What's the moral issue with Eugenics?

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You must be registered for see images

Title. I've studied genetics and I'm aware of the possible benefits and consequences that can come with the encroaching developments in altering the human genome. Now, I'm not at all to concerned with the practicality of how gene editing can come about, as I'm fairly certain that proper regulations would be put in place as to not have this technology not become an endangerment to our way of life. I'm moreso concerned with the philosophical implications:

"Is gene editing ethical unethical"

"Should people ought to provide their offspring the best possible outcome in life through genetic editing if given the possibility"

"Should people be allowed to birth a child free from genetic altering with the knowledge that their child will be born with a debilitating disease/disability"

"Should people have the freedom to editing a child with the intention of giving them a disability (ex. Deaf couple wants deaf child)"

"Should society be allowed to uncoordinatedly eliminate phenotypic traits from the gene pool (ex. Freckles, hair texture, handedness, etc.)"


Feel free to address any other moral considerations that I may have not addressed, and attempt to answer these moral questions on principle and not on pragmatics, as the pragmatics fail to address the core of the discussion. Attempt to answer these questions without presuppositions of cost, availability, etc.

I personally lean towards genetic editing being an ought, as I deem it to be immoral not to grant your offspring the maximum possible wellbeing and freedom from possible suffering. I'm not an absolutist on my position, but I have yet to encounter a counter position that's worth consideration.
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
1. Depends, for example, if you want to eliminate serious diseases, then maybe it's ok. If it's about making people smarter, first of all we don't know enough about this to know how it works and what side effects may come, but then it's not really important imo.
2. How? Privately, with lots of money? Through the government? I think no.
3. Yes, nobody is perfect, "best" is an llusion, there will always be somebody better than you, 1000 years ago the smartest man would be a nobody in todays world. "Best" doesn't matter, if your child has issues from birth, you can still live a humane life.
4. mm......................................no, the childs health comes first.
5. No fucking way should society in any way be allowed to collectively decide the future of unborn kids.


Overall my opinion is that restrictions on these things is probably good, I could see companies or countries competing to create Captain America, but it just seems messed up, some things, like nuclear weapons or time travel (if possible) or 3d printed guns seems like it shouldn't be messed with, it's bad for society as a whole.

I wonder how kids would react if they knew they were the creation of a lab experiment and not just some kid. But their parents like picked and choosed their destiny. I don't think genetics decide everything about you though anyway.

I have another question.

Should we allow genetic edititing on humans for research purposes to understand it better, or should we leave it alone?
 
Last edited:

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
1. Depends, for example, if you want to eliminate serious diseases, then maybe it's ok. If it's about making people smarter, first of all we don't know enough about this to know how it works and what side effects may come, but then it's not really important imo.
I definitely think it should be used to eliminate genetic disease, along with providing immunity to disease if possible. I'm of the belief that intelligence plays a huge role in overall success in life, but I think altering intelligence may have some drastic effects on societies socioeconomic hierarchy that may have some unforeseeable consequences in the long run. I'm trying not to delve into pragmatics, so on principle, I think it would be immoral to without your child from having higher intelligence.

2. How? Privately, with lots of money? Through the government? I think no.
Those questions deal with pragmatics, and I think before we can really delve into any of those issues practically, we would need to have more information on how the technology is sourced and how stable the field of genetic editing would be by the time it was rolled out to the public. How affordable these options are, and how available they are to the general public are at the crux of the discussion, so I think it's better to deal with theoretics for now.

3. Yes, nobody is perfect, "best" is an llusion, there will always be somebody better than you, 1000 years ago the smartest man would be a nobody in todays world. "Best" doesn't matter, if your child has issues from birth, you can still live a humane life.
I agree. There is no "perfect human", because to be perfect would no longer make you human. Humanities humanity lies in it's imperfection, in my opinion. I just think the fact that there is no human ideal that is "best", doesn't mean we can't strive for "better".
4. mm......................................no, the childs health comes first.
I think the same way. One issue that I've encountered in discussing eugenics interest groups that advocate on behalf of the physically/mentally disabled feel as if those who argue in favor of elimating disabilities are discriminating against the disabled. How would you personally respond to that?

5. No fucking way should society in any way be allowed to collectively decide the future of unborn kids.
Im not sure if I agree or disagree; it depends on what you mean by collectively. It's a known fact that "the whole is not greater than the some of it's pieces", so if you're in favor of granting an individual the right over the future of their child (which doing things like eliminating disease is deciding the child's future), then you would have no issue with granting society from doing the same thung, since society is just made up of individuals.

If you mean collectively like "majority vote = majority rule" or "social pressure/condemnation for/against certain genetic decisions", then I agree.


Overall my opinion is that restrictions on these things is probably good, I could see companies or countries competing to create Captain America, but it just seems messed up, some things, like nuclear weapons or time travel (if possible) or 3d printed guns seems like it shouldn't be messed with, it's bad for society as a whole.

I wonder how kids would react if they knew they were the creation of a lab experiment and not just some kid. But their parents like picked and choosed their destiny. I don't think genetics decide everything about you though anyway.

I have another question.

Should we allow genetic edititing on humans for research purposes to understand it better, or should we leave it alone?
Should we?? Hmm, If the people who are experimented on are fully informed, and consent to being tested on, I see no problems. I know human testing had always been a huge ethical issue for the field of science research, and isn't considered socially acceptable, and there are a lot of gray areas where I don't see myself leaning towards one way or the other.

I think right now, genetics research has been done on human embryos. For me, whether it's ethical or unethical comes down to how far in development the embryo is, and if it has begun to develop a nervous system.
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I definitely think it should be used to eliminate genetic disease, along with providing immunity to disease if possible. I'm of the belief that intelligence plays a huge role in overall success in life, but I think altering intelligence may have some drastic effects on societies socioeconomic hierarchy that may have some unforeseeable consequences in the long run. I'm trying not to delve into pragmatics, so on principle, I think it would be immoral to without your child from having higher intelligence.


Those questions deal with pragmatics, and I think before we can really delve into any of those issues practically, we would need to have more information on how the technology is sourced and how stable the field of genetic editing would be by the time it was rolled out to the public. How affordable these options are, and how available they are to the general public are at the crux of the discussion, so I think it's better to deal with theoretics for now.


I agree. There is no "perfect human", because to be perfect would no longer make you human. Humanities humanity lies in it's imperfection, in my opinion. I just think the fact that there is no human ideal that is "best", doesn't mean we can't strive for "better".

I think the same way. One issue that I've encountered in discussing eugenics interest groups that advocate on behalf of the physically/mentally disabled feel as if those who argue in favor of elimating disabilities are discriminating against the disabled. How would you personally respond to that?


Im not sure if I agree or disagree; it depends on what you mean by collectively. It's a known fact that "the whole is not greater than the some of it's pieces", so if you're in favor of granting an individual the right over the future of their child (which doing things like eliminating disease is deciding the child's future), then you would have no issue with granting society from doing the same thung, since society is just made up of individuals.

If you mean collectively like "majority vote = majority rule" or "social pressure/condemnation for/against certain genetic decisions", then I agree.



Should we?? Hmm, If the people who are experimented on are fully informed, and consent to being tested on, I see no problems. I know human testing had always been a huge ethical issue for the field of science research, and isn't considered socially acceptable, and there are a lot of gray areas where I don't see myself leaning towards one way or the other.

I think right now, genetics research has been done on human embryos. For me, whether it's ethical or unethical comes down to how far in development the embryo is, and if it has begun to develop a nervous system.
I think it's ok on adults if the adult is ok with it. I would be up for it, if I was old or something. But only a little, overall it probably shouldn't be legal.
 
Last edited:

Umari Senju

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
12,535
Kin
238💸
Kumi
96💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I found this interesting that covers the intelligence portion of Eugenics. The moral problem with Eugenocs was the motivations behind who was initially funding the research and ultimately what they were striving for.

Anyway it’s a 30 min vid but interesting none the less on intelligence and how it applies( or rather doesn’t soley apply) to genetics.

 

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I found this interesting that covers the intelligence portion of Eugenics. The moral problem with Eugenocs was the motivations behind who was initially funding the research and ultimately what they were striving for.

Anyway it’s a 30 min vid but interesting none the less on intelligence and how it applies( or rather doesn’t soley apply) to genetics.

Yeah, no. I've watched this video in the past, and I know who David Pakman is and what he stands for. He doesn't even really address eugenics on a scientific or philosophical level, he's more focus on counter arguing the alt right claims of race and IQ, and attacking them on their racial motivations. I think I left the comment detailing where Pakman was wrong on the science back when the video was first posted, and there are dozens of comments explaining how Pakman is wrong.

