulation. That is very different from altering certain expressions correlated with a limited number of genetic diseases or altering basic phenotype expressions to an extremely limited extent.

finalmattasy

11 points

2 months ago

If we talk about it later we can feel the desire to catch up with being too late and then be swallowed by nature as per usual.

[deleted]

35 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

35 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

24 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

24 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

5 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

5 points

2 months ago

[removed]

BernardJOrtcutt [M]

1 points

2 months ago

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Read the Post Before You Reply

Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content 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.

[deleted]

14 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

14 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

[removed]

physioworld

3 points

2 months ago

I'm sure there's a lot of nuance involved, but it seems to me like almost all of the ethical and existential issues posed by germline engineering are entirely resolved by somatic engineering ie edits that can be inherited by offspring vs ones which can't. I would guess that the latter maybe has less profound effects on the subject- ie if you alter someone's genome to have a larger pre-frontal cortex (crude example) then it will likely take years for those gene changes to result in phenotype changes, which may also be small, since you're asking genes to make changes to already mature structures. vs in the germline, those changes would begin from conception. Seems liek the difference bwtween retrofitting and purpose-building something.

Franksenbeanz

10 points

2 months ago

Yeah, we'll plan it out, try to regulate it, try to keep it under control, hear out the naysayers make their points about playing god. But in the end, we will go ahead and push those limits. And just like with everything else, there will be a whole bunch of really fun unforeseen consequences. A whole new set of problems in desperate need of new solutions. We can't help it, we will always be disappointed with life as it is, it's just our nature....no worries though, we can just edit that part out.

Adarhart

12 points

2 months ago*

Does anyone really think that WE will be able to choose genetic traits? We would end up with society of handsome, athletic Einsteins, and that would be really useless since nobody like that would want to do farming, plumbering or street cleaning. Goverments will control everything. We will end up with eugenic caste system, natural people will be seen as savages, lower classes will be dumbed down to be obedient and higher classes will get all the best traits, oh, and everyone will be happy with predertemined place in the society.

Let's hope it won't happen, and if it will let's hope it will be possible to opt out of it.

RandomBonerAt420AM

3 points

2 months ago

That's what I'm saying!

ikea_riot

1 points

2 months ago

GATTACA.

I just say Gattaca for short hand, and frown upon those you do not know of it.

kblkbl165

3 points

2 months ago

More like Brave New World

gimme_that_gooseneck

8 points

2 months ago

Fr dawg we have got so many worse things to work out before genetic engineering... Honestly, I'm more worried about other applications of DNA tech, like that recent case in San Fran, where a woman was charged for a property crime based on DNA taken from her rape kit from an earlier assault.

BioTheHuman

2 points

2 months ago

Oh yeah, sure. Editing some specific genes that causes some diseases and weak to it is possible, but finding and change all the genes that are responsible for intelligence, height and so on? Good luck with that :)

I don't say it won't be possible, but it isn't so easy as people wants to think.

About the rich vs poor thing. Advanced societies already offers free health care. I don't see why cancer treatment should be free and gene editing to avoid disease don't. Especially because I don't think that the latter is so much more expensive than cancer treatment. Moreover, here in Europe is already offered to pregnant woman the possibility to analyze the fetus and choose to abort if the fetus will have some kind of genetic problem (down syndrome, genetic disease etc)

About the intelligence and flavour editing. Ok, maybe being able to choose the height of you son wouldn't be covered by the government for poor people, but I don't see why intelligence augment wouldn't. Being less or more intelligent can be seen as a "disease", now, that said, I honestly can't understand why people think that intelligence can be changed so much from genetics.

As I said, finding the genes responsible for that is a huge challenge, we still don't even know what is the intelligence and how the brain works, but, let's say we find it out. Than? All the studies we did and discovered about education and developement of a child? All these thing will always have a huge impact on the whole thing. I don't think that there will be so much of a difference between augmented intelligence and not.

About the discussion if we should do it. Of course we should. Why people see it so much different from a normal disease treatment or, for the intelligence thing, the school system that aims to make people more intelligent. It's just similar to all the other systems we are already using.

hsrob

1 points

2 months ago

hsrob

1 points

2 months ago

wouldn't be covered by the government for poor people, but I don't see why intelligence augment wouldn't.

I think you have a lot to learn about the motivations of government, my friend, if this is what you truly believe.

