(August 11, 2017 at 7:41 am)Alex K Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 11:57 pm)Astonished Wrote: Exercise a little critical thinking. If people aren't getting sick, they're not dying, living longer, consuming more resources, and generally more likely to do lots and lots of fucking. Overpopulation would become the one 'disease' that can't be overcome. Building in a safety net against that would be the only logical thing to do rather than asking people to use their own discretion in birth control and contraception. If all the important shit is done in a lab anyway, fertility doesn't seem to need to happen anywhere else. Besides which, as I mentioned earlier, parents can be screened and evaluated for fitness in child-rearing so that unfit and abusive parents or those in an unstable and financially rocky situation don't end up with kids they can't properly care for. There's literally no downside to this.

Where on earth did you get the idea that health and economic prosperity correlates with having too many children?

People simply aren't capable of being responsible for their reproduction. I suppose you could program into them a decreased sex drive or amp up intelligence to the point where they'd be too far above that to be careless about birth control but one would think a simpler means would be turning their fertility switches to 'off' for the majority of the time until they decide they want kids and could prove to the current scientific experts that they're qualified. No 'accidents', relatively few unwanted children or orphans, much greater opportunity for successful adoptions, I mean, I really can't see a negative here. What's so bad about regulating population growth in a way that's already being used to enhance the species' genetics in the first place, if it makes people's choices about it (not needing protection or worrying about getting knocked up or spreading STDs) a non-issue?

(August 11, 2017 at 9:46 am)Astonished Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 7:41 am)Alex K Wrote: Where on earth did you get the idea that health and economic prosperity correlates with having too many children?

People simply aren't capable of being responsible for their reproduction. I suppose you could program into them a decreased sex drive or amp up intelligence to the point where they'd be too far above that to be careless about birth control but one would think a simpler means would be turning their fertility switches to 'off' for the majority of the time until they decide they want kids and could prove to the current scientific experts that they're qualified. No 'accidents', relatively few unwanted children or orphans, much greater opportunity for successful adoptions, I mean, I really can't see a negative here. What's so bad about regulating population growth in a way that's already being used to enhance the species' genetics in the first place, if it makes people's choices about it (not needing protection or worrying about getting knocked up or spreading STDs) a non-issue?

Bolded mine.  But..they are.  As quality of life increases, life expectancy increases, sexual education improves, and access to family planning services increases, we've seen a decline in the number of kids Americans have over the last 60+ years.

(August 11, 2017 at 7:14 am)Hammy Wrote: ... as all ethical topics should be worth debating properly with logic... rather than closed off by absolutists who think X, Y and Z are moral/immoral in and of themselves without actually provided logic for their consqeuestnalist reasons for being  moral/immoral.

Consequencalism doenst's work without some kind of moral realism already in place. Unless there are moral absolutes every ethical system is just a thin cover for power dynamics. In my experience, atheists generally fear that positing any form of realism opens the door for a theistic foundation. That fear is not entirely unfounded.

It is all well and good to say any given technology is morally neutral and that the proper use of something like gene editing needs ethical guidelines. So the bigger question is the often debated 'objective morality'. Personally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It's like Wimpy saying that he will gladly pay for the hamburger he eats today. You want to charge forward with using the technology knowing full well that you haven't a clue about what or even why there should be limits.

---

(August 11, 2017 at 9:46 am)Astonished Wrote: People simply aren't capable of being responsible for their reproduction.

Therefore what? Put that power entirely in the hands of an elite central planning authority? See guys, this is just the kind of "ethical" thinking that leads to collectivist fascism.

It's a compulsion with you. 

Thousands of years of secular ethics, ethics which found their way into your own magic book...but you just can't see how anyone who doesn't believe in fairies might justify some ethical position any way other than "might makes right".

Really?

In any case, it's true that people aren't all that good at family planning (gee, I wonder why that might be, lol) - but also that we do have a poor track record with central control. If you wanted to offer a more accurate criticism, rather than the usual shitpost, it would probably meander along the lines of the ethical thinking that leads one to such a conclusion is valid and sound, but that we have little practical ability to do so and a track record of worst case scenario failures. It's not thew thought you're really railing against, but it's implementation. If we were better people, it would be a fantastic idea...but we're not..so, for now, it isn't.