TL;DR insinuating motivations no better than an ad hominem. Not an argument.
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I definitely think it should be used to eliminate genetic disease, along with providing immunity to disease if possible. I'm of the belief that intelligence plays a huge role in overall success in life, but I think altering intelligence may have some drastic effects on societies socioeconomic hierarchy that may have some unforeseeable consequences in the long run. I'm trying not to delve into pragmatics, so on principle, I think it would be immoral to without your child from having higher intelligence.


Those questions deal with pragmatics, and I think before we can really delve into any of those issues practically, we would need to have more information on how the technology is sourced and how stable the field of genetic editing would be by the time it was rolled out to the public. How affordable these options are, and how available they are to the general public are at the crux of the discussion, so I think it's better to deal with theoretics for now.


I agree. There is no "perfect human", because to be perfect would no longer make you human. Humanities humanity lies in it's imperfection, in my opinion. I just think the fact that there is no human ideal that is "best", doesn't mean we can't strive for "better".

I think the same way. One issue that I've encountered in discussing eugenics interest groups that advocate on behalf of the physically/mentally disabled feel as if those who argue in favor of elimating disabilities are discriminating against the disabled. How would you personally respond to that?


Im not sure if I agree or disagree; it depends on what you mean by collectively. It's a known fact that "the whole is not greater than the some of it's pieces", so if you're in favor of granting an individual the right over the future of their child (which doing things like eliminating disease is deciding the child's future), then you would have no issue with granting society from doing the same thung, since society is just made up of individuals.

If you mean collectively like "majority vote = majority rule" or "social pressure/condemnation for/against certain genetic decisions", then I agree.



Should we?? Hmm, If the people who are experimented on are fully informed, and consent to being tested on, I see no problems. I know human testing had always been a huge ethical issue for the field of science research, and isn't considered socially acceptable, and there are a lot of gray areas where I don't see myself leaning towards one way or the other.

I think right now, genetics research has been done on human embryos. For me, whether it's ethical or unethical comes down to how far in development the embryo is, and if it has begun to develop a nervous system.
I mean, a group of people like a society that are not personally connected, I dislike that, as if someone unkown or not related to me should decide things like that, that's scary. A group of people like that...no...


I don't think wanting to eliminate stuff from your kids or yourself is discrimination but I can understand people getting upset cus some do have to live with that every day.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
"Regulations" ... Rules for thee, but not for me; how regulations typically tend to pan out. Certain parties are given or allowed special exemption from the regulations to do as they please, usually at the expense of and penalty to those who are actively policed in accordance to those regulations.

Eugenics and gene editing are tangent topics, not entirely the same thing.

Eugenicists have always more or less insisted that where a plausible means to 'improve' something exists, it is paramount to progress to implement it. Before gene editing was available, eugenics was simply the concept of selective breeding applied to humans. With gene editing becoming more practical as time progresses, it is conceivable that we would reach a point in time where we can simply write our future generations like characters in a fan fiction about the future.

Gene editing may appear to change the game, as classic eugenics according to selective breeding or simple purging of defects wasn't a guaranteed method of affecting change... but I argue that it really doesn't move the needle on the meter. At the core of the argument is that we have enough information to be judicious with the amount of control we believe to have. Not only do we believe that we know the consequences of gene editing/selective breeding, but we also believe that we know enough to properly select ideal traits - or, more concerning, which traits to eliminate entirely.

One of my old friends - recently caught back up with her. When I say an old friend - I mean back from the days of dialup. We've never actually spoken to each other, and photos were difficult to send way back in the day. Compared to now - where we are flooded with HD videos and sound from the 'net, it's an entirely different world. Anyway - it's subtle in her, but you can see the red in her hair in the sunlight and the slight freckles associated with the expression of the gene for red hair.

Let's get carried away with myself, here, and say that her and I end up becoming an item once again, and we're looking at starting a family. How insulting it would be to go into a gene editing clinic and the two of us start removing our features from our children, or inserting features we appreciated from others? There are some things that can arise from genetic disorders that are purely detrimental - and gene editing could certainly be a very valuable tool in repairing what can almost only be seen as damage to our genetic code. Yet - to take your wife or husband into a clinic and then select of your own volition something from their person to purge from existence...

I won't lie - that person was and is a kind of person I could go for. I want to see her continue on in children - she's a beautiful and smart person. It would be a great tragedy if it were to end with her - same with many other women. It would be a great insult if she, or her husband/partner-who-should-own-the-commitment were to then start ripping away at that person who inspired him to want her to compose the other half of his children.

It is a vile sort of vicariousness which sees us try to bring our fictions to life in someone who is not us.

All of that said, parents have rights over their children for a reason. I am not going to delude myself into believing I can write laws and turn back the tides of human nature. Those who are willing to build their families among such prone lowlands as vicarious gene editing will be swept away in the tide when it rolls in. Rather than trying to turn back the proverbial tide with royal decrees and threats of the stockade, people should be taught to build their families on stable ground and to foster a culture of responsibility and respect for the legacy they are a part of.
 

chopstickchakra

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
12,896
Kin
4,684💸
Kumi
129💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You must be registered for see images

Title. I've studied genetics and I'm aware of the possible benefits and consequences that can come with the encroaching developments in altering the human genome. Now, I'm not at all to concerned with the practicality of how gene editing can come about, as I'm fairly certain that proper regulations would be put in place as to not have this technology not become an endangerment to our way of life. I'm moreso concerned with the philosophical implications:

"Is gene editing ethical unethical"

"Should people ought to provide their offspring the best possible outcome in life through genetic editing if given the possibility"

"Should people be allowed to birth a child free from genetic altering with the knowledge that their child will be born with a debilitating disease/disability"

"Should people have the freedom to editing a child with the intention of giving them a disability (ex. Deaf couple wants deaf child)"

"Should society be allowed to uncoordinatedly eliminate phenotypic traits from the gene pool (ex. Freckles, hair texture, handedness, etc.)"


Feel free to address any other moral considerations that I may have not addressed, and attempt to answer these moral questions on principle and not on pragmatics, as the pragmatics fail to address the core of the discussion. Attempt to answer these questions without presuppositions of cost, availability, etc.

I personally lean towards genetic editing being an ought, as I deem it to be immoral not to grant your offspring the maximum possible wellbeing and freedom from possible suffering. I'm not an absolutist on my position, but I have yet to encounter a counter position that's worth consideration.
Go watch Gattaca.

OT: It's borderline child experimentation depending on how you want to analyze it.
 

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
"Regulations" ... Rules for thee, but not for me; how regulations typically tend to pan out. Certain parties are given or allowed special exemption from the regulations to do as they please, usually at the expense of and penalty to those who are actively policed in accordance to those regulations.

Eugenics and gene editing are tangent topics, not entirely the same thing.

Eugenicists have always more or less insisted that where a plausible means to 'improve' something exists, it is paramount to progress to implement it. Before gene editing was available, eugenics was simply the concept of selective breeding applied to humans. With gene editing becoming more practical as time progresses, it is conceivable that we would reach a point in time where we can simply write our future generations like characters in a fan fiction about the future.

Gene editing may appear to change the game, as classic eugenics according to selective breeding or simple purging of defects wasn't a guaranteed method of affecting change... but I argue that it really doesn't move the needle on the meter. At the core of the argument is that we have enough information to be judicious with the amount of control we believe to have. Not only do we believe that we know the consequences of gene editing/selective breeding, but we also believe that we know enough to properly select ideal traits - or, more concerning, which traits to eliminate entirely.
I'm aware eugenics is not necessarily gene editing; I thought it would make things more simple if we discussed eugenics in the context of genetic editing since it's the most relevant and probable form of eugenics we're bound to encounter as a species, eventually. The discussion I was hoping to half would exist on a higher (metaphysical) level; where we can ignore the minutiae of things like "having enough knowledge in the field of genetic engineering to ensure such a practice wouldn't come with inextricable consequences", or "the cost of such a practice leading to gap in socioeconomic class, where the upper class are the only genetically modified/superior humans as a product of them being the only ones to afford to do so", things of that nature. I think the philosophical/ethical issues should always be prioritized, since it's always something we can deal with in the here and now.

One of my old friends - recently caught back up with her. When I say an old friend - I mean back from the days of dialup. We've never actually spoken to each other, and photos were difficult to send way back in the day. Compared to now - where we are flooded with HD videos and sound from the 'net, it's an entirely different world. Anyway - it's subtle in her, but you can see the red in her hair in the sunlight and the slight freckles associated with the expression of the gene for red hair.