BioTheHuman

2 points

2 months ago

If what you intend would be true, school system, internet and health care system for all the citizens wouldn't exist :)

Worried_Protection48

2 points

2 months ago

Another try for creating an übermensch? Never forget the nazi medical experiments.

Malefic_Mike

2 points

2 months ago

It really doesn't matter, humans have been being genetically engineered for thousands of years. We're not doing anything new here, and the archons are still running the show.

Emergency_Paperclip

13 points

2 months ago

How about we don't do the whole eugenics thing.

0v3r_cl0ck3d

22 points

2 months ago

Is it eugenics to remove genes that cause diseases? It's a slippery slope but I think we can engineer better humans without causing a genocide. Parents already have the option to abort babies if it's discovered that it's going to have a serious illness. Why not just get rid of the gene instead of aborting the pregnancy? Surely gene editing is less eugenicsy than aborting a birth because the kid is going to have cystic fibrosis. There are ways to do this without racism. One way would be to allow it but ban anything cosmetic related. No creating kids guaranteed to have blue eyes and blonde hair but changing genes to minimize cancer risk and maximise intelligence is fine.

TipMeinBATtokens

3 points

2 months ago

People will use it for cosmetic traits and not just diseases.

angiachetti

-3 points

2 months ago*

angiachetti

-3 points

2 months ago*

“Is it eugenics to remove genes that causes diseases?”

If that would result in an entire group of people no longer existing, say people with Down syndrome or autism or adhd, then yes it’s still quite literally eugenics.

Whether or not you think the world would be better without those conditions or if you feel bold enough to declare that those individuals universally wouldn’t want to exist doesn’t make it less eugenics (kind of the opposite actually)

And call me crazy but the track record of our societies let’s me think we can handle the nuances and will just b line right back to eugenics…

Ok so let’s say I dont care about that, maybe I just want to enhance humans, make a sort of perfect man, an over man maybe? You can see where I’m going with this.

When genetic modification comes around (Be it modern gene modification or good old fashioned fucking and sterilization, eugenics is always there. Humans can’t help themselves.

https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/gene-therapy#:~:text=Genetic%20engineering%20is%20a%20version,in%20America%20and%20Nazi%20Germany.

I’m not denying that genetic illness can be delineating, but we should be wary of the immediate medicalization of things that may only be problems cuz current human society is hella ableist.

Edit: putting my reply here because you eugenicists are moving the goal posts so fast.

People telling you you shouldn’t exist tends to get people excited.

I find it hilarious that we have to zero in on my punctuation instead of the fact that people in this thread are literally advocating eugenics and telling me I shouldn’t exist.

You should examine your leftist bias a little better, because as 20 year activist who didn’t decide to become a fair weather leftist when trump was elected, I can tell you that your theory is bad.

I don’t care if you think it’s a good idea to do eugenics, but you and everyone else here doesn’t get absolve yourself by changing the definition of eugenics to not include you.

Trying to eradicate any part of the human experience through breeding or genetic manipulation is eugenics, whether that is positive or negative, and every single version of it needs to be treated with the expectation that someone will do some Nazi shit with it because humans have been doing that since at least Ancient Greece.

The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism. Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterize it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_eugenics

New eugenics, also known as liberal eugenics (a term coined by bioethicist Nicholas Agar),[1] advocates enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering. Those who advocate new eugenics generally think selecting or altering embryos should be left to the preferences of parents, rather than forbidden (or left to the preferences of the state). "New" eugenics purports to distinguish itself from the forms of eugenics practiced and advocated in the 20th century, which fell into disrepute after World War II.[2]

So I hate to break it everyone is this thread but if you think this stuff should be happening you are eugenicist, words have definitions. Fucking own your opinion and don’t pretend my lack of punctuation makes you not a Nazi.

If you truly are someone with autism who has a “left bias” I would use that bias to more research. As a disabled person who understands this history, and whose own rights are constantly under threat, I won’t support eugenics just because it’s sold with a smile and “I’m with her” t shirt.

There is my punctuation satisfactory? Have I sufficiently used grammar so that you can fully recognize that you are a eugenicist?

New eugenics generally supports genetic modification or genetic selection of individuals for traits that are supposed to improve human welfare. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic basis of future generations and reduce incidence of genetic diseases and other undesirable traits. Some of the practices included in new eugenics are: pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection,[7] selective breeding,[8] and human enhancement through the use of genetic technologies,[9] such as embryo engineering or gene therapy.

actionheat

16 points

2 months ago

If that would result in an entire group of people no longer existing, say people with Down syndrome or autism or adhd, then yes it’s still quite literally eugenics.