There's nothing about an ethics that sharply criticises our reproductive choices or even our ability to competentlky make them that leads, inexorably, to collectivist fascism. There have been fascists who made similar observations, though. / shrugs

Personally, I think the world needs more of us. Just choke the ever loving shit out of this rock and the next one, and the next one, and the next one -ad infinitum. Genetic engineering can certainly help us do that, if we don't use it to shit all over ourselves first. Ultimately, GE is just a shortcut to what we've been doing this whole time selecting our partners.

(August 11, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Consequencalism doenst's work without some kind of moral realism already in place.

Consequentalism is the moral realism.

The point is even if you're a deontologist or virtue ethicist or some combination thereof... ultimately those duties and/or virtues are only as good as the consequences they bring about.

---

(August 11, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It is all well and good to say any given technology is morally neutral and that the proper use of something like gene editing needs ethical guidelines. So the bigger question is the often debated 'objective morality'. Personally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It's like Wimpy saying that he will gladly pay for the hamburger he eats today. You want to charge forward with using the technology knowing full well that you haven't a clue about what or even why there should be limits.

You say I don't have a leg to stand on because you don't understand my legs.

(August 5, 2017 at 8:59 am)vorlon13 Wrote: An 'edited' genome might someday provide us with a human derived, but non-sentient form ideally suited to a high reproductive rate, ability for rapid weight gain

Been there....done that....

(August 10, 2017 at 12:05 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It starts with editing out disease genes, then you have mandatory sterilize the people carrying the disease to protect the gene pool, insurance cost reduction, the common good etc. Especially since certain demographics are prone to certain "deficiencies" the "corrupted races" can be editted out. Then since we know which genes might cause depression or anti social behavior we need to proactively edit those out to create a more happy and compliant populace, you know, public safety, etc....and since gentlemen prefer blonds then it should be mandated that all new children be edited to include that. And since people with blue-eyes are happier...

Of course we cannot forget epigenetic factors, some diseases will still happen because of environmental effects or accidents. Those people will be considered a burden to society and even the people who love them will come to understand that because of their "poor quality of life" the old, infirm, and disabled need to be eliminated "for their own good" (sorry, we already do that)

Of course none of that will ever happen...HERE

The thing is empathy is a rather plastic concept. If I was a "useless eater" and a "burden on the national health system" then surely I would want to be terminated for the common good.

Well said, and definitely along the lines of what what I was saying.... it would open up a whole can of worms.

---

(August 11, 2017 at 7:14 am)Hammy Wrote:

(August 10, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You haven't read much bioethics lately, have you? Infanticide is already on the table.

Actually I'm aware that there are pro-life people who think that such a thing is immoral. It's not immoral because they're not infants, they're stem cells, and they're stem cells that save lives.

ETA: Oh are you referring to this?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03...011-100411

After-birth abortion? It's only immoral if the infant would suffer more from being euthanized than they would if they were kept alive. And yes it should be considered a legitimate ethical topic, as all ethical topics should be worth debating properly with logic... rather than closed off by absolutists who think X, Y and Z are moral/immoral in and of themselves without actually provided logic for their consqeuestnalist reasons for being  moral/immoral.

Euthanizing infants??? Holy shit...

There are people with disabilities on this forum...

I'm one of them.

(August 11, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Consequencalism doenst's work without some kind of moral realism already in place.

Consequentalism is the moral realism.

The point is even if you're a deontologist or virtue ethicist or some combination thereof... ultimately those duties and/or virtues are only as good as the consequences they bring about.

---

(August 11, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It is all well and good to say any given technology is morally neutral and that the proper use of something like gene editing needs ethical guidelines. So the bigger question is the often debated 'objective morality'. Personally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It's like Wimpy saying that he will gladly pay for the hamburger he eats today. You want to charge forward with using the technology knowing full well that you haven't a clue about what or even why there should be limits.

You say I don't have a leg to stand on because you don't understand my legs.

So already you are trying to reference an absolute that you claim doesn't exist. What makes a consequence good or bad?

800 pound gorilla in these discussions:

anencephaly