Let's get carried away with myself, here, and say that her and I end up becoming an item once again, and we're looking at starting a family. How insulting it would be to go into a gene editing clinic and the two of us start removing our features from our children, or inserting features we appreciated from others? There are some things that can arise from genetic disorders that are purely detrimental - and gene editing could certainly be a very valuable tool in repairing what can almost only be seen as damage to our genetic code. Yet - to take your wife or husband into a clinic and then select of your own volition something from their person to purge from existence...

I won't lie - that person was and is a kind of person I could go for. I want to see her continue on in children - she's a beautiful and smart person. It would be a great tragedy if it were to end with her - same with many other women. It would be a great insult if she, or her husband/partner-who-should-own-the-commitment were to then start ripping away at that person who inspired him to want her to compose the other half of his children.

It is a vile sort of vicariousness which sees us try to bring our fictions to life in someone who is not us.
That's the issue I want to tackle, what is the issue behind you and le redhead going to "genetics clinic" and picking out what features you'd like to have in a child? "Insulting"? Maybe to some, which is why it's always an option. In a parallel instance, there could be a brunette couple, who lack the phenotype for red hair/freckles in their genome and always desired to have such a child. If the option is available, I see no ethical issue with them being able to choose so. And if we take this to an extreme scenario, where hypothetically in the distant future, the combination of jet black hair, and light blue eyes became the cultural trend across the globe to the point where it manages to erase all other hair colors and eye colors from the global gene pool . Where's the ethical issue? By arguing the erasure of all other hair/eye color phenotypes from the global gene pool would be some how permanent, I'm assuming there wouldn't be a means to reintroduce other phenotypes back into the gene pool, or even introduce brand new phenotypes into the gene pool (ex. scarlet eyes, navy hair, etc.), but for the sake of argument, lets say the change was permanent -- where's the ethical issue. I don't see it as a violation, but I'm open to being convinced.



Go watch Gattaca.

OT: It's borderline child experimentation depending on how you want to analyze it.
Actually, watching Gattaca last weekend is what resparked my interest in discussing genetic editing. I definitely think it portrays a possible future for society, and is will probably become one of the most relevant films once we're humanity is faced with making a decision on genetic editing.

It sets a precedent for what we should try to avoid in some regards.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I'm aware eugenics is not necessarily gene editing; I thought it would make things more simple if we discussed eugenics in the context of genetic editing since it's the most relevant and probable form of eugenics we're bound to encounter as a species, eventually. The discussion I was hoping to half would exist on a higher (metaphysical) level; where we can ignore the minutiae of things like "having enough knowledge in the field of genetic engineering to ensure such a practice wouldn't come with inextricable consequences", or "the cost of such a practice leading to gap in socioeconomic class, where the upper class are the only genetically modified/superior humans as a product of them being the only ones to afford to do so", things of that nature. I think the philosophical/ethical issues should always be prioritized, since it's always something we can deal with in the here and now.
I was being philosophical.

There is always a certain type of person who seems to believe they are born with not just the ability, but also the responsibility, of building a more perfect human. Out of all of the knowns and unknowns, they have been blessed with an understanding of the ideal as it pertains to the human organism and condition.

There is, already, a behavioral eugenics playing out in society. What words you can say, how you can behave, etc - a massive amount of 'selective pressure' is being applied so as to actually spill over into literal eugenics, as the germanic and slavic roots of the western civilization are effectively culled from existence. Perhaps "Slovene" is a more proper root for the two.

With gene editing, we can have all the benefits of genocide without the murder. Just progressively regulate the 'allowed' features and rule others 'genetic defects' and you can simply force people to give birth to anything other than their own children. I mean, it was usually one of those moments when a white couple gave birth to a black baby. With gene editing, whose to say the kid isn't literally someone else's - or a clone that's part of a secret program?

(Who is to say that hasn't been done already... on me... oooo).

That's the issue I want to tackle, what is the issue behind you and le redhead going to "genetics clinic" and picking out what features you'd like to have in a child? "Insulting"? Maybe to some, which is why it's always an option.
Is it an option? Not if I have to kill every police officer willing to serve the arrest warrant when my hypothetical wife and I want to have a kid the natural, un-edited way, and some egg-head firm suggests we are statistically likely to produce offspring with defects. I mean, the lives of a million corrupt officers is a small price to pay for my kid, but society doesn't always agree on such things, and then I have to start killing the people who voted for the law... and then I'm effectively perpetrating eugenics to put a stop to eugenics... and we should just dust off and nuke the site from orbit at that point, and start over.

In a parallel instance, there could be a brunette couple, who lack the phenotype for red hair/freckles in their genome and always desired to have such a child. If the option is available, I see no ethical issue with them being able to choose so.
I am not really against the option, and I am certainly not against red hair or the hint of freckles on her cheek bones. What is problematic, however, is the trend of human behavior. My parents spent quite a bit of time deciding on my name, making sure my initials didn't spell anything stupid, etc - they didn't want to be the parents who named their kid something that got them picked on in school. Now we are opening that trend up to physical features. Look at how parents pick out the clothes for their kids, their hair styles, etc - all of those same underlying patterns will end up expressed in the same manner at build-a-baby clinics. Whether it is vicarious living or simple "I don't want my kid to be picked on for not having the cool nose..."

I mean, I have RH+ blood. I'm O type, but since I'm RH+, I'm not in the cool alien club and am a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather among the illuminati. Or, at least, that is what the military said. Maybe it was part of a secret plot to kill me by having me get shot and then give me a transfusion of the wrong type... which would make sense if I was an illuminati clone they wanted to get rid of. But that seems a little convoluted of a scheme when all they would have to do is forward me some of Hillary's e-mails and then I'd suddenly shoot myself in the back of the head fifteen times with a 5" deck gun as part of a tragic suicide after my cat sat on another man's lap.

Funny how reliably that works.

.... what was I talking about?

And if we take this to an extreme scenario, where hypothetically in the distant future, the combination of jet black hair, and light blue eyes became the cultural trend across the globe to the point where it manages to erase all other hair colors and eye colors from the global gene pool . Where's the ethical issue? By arguing the erasure of all other hair/eye color phenotypes from the global gene pool would be some how permanent, I'm assuming there wouldn't be a means to reintroduce other phenotypes back into the gene pool, or even introduce brand new phenotypes into the gene pool (ex. scarlet eyes, navy hair, etc.), but for the sake of argument, lets say the change was permanent -- where's the ethical issue. I don't see it as a violation, but I'm open to being convinced.


I guess we all just become one of the family, then. One big happy family ruled by unicomp.
Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei, led us to This Perfect Day.
Wei, Wood, Marx and Christ, all but Wei were sacrificed.
Wood, Wei, Christ and Marx, gave us lovely schools and parks.
Marx, Christ, Wei and Wood... made us humble, made us good.

I've always been a bit of a brother hater who likes to fight - so I would probably decide to destroy any planet afflicted with such a condition. Possibly the whole star system, just to illustrate how unacceptable it is.

The ethical condition isn't necessarily at the individual or even collective decision - it is in the factors weighing in on the decision. The damage of poor research, fake news, and sensational reporting has already taken a massive toll on public health with regard to unrealistic expectations of patients or abuse by pharmaceutical companies. Just look at how diets go through fads. Now replace diets, exercise fads, etc with gene editing beliefs.
 

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I was being philosophical.

There is always a certain type of person who seems to believe they are born with not just the ability, but also the responsibility, of building a more perfect human. Out of all of the knowns and unknowns, they have been blessed with an understanding of the ideal as it pertains to the human organism and condition.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I might have a slight idea of what you're trying to convey, -- do you mind clarifying?

There is, already, a behavioral eugenics playing out in society. What words you can say, how you can behave, etc - a massive amount of 'selective pressure' is being applied so as to actually spill over into literal eugenics, as the germanic and slavic roots of the western civilization are effectively culled from existence. Perhaps "Slovene" is a more proper root for the two
"behavioral eugenics", or more simply social conditioning? Or did you mean something else by that.

With gene editing, we can have all the benefits of genocide without the murder. Just progressively regulate the 'allowed' features and rule others 'genetic defects' and you can simply force people to give birth to anything other than their own children. I mean, it was usually one of those moments when a white couple gave birth to a black baby. With gene editing, whose to say the kid isn't literally someone else's - or a clone that's part of a secret program?