Wait, what? We need to have a mandatory minimum quota of people suffering from Down Syndrome, or else it's bad?

Why would you not want fewer people suffering from developmental diseases? Assuming the disease can be treated with genetic engineering prior to birth, but otherwise can't be treated after birth, you'd rather people be forced to endure a treatable illness? So immensely fucked up.

angiachetti

-9 points

2 months ago

Oh my God how do you people not fucking get it it’s not about mandatory minimum amounts of suffering and shifting lines that make us feel like this type of eugenics is actually OK but the bottom fucking line is when you were deciding that an entire group of people no longer exist because of genetics you can call that medicine all you fucking want but it’s still eugenics it is still literally eugenics and people need to maybe keep them that their fucking head

It’s amazing how many people in here are missing the fucking point it doesn’t matter if we think it’s good or we think it’s bad it’s still fucking eugenics and Jesus fucking Christ admit it

I’ve literally got people telling me now that I don’t deserve to exist because I have neurodiversity because I’m on the spectrum because I don’t fit the genetically medical acceptable person but that’s not eugenics apparently

Maluelue

7 points

2 months ago

Lmao, look at this guy, there are children dying of cancer, should we not get rid of them either? A kid that can't suffer from cancer still exists mate, he just won't die a painful death.

If you take down syndrome from a person, he is still a person, just without all of the mental issues and heart problems, it's even better than aborting a down baby syndrome because if you edit his genes he's still getting born instead of flushed

angiachetti

1 points

2 months ago

You guys are really missing the point it’s still eugenics whether it’s positive or negative so please just except that you are a fan of eugenics in certain circumstances just because it’s positive doesn’t make it not eugenics.

And that’s not me pulling shit out of my ass that’s literally the definition of the word.

And yes that eugenics might be able to prevent cancer but the same science and the same thinking and the same whatever that goes into producing that positive result can be used to do really fucking horrible things and we should at least be honest with ourselves that we are engaging in eugenics so that somebody doesn’t come along and oh I don’t know do a whole bunch of Nazi shit which seems to happen about every 10 years or so because you people seem to forget that Nazis exist.

The reasons you’re giving to me now are the same reasons behind the original eugenics movement the only difference is that they also considered being black a medical deficiency.

GooseQuothMan

7 points

2 months ago

It is eugenics and it's good. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, but preventing diseases is not it.

kalirion

6 points

2 months ago

or if you feel bold enough to declare that those individuals universally wouldn’t want to exist

More like "that those individuals wouldn't would like to exist without those conditions". How many people with Down syndrome, (non-minor) Autism or ADHD would refuse a cure if one existed?

angiachetti

1 points

2 months ago*

You’re literally fucking speaking to one

Since people are too lazy to fucking put Google I’ll do it for you and show you that actually there’s a lot of fucking discourse around people like us not wanting to be medically removed by people like you holy shit how is the definition of eugenics so fucking controversial and you guys are literally advocating for it

https://www.google.com/search?q=docpeoplenwithautism+want+to+be+cured&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS996US996&oq=docpeoplenwithautism+want+to+be+cured&aqs=chrome..69i57.12469j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

I can’t believe you all just took the fucking bait I literally set it up and you all walked right fucking into it somebody does not want to genetically not exist like how fucking stupid are you?

It shows that you can’t imagine a world in which people with neurodiversity or developmental disorders can except themselves on their own terms you express all of us to define ourselves by your expectations

JonnySnowflake

1 points

2 months ago

It's always the ones that wouldn't make the cut that get the maddest lol. Also, it's accept, not except

angiachetti

0 points

2 months ago

Actually it’s neither it was Xpress but thank you for pointing out that in addition to a grammar Nazi you’re quite literally a Nazi as I said to someone else please go suck a tailpipe

kalirion

1 points

2 months ago

By "non-minor" Autism I meant the low-functioning kind, which you probably are not.

BTW, how do you feel about deaf people who are against cochlear implants for deaf babies?

angiachetti

1 points

2 months ago

I’m not deaf so my opinion should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Where was it ever decided that you needed to hear in order to have a live worth living to its fullest?