(Who is to say that hasn't been done already... on me... oooo).
Genocide without murder isn't a genocide. You cannot murder what does not exist, assuming you subscribe to the b theory of time. As for answering if whether or not a genetically manufactured black baby is the offspring of a white couple, or just some random black baby "swapped at birth" or what ever scenario you want to give, that would require me to make some assumptions about the technology/functionality that goes into genetic editing. I can assume some form of DNA test could still be performed since the remaining unaltered genetic information will be that of the parents. I can also assume that medical records of what genetics were altered, introduced, removed in a child would exist as a point of reference for future medical instances (doctors visit, surgery, transplants, diagnosis, etc.).

Mind you those are all assumptions, which is why I try to avoid pragmatics; you end up getting into trillions of scenarios, which are all variations of a single scenario, with only one or two minor factors being different from the last.

Is it an option? Not if I have to kill every police officer willing to serve the arrest warrant when my hypothetical wife and I want to have a kid the natural, un-edited way, and some egg-head firm suggests we are statistically likely to produce offspring with defects. I mean, the lives of a million corrupt officers is a small price to pay for my kid, but society doesn't always agree on such things, and then I have to start killing the people who voted for the law... and then I'm effectively perpetrating eugenics to put a stop to eugenics... and we should just dust off and nuke the site from orbit at that point, and start over.
"Is it an option"? My position is, it should be an option at the point where it does not negatively effect the potential wellbeing of the child. IMO, it would be unethical to subject your offspring to a life of suffering when the means to prevent suffering are readily available. All my position requires is a belief in negative rights (freedom from X).

Do you have any objections?



I am not really against the option, and I am certainly not against red hair or the hint of freckles on her cheek bones. What is problematic, however, is the trend of human behavior. My parents spent quite a bit of time deciding on my name, making sure my initials didn't spell anything stupid, etc - they didn't want to be the parents who named their kid something that got them picked on in school. Now we are opening that trend up to physical features. Look at how parents pick out the clothes for their kids, their hair styles, etc - all of those same underlying patterns will end up expressed in the same manner at build-a-baby clinics. Whether it is vicarious living or simple "I don't want my kid to be picked on for not having the cool nose..."
The motivations behind what traits the parents choose in their child has carries no moral weight on whether or not allowing parents to make the choice is ethical. So long as the child's wellbeing is not negatively effected, I see no issue. That's including, emotional/psychological wellbeing; ex. it would be immoral for parents to give their child notably large feet, as that would have a net negative effect on the wellbeing of the child.


I guess we all just become one of the family, then. One big happy family ruled by unicomp.
Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei, led us to This Perfect Day.
Wei, Wood, Marx and Christ, all but Wei were sacrificed.
Wood, Wei, Christ and Marx, gave us lovely schools and parks.
Marx, Christ, Wei and Wood... made us humble, made us good.

I've always been a bit of a brother hater who likes to fight - so I would probably decide to destroy any planet afflicted with such a condition. Possibly the whole star system, just to illustrate how unacceptable it is.
Again, the parallel you're attempting to draw to a possible dystopian future fails to address the ethics/principle of the issue.

The ethical condition isn't necessarily at the individual or even collective decision - it is in the factors weighing in on the decision. The damage of poor research, fake news, and sensational reporting has already taken a massive toll on public health with regard to unrealistic expectations of patients or abuse by pharmaceutical companies. Just look at how diets go through fads. Now replace diets, exercise fads, etc with gene editing beliefs.
"poor research, fake news, sensational reporting", those are pragmatics.

For the sake of argument I will claim that I do not care what the outcome is if my principle is applied, which is baseline state enforced eugenics. I do not care if it leads to a utopia or dystopia, I don't care if it brings humanity to it's peak existence or leads to the end of our existence. What I want to know is if there is an issue with genetic eugenics in principle (in terms of ethics).

Pragmatics will only drag out this conversation and get us nowhere.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I might have a slight idea of what you're trying to convey, -- do you mind clarifying?
You might be more familiar with the term: "Magus."

The Magus seeks to form the world according to his or her will. They, and the tier 'above' them, often believe they have been born or blessed with the insight to be capable of making virtually any decision they can conceive of and rationalize. In a sense, it is a tongue-in-cheek comment toward myself, as well - though I do not really delude myself into thinking I am capable of making the best decisions. I have simply chosen a set of parameters for the world I believe is more ideal, and will seek to enforce those parameters.

What those among a certain practice would consider a Magus, I consider a Dragon. Kings and tyrants by nature who seek to establish and impose their rule over the world. I am generally one who likes things to be hands-off, and generally find enemies among other dragons as I see their petty attempts at micro-managing the world to be insubordination. As such - I am more of a sort of hermit who grows tired of the bickering of "kings" and then decides to strip them of the power I lent them by not bothering to kill them, earlier.

Coming back around to the more immediate topic - there are always those who believe that they are capable of deciding what is best for you or I. Not in the sense of our parents making decisions for us when we were children, or people who argue with us over our life choices... but people who will use a whole host of means to try and erase the ability to choose from you. This can be through media manipulation, education manipulation, laws, fees, and cultural subversion. It's not just that they think you should choose one way or the other - they don't think you should be allowed to realize you could choose anything other than the path lined out by them.

"behavioral eugenics", or more simply social conditioning? Or did you mean something else by that.
See above. It's a bit more than social conditioning. It's about completely eliminating an idea or a choice from society. It can also be about eliminating certain identities. Social conditioning is more of a sort of method in achieving the goal of behavioral eugenics.

Genocide without murder isn't a genocide. You cannot murder what does not exist, assuming you subscribe to the b theory of time.


More seriously - let's say I were to make a law that no babies were to be born with blonde hair. I am not committing genocide? What happens if a blonde baby is born? Okay... maybe we don't kill it... but do we sterilize it?

Let's say I were to put out a law that said all babies born must not have [a list of all features other than those that are latin american]. Therefor, all pregnancies would have to be gene-edited to be consistent with [latin americans]. Is this really any different from killing everyone who isn't latin american?

Would your answer to that change if we were to say that, rather than gene editing, we were to simply sterilize all people holding traits inconsistent with the list of approved genetic features? How would that be much different?

As for answering if whether or not a genetically manufactured black baby is the offspring of a white couple, or just some random black baby "swapped at birth" or what ever scenario you want to give, that would require me to make some assumptions about the technology/functionality that goes into genetic editing. I can assume some form of DNA test could still be performed since the remaining unaltered genetic information will be that of the parents. I can also assume that medical records of what genetics were altered, introduced, removed in a child would exist as a point of reference for future medical instances (doctors visit, surgery, transplants, diagnosis, etc.).

Mind you those are all assumptions, which is why I try to avoid pragmatics; you end up getting into trillions of scenarios, which are all variations of a single scenario, with only one or two minor factors being different from the last.
I was more getting at the point of children being an extension of and continuation of their parents. Or, in more extreme cases of gene editing, the parents are effectively cucking each other. The man becomes an income source and the woman becomes a womb. Any set of features can be added or removed.

While, I will admit - as an engineer/scientist - part of me loves the idea of being able to engineer a 'human 2.0' or the ideal characters from my fiction stories. I also see it as a very selfish and vicarious way of thinking. Just because something would be 'cool,' or 'neat,' or even somewhat beneficial does not mean it is right or proper to act on it.

Consider the relationship between parent and child, as well. A woman and you go into a clinic and start ripping your features about each other you don't like while adding in those features you can haggle to an agreement on... just how much of the kid is yours at the end? And don't give me a sunshine-up-my-ass answer of "oh, it's all still your kid, just as it was before" - because control has been given over what features from whom get added/removed, the entire concept of what a child is to parents has changed from the result of mutual passion to a negotiated contract - a business deal.

If there are any hard feelings over the nogotiation process for building a kid, that is going to develop into a rift among parents that will only deepen as time goes on.

"Is it an option"? My position is, it should be an option at the point where it does not negatively effect the potential wellbeing of the child. IMO, it would be unethical to subject your offspring to a life of suffering when the means to prevent suffering are readily available. All my position requires is a belief in negative rights (freedom from X).
In the world of biology, it is very rare that we can determine with certainty the outcome. "You and this girl are 5% likely to have a deaf child." Should the couple be forced to undergo gene editing? Do all people need to submit to genetic screening for the transmission of disabilities? Do people with genetic disabilities get to decline screening?

How is this enforced, as well? As with many things sexual, one of the greatest challenges has been that of privacy. *** is often a fairly private act and can be quite spontaneous with pregnancy being the result of a poorly managed fling or whirlwind romance. Even if the law were to state that all couples looking to have children were to submit to screening - or even just that all those with disabilities would need to submit to screening... it's not like those people are going to ride on over to the gene clinic after hitting it off with someone at a bar and see if they are compatible... or even pull up an app on their phone to bother checking.

How would any of these policies be enforced any better than laws against sodomy in states where **** porn is produced?

The motivations behind what traits the parents choose in their child has carries no moral weight on whether or not allowing parents to make the choice is ethical. So long as the child's wellbeing is not negatively effected, I see no issue. That's including, emotional/psychological wellbeing; ex. it would be immoral for parents to give their child notably large feet, as that would have a net negative effect on the wellbeing of the child.
And who determines what features are or aren't detrimental to the wellbeing of the child?

Recent history is full of various 'experts on behavioral health' who have proposed all manner of traditional things are 'harmful to the development of children.' Whether they are or aren't isn't so much the point as it is that these people rarely have much in the way of evidence to reinforce their claims, yet society and laws then follow the guidelines of these 'experts' who come up with such wonderful ideas as referring to children as boys or girls is harmful to them until they can 'choose on their own.'

Will skin that is too white or too black be considered 'detrimental' to their health? A number of genes associated with intelligence are also associated with mental illness. If you are a few codons short of the genius set, then you're quite literally a few fries short of happy meal. If gene editing can't guarantee the expression of good genes needed to create natural geniuses, but can remove the risk of mental illness... then doesn't it figure that those genes associated with mental illness should be edited out, even if it also removes the chance that person could become a genius?

Just who gets to make that decision on whether or not to roll the dice?

If the parents get to make that decision, then why should the decisions/opinions of 'experts' matter in determining what features are or aren't detrimental in the first place? Why have the regulation?

For the sake of argument I will claim that I do not care what the outcome is if my principle is applied, which is baseline state enforced eugenics. I do not care if it leads to a utopia or dystopia, I don't care if it brings humanity to it's peak existence or leads to the end of our existence. What I want to know is if there is an issue with genetic eugenics in principle (in terms of ethics).



If you do not care whether the outcome brings about the end... or the ideal... then you do not truly understand the concept of ethics in the first place.

You are asking if, using gene editing, the process of selecting sets of features from the world to remove raises ethical issues. Those are being presented.

Moreover on the subject of gene editing in the first place, substantial ethical issues arise. To quote Ian Malcolm:



We've gone right past the question of gene editing and landed straight at the question of using it as a tool for eugenics. "It's not that we are saying that you have to die... it's that we're saying you just shouldn't have any kids. ... or... at least... not ones that have any of your genes. We're totally not erasing you from the gene pool, or anything..."

At least rounding people up and shooting them in the head is more honest work.
 

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Coming back around to the more immediate topic - there are always those who believe that they are capable of deciding what is best for you or I. Not in the sense of our parents making decisions for us when we were children, or people who argue with us over our life choices... but people who will use a whole host of means to try and erase the ability to choose from you. This can be through media manipulation, education manipulation, laws, fees, and cultural subversion. It's not just that they think you should choose one way or the other - they don't think you should be allowed to realize you could choose anything other than the path lined out by them.


See above. It's a bit more than social conditioning. It's about completely eliminating an idea or a choice from society. It can also be about eliminating certain identities. Social conditioning is more of a sort of method in achieving the goal of behavioral eugenics.
The act of eliminating a choice/idea from society falls under the umbrella term social conditioning. It's tautological to call it behavioral eugenics when what you've described essentially a form of social conditioning, and the term "social conditioning" already exists. The way you frame behavioral eugenics only serves to give a negative (tyrannical) connotation, which isn't necessary if your stance is social conditioning is in some way tyrannical -- which in some cases, it can be. If you want to continue to call it behavioral eugenics, feel free to do so. I'll refer to it as social conditioning as it carries no implicit connotation, and I'm able to provide connotation through the context it's used.






"There is always a certain type of person who seems to believe they are born with not just the ability, but also the responsibility, of building a more perfect human. Out of all of the knowns and unknowns, they have been blessed with an understanding of the ideal as it pertains to the human organism and condition."
After explaining what you've meant by your preamble, I don't see what it has to do with the discussion unless your taking a indirect shot at me. If not, I don't see what other people (Magus) who advocate for eugenics has to do with what your or my individual stance on the topic of eugenics is. If it was an indirect shot at me, which I'm assuming it is since you said, " it is a tongue-in-cheek comment toward myself, as well" please be more direct. Opposition is appreciated, no matter how critical.



More seriously - let's say I were to make a law that no babies were to be born with blonde hair. I am not committing genocide? What happens if a blonde baby is born? Okay... maybe we don't kill it... but do we sterilize it?

Let's say I were to put out a law that said all babies born must not have [a list of all features other than those that are latin american]. Therefor, all pregnancies would have to be gene-edited to be consistent with [latin americans]. Is this really any different from killing everyone who isn't latin american?

Would your answer to that change if we were to say that, rather than gene editing, we were to simply sterilize all people holding traits inconsistent with the list of approved genetic features? How would that be much different?
You're not addressing me when I speak principles, and you respond with pragmatics. We're currently speaking two different languages, and as of right now, the language of principles is what would be useful in the context of this discussion. Hypotheticals are loaded with presuppositions that can't be assumed of something as theoretical as human genetic engineering. I will not entertain any hypothetical as it will not get us any closer to coming to some agreement/disagreement.

The sooner you start speaking the language of this discussion, the sooner we get to some sort of conclusion.

Referencing to the dragon ball clip, I don't see how that counters the claim "you can't murder something that doesn't exist". Murder implies intentional killing, and killing a being implies the being has sentience/life. A being cannot be sentient or alive if it does not exist, therefore you cannot murder something that does not exist. You prevent it from existing, but that's in no shape or form murder or genocide.


I was more getting at the point of children being an extension of and continuation of their parents. Or, in more extreme cases of gene editing, the parents are effectively cucking each other. The man becomes an income source and the woman becomes a womb. Any set of features can be added or removed.
Continuation in the genetic sense? If you mean a genetic continuation, to argue that children who are genetically modified to an extreme high extent are no longer a continuation of their parents would require to presume knowledge about how genetic modification will work. It specifically presumes that altered genetics can't be sourced from artificial means. If not, what do you mean by continuation and does that continuation merit moral consideration?

While, I will admit - as an engineer/scientist - part of me loves the idea of being able to engineer a 'human 2.0' or the ideal characters from my fiction stories. I also see it as a very selfish and vicarious way of thinking. Just because something would be 'cool,' or 'neat,' or even somewhat beneficial does not mean it is right or proper to act on it.
I have not argued that giving parents rights over physical aesthetics of their children are right or proper. They're morally neutral. Being selfish and doing it out of vicariousness is also morally neutral. You may find it reprehensible, but that's a irrelevant to whether or not people should be able to do such a thing.

Consider the relationship between parent and child, as well. A woman and you go into a clinic and start ripping your features about each other you don't like while adding in those features you can haggle to an agreement on... just how much of the kid is yours at the end? And don't give me a sunshine-up-my-ass answer of "oh, it's all still your kid, just as it was before" - because control has been given over what features from whom get added/removed, the entire concept of what a child is to parents has changed from the result of mutual passion to a negotiated contract - a business deal.

If there are any hard feelings over the negotiation process for building a kid, that is going to develop into a rift among parents that will only deepen as time goes on.
This is pragmatics wrapped up in what sounds like moralizing "woo-woo" feels. Again, speak to me on principle. On what basis would you deny the right to a parent to genetically alter their child so long as no suffering or reduce in wellbeing comes as a result?

In the world of biology, it is very rare that we can determine with certainty the outcome. "You and this girl are 5% likely to have a deaf child." Should the couple be forced to undergo gene editing? Do all people need to submit to genetic screening for the transmission of disabilities? Do people with genetic disabilities get to decline screening?

How is this enforced, as well?
As with many things sexual, one of the greatest challenges has been that of privacy. *** is often a fairly private act and can be quite spontaneous with pregnancy being the result of a poorly managed fling or whirlwind romance. Even if the law were to state that all couples looking to have children were to submit to screening - or even just that all those with disabilities would need to submit to screening... it's not like those people are going to ride on over to the gene clinic after hitting it off with someone at a bar and see if they are compatible... or even pull up an app on their phone to bother checking.