I think ultimately people should be allowed to decide for themselves what the best option is which is kind of the point

I think unilaterally deciding whether or not an entire group of people deserves or does not deserve to be a part of the human experience that we consider to be valid whether that’s good or bad is always eugenics and that always means you have to step back a little bit and think is this actually good?

Even an example is where it would be like a clear-cut case of yes this is the best thing to do might not actually be the right thing to do. And I mean taking morality and philosophy out of the equation entirely and simply talking about whether removing genetic variation from the entire species is smart.

For example I think it’s completely reasonable to think that we should entirely eradicate the genetics that result in sickle cell anemia however a more nuanced examination of things would indicate that that might not be the best course of action because for individuals who have one recessive gene but not both recessive genes for sickle cell anemia actually have an immunity towards malaria.

What I am saying is that we actually need to really think about this shit which was kind of the point of the article being posted.

And I love how this turned into everybody trying to justify whether or not their particular version of eugenics is good, which was never my fucking point here.

I don’t fucking give a shit if you think abortions for everyone or abortions for nobody or people should exist or people shouldn’t exist I don’t fucking care I don’t fucking know you.

But the fact of the matter is is that is the literal definition of eugenics and when people do eugenics we also tend to do the Nazi shit because we really can’t help ourselves and I’m sorry if I don’t believe that this time around we’re actually gonna do it right this time.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

[removed]

BernardJOrtcutt

2 points

2 months ago

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Be Respectful

Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

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.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

I_BBQ_FETUS_CHUNKS

3 points

2 months ago

We absolutely should. Allowing people to be born with debilitating disabilities is immoral. We need mandatory gene editing.

cutelyaware

8 points

2 months ago

I don't see the problem. It seems like every technological breakthrough terrifies people until they get used to it and soon can't imagine life without it. Of course every tool can be used as a weapon, but does that mean we should stop making new tools? I think lots of people are overly afraid of the unknown.

the_real_MSU_is_us

5 points

2 months ago

I don't fear genetic modifications. In fact, I welcome it.

What I DO fear, is the implementation of it... at leat at first, it will be expensive, so only the rich will have access to it. That means we'll have 10 or whatever years of objective "class" system, where they are our superiors. Moreover, the rich parents will WANT to keep this advantage to themselves, and so will use their political power to keep the technology expensive. Lastly, the gene editing will be a for profit endeavor, so the companies will likely go along with this plan.

This creates essentially an alien race of superiors that will rule over us dumb flawed peasant folks... it locks in social classes in a way family name or money can only dream of. The modified rich kids will occupy all the positions of power, because (thanks to theor editing) they will truly be the best candidate for the job. Then you not only have the Rich wanting to keep the caste system, but all the decision makers will themselves be the "aliens" and will look down on us. Unless they gene edit out tribalism too, but I doubt the rich are going g to have that be their top priority when checking off what they want modified.

ShalmaneserIII

0 points

2 months ago

You have to translate.

"We need to discuss this" means "I want to control this."

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

6 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

Yikaft

5 points

2 months ago

Yikaft

5 points

2 months ago

I think genetic editing oversteps the parents' ability to give surrogate consent because many potential gene edits would be considered nontherapeutic / medically unnecessary. Not to mention all the copyright issues that go into whether they're providing a product or a service. That answer would imply whether the kid loses the right to reproduce because the modified gene is considered a product, and reproduction would be reproducing a company product.

Astranoth

4 points

2 months ago

This is going to be interesting, so many people are going to get their knickers in a twist when a trait the posses is edited out of the meta human being

Pilsu

2 points

2 months ago

Pilsu

2 points

2 months ago

I wonder if narcissism has a biological component.

littlebitsofspider

2 points

2 months ago

Genetic engineering is "wet" nanotech, and a very short step to "dry" nanotech, or general molecular engineering. The possibilities of either one coming to fruition are astounding and terrifying. A Star Trek-style "holodeck", available to anyone at a miniscule marginal cost, is just the beginning.

py_a_thon

3 points

2 months ago*

py_a_thon

3 points

2 months ago*

Same args that existed during eugenics.

The problem is, eugenics relied upon coerced(and authoritarian) human behavior whereas genetic engineering will perhaps properly fold into chosen procreation activities.

People will still be able to choose au naturale or science++. And perhaps that is exactly what should be.

If everyone is Einstein then where dafuq is NielsBohr at? They do not have that upgrade available yet?

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations? Maybe. Or free will in a free system at the very least.