How would any of these policies be enforced any better than laws against sodomy in states where **** porn is produced?
"In the world of biology, it is very rare that we can determine with certainty the outcome". Certainty doesn't play an absolute role in moral actions. It would be immoral to deny a child antibiotics on the basis that there is no certainty that the antibiotics will cure the child's ailment.



And who determines what features are or aren't detrimental to the wellbeing of the child?

Recent history is full of various 'experts on behavioral health' who have proposed all manner of traditional things are 'harmful to the development of children.' Whether they are or aren't isn't so much the point as it is that these people rarely have much in the way of evidence to reinforce their claims, yet society and laws then follow the guidelines of these 'experts' who come up with such wonderful ideas as referring to children as boys or girls is harmful to them until they can 'choose on their own.'

Will skin that is too white or too black be considered 'detrimental' to their health? A number of genes associated with intelligence are also associated with mental illness. If you are a few codons short of the genius set, then you're quite literally a few fries short of happy meal. If gene editing can't guarantee the expression of good genes needed to create natural geniuses, but can remove the risk of mental illness... then doesn't it figure that those genes associated with mental illness should be edited out, even if it also removes the chance that person could become a genius?

Just who gets to make that decision on whether or not to roll the dice?

If the parents get to make that decision, then why should the decisions/opinions of 'experts' matter in determining what features are or aren't detrimental in the first place? Why have the regulation?
And Now we get to the question spam. THIS, is the problem with applying pragmatics to a theoretical -- there are an infinite amount of questions that can be asked, and an finite amount of answers that can be given as a response. With every question you pose you get no closer to understanding my position, and with every question I answer I get no closer to conceding my position. Please respond to me with principled ethics -- deontological, consequential, virtue, utilitarian, divine, anything I didn't list, anything that isn't pragmatics. Please.


If you do not care whether the outcome brings about the end... or the ideal... then you do not truly understand the concept of ethics in the first place.
"If you do not care whether the outcome brings about the end... or the ideal" I said, "for the sake of argument". This is me trying to get you passed pragmatics (X trillion hypothetical), and move on to the principled arguments. Don't mistake my rhetorical claims for literal ones.

You are asking if, using gene editing, the process of selecting sets of features from the world to remove raises ethical issues. Those are being presented.

Moreover on the subject of gene editing in the first place, substantial ethical issues arise. To quote Ian Malcolm:
No, what you're doing is placing a theoretics into pratical based scenarios that contain arbitrary presuppositions of things that could happen, but have no justifiable reason to assume will happen over any other presupposition. When you assume that a theoretical will result in X, I can literally assume the opposite (the theoretical will result in Y), canceling your assumption out, and getting us no further in the discussion.

Presenting me with a quote from someone speaking on eugenics in the context of a theme park filled with clone dinosaurs, addresses nothing we're discussing. These clips are becoming progressively irritating; I'd honestly prefer you present the argument yourself. If not provide the quote and extrapolate it's meaning to the context of the discussion. In no way is this a demand, so if you want to continue responding to me with clips that seem relevant to the dicussion, go for it, but I won't be addressing them from now on unless they're truly substantial, or you have incorporated the clip into your argumentation.


We've gone right past the question of gene editing and landed straight at the question of using it as a tool for eugenics. "It's not that we are saying that you have to die... it's that we're saying you just shouldn't have any kids. ... or... at least... not ones that have any of your genes. We're totally not erasing you from the gene pool, or anything..."

At least rounding people up and shooting them in the head is more honest work.
I'll be waiting for your response. Hopefully, it'll have more substance.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The act of eliminating a choice/idea from society falls under the umbrella term social conditioning. It's tautological to call it behavioral eugenics when what you've described essentially a form of social conditioning, and the term "social conditioning" already exists. The way you frame behavioral eugenics only serves to give a negative (tyrannical) connotation, which isn't necessary if your stance is social conditioning is in some way tyrannical -- which in some cases, it can be. If you want to continue to call it behavioral eugenics, feel free to do so. I'll refer to it as social conditioning as it carries no implicit connotation, and I'm able to provide connotation through the context it's used.
Careful, your agenda is showing.

"There is always a certain type of person who seems to believe they are born with not just the ability, but also the responsibility, of building a more perfect human. Out of all of the knowns and unknowns, they have been blessed with an understanding of the ideal as it pertains to the human organism and condition."
After explaining what you've meant by your preamble, I don't see what it has to do with the discussion unless your taking a indirect shot at me. If not, I don't see what other people (Magus) who advocate for eugenics has to do with what your or my individual stance on the topic of eugenics is. If it was an indirect shot at me, which I'm assuming it is since you said, " it is a tongue-in-cheek comment toward myself, as well" please be more direct. Opposition is appreciated, no matter how critical.
You are trying to have an ethical discussion about the application of Eugenics, but can't understand how the belief that one is capable of assuming the role of God intersects with the discussion?

You're irrelevant and a waste of time. Castration is ordered.

You're not addressing me when I speak principles, and you respond with pragmatics. We're currently speaking two different languages, and as of right now, the language of principles is what would be useful in the context of this discussion. Hypotheticals are loaded with presuppositions that can't be assumed of something as theoretical as human genetic engineering. I will not entertain any hypothetical as it will not get us any closer to coming to some agreement/disagreement.
You're simply trying to pretend like there is something else to discuss. Some "higher" form of discussion I am not engaging in.
Glow a little brighter.

This is the reality of what is being done when people engage in gene editing. Pretending these issues are irrelevant to the "idea" is trying to create an alternate universe where ideas exist apart from their employ.

The sooner you start speaking the language of this discussion, the sooner we get to some sort of conclusion.
We already arrived at a conclusion. See my signature for the result. You are to be broken down and destroyed. Piece by piece. Individual by individual. Until you never existed, at all.

Referencing to the dragon ball clip, I don't see how that counters the claim "you can't murder something that doesn't exist". Murder implies intentional killing, and killing a being implies the being has sentience/life. A being cannot be sentient or alive if it does not exist, therefore you cannot murder something that does not exist. You prevent it from existing, but that's in no shape or form murder or genocide.
Now you're speaking in pragmatism.

What is the difference between killing every black person and editing every black baby out of the future? If I can make it illegal to have black babies - then how is that any different from exterminating an entire race - genocide?

Like I said - at least rounding people up and shooting them in the head is honest work, as it makes it very obvious and clear what you intend and what you are doing.

Continuation in the genetic sense? If you mean a genetic continuation, to argue that children who are genetically modified to an extreme high extent are no longer a continuation of their parents would require to presume knowledge about how genetic modification will work. It specifically presumes that altered genetics can't be sourced from artificial means. If not, what do you mean by continuation and does that continuation merit moral consideration?
By that same token, you are arguing that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws. Blah-blah, yadda-yadda, and does that merit moral consideration?

You're engaging in pilpull - creating an ever-shifting and amorphous set of conversational goals to try and appear as though you are in control of this conversation and hold the higher ground of understanding.
To presume that gene editing will be capable of selecting any set of defects and then cure them to such a degree as to make a subject of whether or not it should be illegal to not receive those treatments establishes that gene editing be a solid technology.

I have not argued that giving parents rights over physical aesthetics of their children are right or proper. They're morally neutral. Being selfish and doing it out of vicariousness is also morally neutral. You may find it reprehensible, but that's a irrelevant to whether or not people should be able to do such a thing.
You need to read. I have already addressed this multiple times.

No - you need to go back and read, again.

What did I just say? Read again.

This is pragmatics wrapped up in what sounds like moralizing "woo-woo" feels. Again, speak to me on principle. On what basis would you deny the right to a parent to genetically alter their child so long as no suffering or reduce in wellbeing comes as a result?
You need to read.


"In the world of biology, it is very rare that we can determine with certainty the outcome". Certainty doesn't play an absolute role in moral actions. It would be immoral to deny a child antibiotics on the basis that there is no certainty that the antibiotics will cure the child's ailment.
You need to read.

And Now we get to the question spam. THIS, is the problem with applying pragmatics to a theoretical -- there are an infinite amount of questions that can be asked, and an finite amount of answers that can be given as a response. With every question you pose you get no closer to understanding my position, and with every question I answer I get no closer to conceding my position. Please respond to me with principled ethics -- deontological, consequential, virtue, utilitarian, divine, anything I didn't list, anything that isn't pragmatics. Please.
You forget yourself in front of me.

Stop trying to create a conversation that doesn't exist. Stop trying to create an elevated state of knowledge that simply doesn't exist outside of your own vacuous cranium. These are very pointed questions at the nature of what you are attempting to achieve. If you can't answer them, then you are not worth my time.

"If you do not care whether the outcome brings about the end... or the ideal" I said, "for the sake of argument". This is me trying to get you passed pragmatics (X trillion hypothetical), and move on to the principled arguments. Don't mistake my rhetorical claims for literal ones.
Here you are again, pretending there is something else to discuss.

Let's move to a different principled argument for a moment, to show you how "pragmatics" are very much relevant, even in this case. Abortion. There should never be a reason this powerful medical technology should be taken off the table for parents, right?

Yet, by your own definition - abortion can easily be seen as murder. Further, we can carry it over into eugenics as programs to 'assist' with abortions disproportionately go to blacks within the population. From a statistical standpoint, blacks are the target of a eugenics program at abortion clinics.

This idea of yours that there is some sort of 'principled discussion' where the principles exist free from the consequences and nuances of a technology existing is simply absurd. You may as well be trying to say: "So, chemistry, guys, should we be using it?" Or "rape, guys, perfectly okay, right?"

No, what you're doing is placing a theoretics into pratical based scenarios that contain arbitrary presuppositions of things that could happen, but have no justifiable reason to assume will happen over any other presupposition. When you assume that a theoretical will result in X, I can literally assume the opposite (the theoretical will result in Y), canceling your assumption out, and getting us no further in the discussion.
See above. Seriously, it's like you've never opened a history book.

Presenting me with a quote from someone speaking on eugenics in the context of a theme park filled with clone dinosaurs, addresses nothing we're discussing. These clips are becoming progressively irritating; I'd honestly prefer you present the argument yourself. If not provide the quote and extrapolate it's meaning to the context of the discussion. In no way is this a demand, so if you want to continue responding to me with clips that seem relevant to the dicussion, go for it, but I won't be addressing them from now on unless they're truly substantial, or you have incorporated the clip into your argumentation.
Let me introduce you to the conversation you're not seeing... Anons, this is a kike. This is how they attempt to debate. "You don't know what I am talking about and aren't qualified to be holding this conversation. I hope you do better next time." This one is particularly humorless and doesn't command much public appeal - but there are others who are very effective at making people laugh. They will use this to try and make you feel as though you are losing the debate, or being stupid for holding your beliefs. They love like buttons and will use bot/smurf accounts to push likes on their comments as a catty way of trying to humiliate you.

Win by remaining relatively calm and keeping in mind that your goal isn't to actually get them to agree to or understand, anything. Your goal is simply to talk to the bystander and point out to them how the sons of satan are speaking empty truths that evade the key points that people care about.

I'll be waiting for your response. Hopefully, it'll have more substance.
Says the guy whose entire post amounted to: "You are speaking a different language than me. I am trying to get you to speak my higher, more developed sense of moral comprehension. My generous descent from the heavens to assist you in becoming as developed as me is running out. Hurry now and agree with me or forever be lost in the darkness."

The people out there, including those within your family, are more capable than you give them credit for and are more than able to see through the hollow wisdom you offer, particularly with a little help from dragon fire.

The questions I have asked you outline, rather clearly, the moral and ethical issues surrounding gene editing and its implementation within society. Answering those questions isn't meant to give you a clear moral verdict on the entire concept of gene editing. I am not going to try and deceive people into believing it is a wonderful thing - or a horrible thing. What I am going to say, however, is that it opens the door to the malice of people in a way we haven't truly seen, before. In a world where eugenics programs have existed when they did include murder - you wish to ignore the idea that these same eugenics programs can now be used without provoking the visceral resistance to murder most people have.

Is it okay to consider parts of the human genome defective and then to edit them out? Is it okay to make it law to abide by certain principles?

We answer these questions by exploring the context of history. Would Hitler have simply edited the jews out of existence if he had gene editing technologies? Would dictators edit intelligence/rebelliousness out? Could it be done without the knowledge or consent of the parents?

You may call this "getting lost in endless pragmatics" - but the reality of whether or not we should "empower" ourselves with such a technology comes back to that principle of who is fit to play God. Who determines what is and is not a defect to be edited out? If it is the parents, and the parents exclusively - then the question of law is irrelevant. If the answer is that the law gets to determine what features are or are not a defect, then we must evaluate the ideology and implementation of law, as well.

Your whole "ideal discussion" is ultimately a farce. If I decide to edit the genes of my child, then it will be done. That is all there is to it. Law, your opinion, etc doesn't factor in. Even the ability to do it doesn't really factor in, as I can create such capability. For others, it may - but suffice to say that it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes available. Trying to have an ideological argument about whether or not it should exist or be allowed is rather nonsense. You may as well ask whether or not people should be allowed to get drunk or high. Even if the answer is "No" - good fucking luck making it (not) happen. Where there is a demand for a product/service, there will typically be found a provider, whether it is legal or illegal.

As I said - you pretend as though there is a 'higher' discussion to be had, when there really isn't. Should cooking exist? Well... maybe not - but good luck removing fire from humanity. The cat is already out of that bag, and arguing about whether or not it should exist as an option for how to eat food is, ultimately, an exercise in futility as most people will have the choice available to them - legal, ethical, or not. Thus, they should be given the tools and insight necessary to understand how that choice applies to them and what related issues to be prepared to have thought through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kimb

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
BEFORE YOU RESPOND: PLEASE READ THE ENTIRETY OF MY RESPONSE.
I'm trying to avoid confrontation at all cost.

Careful, your agenda is showing.
I don't see how using a preexisting term that doesn't contain loaded connotation leads into any agenda. Your using manufactured deflationary terms when you can use preexisting terms that apply within the context of this dicussion.



You are trying to have an ethical discussion about the application of Eugenics, but can't understand how the belief that one is capable of assuming the role of God intersects with the discussion?

You're irrelevant and a waste of time. Castration is ordered.
That's a strawman. My believe is not that one is capable of assuming the role of God. Firstly, I don't believe no "one" can sit atop eugenics as the sole prorietor and make rules as they please, and I've demonstrating this by having a dicussion with you. If I believed one person (myself) should assume the role as the sole proprietor of eugenics, then I would not engage in discussion with others, asking their opinions, and being opened to convince otherwise.

Secondly, the usage of the term "God" (capital g) is defused by the fact that I don't believe a single person should be the proprietor over the decisions made on what is and is not acceptable in human eugenics. God (capital g) has no equals. In my perspective, these decisions should be lead by experts in the field of ethics and medical ethics, followed by experts in the field of the relevant sciences, followed by voting members of the states, e.i. the citizens.



You're simply trying to pretend like there is something else to discuss. Some "higher" form of discussion I am not engaging in.
Glow a little brighter.

This is the reality of what is being done when people engage in gene editing. Pretending these issues are irrelevant to the "idea" is trying to create an alternate universe where ideas exist apart from their employ.
"You're simply trying to pretend", Insinuating motive is akin to an ad hominem, which is a fallacy. And there is no "higher form of discussion", only a different one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking down to you when I say we're speaking a different language. There are different branches in the laws of logic and philosophy, and we're currently talking past each other. To frame it as if I'm claiming principles are a higher form of discussion compared to pragmatics, is a misunderstanding.

Secondly, gene editing in humans is not a reality as it stands in the present, so to claim "This is the reality of what is being done when people engage in gene editing" is simply not true. You cannot make a truth claim to something that does not yet exist.

You seem to be growing hostile, and I'm hoping to keep this discussion civil. Believe me when I say, my responses to you are not malicious, or carry any hostility. I'm thinking everything you say through, and responding as intelligibly as reasonably possible. There is no emotion that goes into my responses.


Now you're speaking in pragmatism.
Because the clip was of Freiza creating a hypothetical race, and hypotheticals are based on axioms (established truths). Human genetic editing on the otherhand is entirely theoretical, meaning we cannot establish hypothetical since there are no axioms to base your hypotheticals on.

What is the difference between killing every black person and editing every black baby out of the future? If I can make it illegal to have black babies - then how is that any different from exterminating an entire race - genocide?

Like I said - at least rounding people up and shooting them in the head is honest work, as it makes it very obvious and clear what you intend and what you are doing.
I asked earlier if you subscribed to the B-theory of time, but you didn't respond. Essentially, the B-theory of time is a philosophical position that the flow of time is an illusion and that the past, present, and future are equally real. The only alternate view is the A-theory of time, which is that only the present is real. The B-theory of time holds up more, and is what's subscribed by most modern day philosophers.