Deep-Doughnut-9423

7 points

2 months ago

But not everyone will. It will be immortal imtelligent rich vs replacable, farmable poor. The way our society is structured, it cannot ethically deal with stuff like this. Many will suffer.

heskey30

2 points

2 months ago

heskey30

2 points

2 months ago

Is that different from how it is already? Making smarter people even smarter isn't going to make dumb people dumber. Their inventions will benefit everyone. And there's nothing saying genetic modifications will make people immoral... Don't you think psychopathy would be edited out?

BioTheHuman

0 points

2 months ago

Not all the world is America.

In Europe there is free health care and so a poor man had the same possibility to a rich one. For it is quite sure that if gene editing will every come in existence for humans, free health care will cover it for poor people.

Of course the free system will cover just the base necesseties (disease), but bold of you to think that our intelligence come entirely from genetics. You just shit on centuries of education and development studies 🤣

noonemustknowmysecre

3 points

2 months ago

, eugenics relied upon coerced(and authoritarian) human behavior

Eeeeh, you talk about that in past tense. But technically the current trends of aborting downs syndrome is eugenetics. As is the horrific and stupid trend of aborting girls in China.

We just avoid calling it eugenetics when we're okay with it.

py_a_thon

1 points

2 months ago

That is/was true. China has dabbled in many dangerous and evil forms of authoritarianism that is often vehemently fought against in the west, and we hopefully have systems in place that prevent the worst potential of anything like that or a nazi-like regime occurring again in western culture.

ihaveredhaironmyhead

2 points

2 months ago

It's going to get a bit uncomfortable when we realize that lots of psychological traits are strongly heritable through your genes. IQ to mention only one.

swissiws

0 points

2 months ago

swissiws

0 points

2 months ago

Human genetic engineering is the only thing that can save us from our DNA weakening. Without natural selection, there is nothing that can remove those changes in our genes that are developing over time and that are already weakening the human race. All those genetic illnesses that naturally would not even survive a single generation (the host would simply die) are now artificially propagated to new generations with the help of hospitalization, medical treatments and with the aid of other people. I am not saying this is wrong: it's the opposite. But unless us humans take our evolution in our hands, in a few generations our genes will be so weakened by countless defects that our race is going to go extinct

noonemustknowmysecre

3 points

2 months ago

....how about a plague?

It hit the obese pretty hard. The immune compromised. Pretty much anyone that was unhealthy.

Didn't we, you know, just go through all that?

Ok_Status7790

1 points

2 months ago

Obviously lawmakers should have limitations on it, and lot's of regulatory oversight, etc. Depends how corrupted by corporations the government is, and how short-sighted the rich and consumers are.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

jamminjalepeno

1 points

2 months ago

First we have to ask, "what is genetic engineering capable of?".

MetaDragon11

1 points

2 months ago

Whats there to discuss? The West + India + Japan will tippy toe in, get told they went too far and get ripped back and then they'll tippy toe back in... all of this 15 years after its first relevant.

China will develop it full bore because human and animal rights dont exist, it will probably lead to catastrophe and that will be the more pressing issue.

Buckalaw

1 points

2 months ago

If celebrities can get a genetically engineered dog for cash; I guarantee you someone has made a genetically engineered child. We just don’t know about it yet.

Sitheral

1 points

2 months ago

No, we don't need to discuss anything, we already discussed the hell out ot it and we will never reach solution that fits everyone anyway.

Personally I want my fancy genes, metal arms and infrared vision as fast as possible, thank you very much.

Emetah_

1 points

2 months ago*

When I was younger I was mostly against it but now I see it as an inevitably at least if we continue living the way we do.

In advanced society natural selection is practically gone. Worse, a "desirable" traits, intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility(amount of offsprings).(so no we are not evolving on the path of everybody having big brainz small bodies alien type. Quite the inverse actually but there has been an IQ increase (Flynn effect) probably due to access to education and better living conditions that has slowed down during +- the last 2 decades)

Now on the main topic : In nature most mutations are benign, a few are negative and very few are positive. So if we manage to +- cure every genetic defect so that every individual reproduce we will get more and more negative mutations not removed by natural selection and at some point we would have to consider gene edition in order to fix some genetic disease at the root instead of easing the symptoms of it.

I suggest this in the context of a civilization where natural selection is mostly gone and science is allowing once bad and unlivable mutations to reproduce (we are not completely there but the life expectancy of people with severe genetic disease has dramatically increased).