Now, the easy way to answer your question "what's the difference between killing every black person and editing every black baby out of the future?", is as I said before, which is that moral consideration is only granted to that which is alive and sentient, meaning we don't grant moral consideration to rocks because they are neither alive, nor sentient, and we don't grant moral consideration to living things like plants or bacteria because while they are alive, they are not sentient. Existence is a precursor to sentience and being alive, and without existence, there can be no sentience or life. By that logic, the non-existent are not granted moral consideration.

Now, one could ask "are you saying no future human can be granted current moral consideration, e.i. in the form of environmental conservation for future children, etc.?". I would then refer to back to the B-theory of time. Since the past, present, and future are all real, then one's action in the present, will become true in the future, and once the present becomes the past, will remain true in the past. By that logic, black babies that are edited out of the present, will not exist in the future, and once the present becomes the past, those children have never existed. Children that aren't edited out of the present do exist in the future, and this deserve some loose form of moral consideration.

The best way I can think to make this easier to understand is to think of the Terminator.

You must be registered for see images

If Terminator followed the B-theory of time, Skynet would not send back a T800 to kill Sarah Conor, on account that John Conor already exists in the future. If the T800 was successful in terminating Sarah Conor, John Conor wouldn't exist in the future, so there would be no initial reason to push Skynet to send a T800 to the past to terminate Sarah Conor. Since John Conor does exist in the future, it's a guaranteed fact that the T800 would fail in terminating Sarah Conor 100% of the time, so Skynet knowing this, would not have sent a terminator after Sarah.

In summation;That which will exist already exist, and that which will not exist will never exist. If the black babies are erased out of existence, they will never exist, and once the present becomes the past, have never existed, thus deserving no moral consideration.

By that same token, you are arguing that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws. Blah-blah, yadda-yadda, and does that merit moral consideration?

You're engaging in pilpull - creating an ever-shifting and amorphous set of conversational goals to try and appear as though you are in control of this conversation and hold the higher ground of understanding.
To presume that gene editing will be capable of selecting any set of defects and then cure them to such a degree as to make a subject of whether or not it should be illegal to not receive those treatments establishes that gene editing be a solid technology.
"you are arguing that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws", Yes, because genetic editing as it stands does have the capability of eliminating genetic flaws. When I claimed I studied this in my original post, I legitimately meant I studied this at uni. I'm a science major with a B.S. in biochem, and I minored in criminal justice. Genetic editing, namely, CRISPR Cas9, has proven to reverse the effects of genetically inherited diseases, and transmitted disease. A study I can reference to is one where tests were performed on mice with muscular dystrophy and HIV. CRISPR, which can be simply described as a gene splicing tool found in bacteria, was successfully able to target codons that caused the muscular dystrophy and correct the disease in the mice, within the matter of several therapeutic injections. No, The presumption that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws is loaded in my question of does it consider moral consideration.


Stop trying to create a conversation that doesn't exist. Stop trying to create an elevated state of knowledge that simply doesn't exist outside of your own vacuous cranium. These are very pointed questions at the nature of what you are attempting to achieve. If you can't answer them, then you are not worth my time.
I'd imagine you would agree with me that this conversation isn't going in the best of directions. I'm not going to stop and create the conversation that doesn't exist, because the one we're currently having, where we're talking past one another isn't productive. I don't see why you'd want me to stop, unless your goal is confrontation, and not discussion. You seemed like a well-tempered guy until this response, and you've seemed to have wise inputs in other thread forums, so I'm hoping this conversation can actually go some place.

And again, the discussion I'm trying to arrive at is not "elevated", it's one that addresses principles. Principled discussion is no greater than pragmatic discussion, in the same way a screw driver is no better than a wrench. Both are useful tools, but neither are useful in all situations. The same applies with principles and pragmatics.



Here you are again, pretending there is something else to discuss.

Let's move to a different principled argument for a moment, to show you how "pragmatics" are very much relevant, even in this case. Abortion. There should never be a reason this powerful medical technology should be taken off the table for parents, right?

Yet, by your own definition - abortion can easily be seen as murder. Further, we can carry it over into eugenics as programs to 'assist' with abortions disproportionately go to blacks within the population. From a statistical standpoint, blacks are the target of a eugenics program at abortion clinics.

This idea of yours that there is some sort of 'principled discussion' where the principles exist free from the consequences and nuances of a technology existing is simply absurd. You may as well be trying to say: "So, chemistry, guys, should we be using it?" Or "rape, guys, perfectly okay, right?"
Pragmatics can apply to abortion because abortion currently exists. There are axioms in place upon once one could have a pragmatic discussion involving hypotheticals to come to conclusions. Pragmatics cannot apply to human genetic editing because human genetic editing does not currently exist. There are no axioms established on the practice of editing human genes, so you cannot have a pragmatic dicussion, especially one that involves hypotheticals.

Sidenote: I am pro-life.


Let me introduce you to the conversation you're not seeing... Anons, this is a kike. This is how they attempt to debate. "You don't know what I am talking about and aren't qualified to be holding this conversation. I hope you do better next time." This one is particularly humorless and doesn't command much public appeal - but there are others who are very effective at making people laugh. They will use this to try and make you feel as though you are losing the debate, or being stupid for holding your beliefs. They love like buttons and will use bot/smurf accounts to push likes on their comments as a catty way of trying to humiliate you.

Win by remaining relatively calm and keeping in mind that your goal isn't to actually get them to agree to or understand, anything. Your goal is simply to talk to the bystander and point out to them how the sons of satan are speaking empty truths that evade the key points that people care about.
There is no intent behind anything I say. The intentions are already in my words. My questions are for the sake of a deeper understanding, a view of opposing opinion, a sense of perspective on my opinion, and a possible change in my position. The same goes with my arguments. I really don't want you to interpret anything I'm doing, or saying with malice, dude. Sincerly.


Says the guy whose entire post amounted to: "You are speaking a different language than me. I am trying to get you to speak my higher, more developed sense of moral comprehension. My generous descent from the heavens to assist you in becoming as developed as me is running out. Hurry now and agree with me or forever be lost in the darkness."

The people out there, including those within your family, are more capable than you give them credit for and are more than able to see through the hollow wisdom you offer, particularly with a little help from dragon fire.

The questions I have asked you outline, rather clearly, the moral and ethical issues surrounding gene editing and its implementation within society. Answering those questions isn't meant to give you a clear moral verdict on the entire concept of gene editing. I am not going to try and deceive people into believing it is a wonderful thing - or a horrible thing. What I am going to say, however, is that it opens the door to the malice of people in a way we haven't truly seen, before. In a world where eugenics programs have existed when they did include murder - you wish to ignore the idea that these same eugenics programs can now be used without provoking the visceral resistance to murder most people have.

Is it okay to consider parts of the human genome defective and then to edit them out? Is it okay to make it law to abide by certain principles?

We answer these questions by exploring the context of history. Would Hitler have simply edited the jews out of existence if he had gene editing technologies? Would dictators edit intelligence/rebelliousness out? Could it be done without the knowledge or consent of the parents?

You may call this "getting lost in endless pragmatics" - but the reality of whether or not we should "empower" ourselves with such a technology comes back to that principle of who is fit to play God. Who determines what is and is not a defect to be edited out? If it is the parents, and the parents exclusively - then the question of law is irrelevant. If the answer is that the law gets to determine what features are or are not a defect, then we must evaluate the ideology and implementation of law, as well.

Your whole "ideal discussion" is ultimately a farce. If I decide to edit the genes of my child, then it will be done. That is all there is to it. Law, your opinion, etc doesn't factor in. Even the ability to do it doesn't really factor in, as I can create such capability. For others, it may - but suffice to say that it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes available. Trying to have an ideological argument about whether or not it should exist or be allowed is rather nonsense. You may as well ask whether or not people should be allowed to get drunk or high. Even if the answer is "No" - good fucking luck making it (not) happen. Where there is a demand for a product/service, there will typically be found a provider, whether it is legal or illegal.

As I said - you pretend as though there is a 'higher' discussion to be had, when there really isn't. Should cooking exist? Well... maybe not - but good luck removing fire from humanity. The cat is already out of that bag, and arguing about whether or not it should exist as an option for how to eat food is, ultimately, an exercise in futility as most people will have the choice available to them - legal, ethical, or not. Thus, they should be given the tools and insight necessary to understand how that choice applies to them and what related issues to be prepared to have thought through.
Different doesn't mean higher, man -- c'mon. Please understand, I'm not speaking down on you. I'm trying to course correct this discussion before it goes to shit because we're currently talking past each other.
 
Top