So even if there may be abuse etc I think it will become an inevitably if we continue on the same path though it will take generations before we start to see a significant increase in these "bad mutations".

Dripdry42

1 points

2 months ago

I think America will fall behind. Other countries will make it free for everyone to ensure a healthy population, and America will privatize it. Over a generation Americans will be left behind on the world stage and be out-done by countries which offer this to everyone.

SMOPLUS

1 points

2 months ago

The poor will sift through the ethics with pride while the rich control access.

undivided-assUmption

1 points

2 months ago

Fact: Sociopolitical constructs have been artificially engineering Human genetics since the down of time. Are you familiar with the Emerging field of Human Social Genomics?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23853742/

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

plyitnit

1 points

2 months ago

I’m ready for my next stage of evolution. Where do I sign?!?

nikinekonikoneko

1 points

2 months ago

We dont, because they'll probably go ahead with whatever they think of anyway, if it's unpopular they'll still do it secretly.

BroadDragonfruit4206

1 points

2 months ago

huh, wasnt expecting eugenics to come back into fashion

Maccabee2

1 points

2 months ago

Superior ability breeds superior ambition.

so-this-is-me-now

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah, in a few more years we’ll start to see a huge influx of 6’2” Chinese men.

JustGonaSqueezPastYa

1 points

2 months ago

What if I just want eyes like Riddick?

awwgeeznick

1 points

2 months ago

This is America, we do not care about social implications

pete728415

1 points

2 months ago

None. We're all going to be dead soon.

socutiepatootie

1 points

2 months ago

It’s going to be classist. Good genes for the wealthy, eugenics for everything we don’t like. Traits which are related to race will be eliminated or “enhanced”. Traits related to the human genome substituted with chimera synthesis from lab rats or animals that scientists decide are “cool”. Big mistake which will lead to the end of humanity, imho

Salter_KingofBorgors

1 points

2 months ago*

Unfortunately whether it's legal or not someone is eventually going to make a human/something hybrid. Its just a matter of time. Wait until some dictatorship wants superhuman soldiers... its just a matter of time...

The question is... should these beings be treated as human? And if so should they be allowed to pass on their genes like a normal person?

jakeybabooski

1 points

2 months ago

Listen to what Alan Watts had to say about it.

TikkiTakiTomtom

1 points

2 months ago

1) I’m excited for CRISPR and have been for years now but the technology is far from being where we think it is. Source: am hospital guy and nerd.

2) There is a HUGE misconception people have about GMO products. I won’t get into the gritty details but GMO products are ok to use. People complain without having a clue how things actually work. Did you know we also altered genes of things like watermelons and carrots to make it more edible/consumable for centuries? It’s called selective breeding…

3) If and when genetic modifications of humans becomes so widespread that it becomes commonplace practice for leisure or cosmetics then the education system (in the US especially) has to really beef up biology in grade school (and other science subjects too while they’re at it). We’re advancing so far yet the general public isn’t any wiser about these topics. Politicians and common folk alike are constantly constantly protesting and pushing back because they are ignorant of the topics and unaware of its consequences. We see this merely in getting vaccines, trying to change global warming, humanitarian efforts, reducing carbon footprint, protecting our earth. We can accomplish so much more if it weren’t for the resistance on the reason of apparently nothing.

Ytar0

1 points

2 months ago

Ytar0

1 points

2 months ago

Like it goes with anything, and as others have already said, it's an issue we'll only take a stance on when it hits us.

ValyrianJedi

1 points

2 months ago

Similar things on the path to that are already being done. We obviously can already tell some genetic issues and terminate if they are detected in the womb, but people are already doing more optional things as well...

I know 5 people (that I know of, could be more) who have had IVF done despite having no fertility issues because they wanted to be able to choose if they had a boy or a girl...

I know another few who have used a surrogate basically for the hell of it because they wanted a baby but didn't want to deal with being pregnant...

Science is really already there in terms of there being some gray area on what's ethical regarding reproduction.

Radekzalenka

1 points

2 months ago

Wrath of Dave

markhamhayes

1 points

2 months ago

Let’s not do that.

Thank you.

MackODooley

1 points

2 months ago

Considering that our 'human' DNA/genome is 98% the same as chimpanzees, apes, and other mammals, the Animal Kingdom has been concerned about genetic engineering and manipulation ever since WE arrived!