Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a fallacy because it assumes that past mistakes will be made.

If we took the slipperly slope seriously progress would be impossible. The amount of "Where's it gonna end?" pseudo-arguments people could pull out of their ass to convince people on any issue would be ridiculous. Oh wait that's probably already happening because people are gullible cretins.

The point is that progress is possible and we shouldn't assume slipperly slopes. The slipperly slope only happens if we fail to avoid the bad stuff. And the whole point is to try to fail to avoid the bad stuff and get the good stuff, not give up on it before we've even staretd.

And it's also completely biased because DNA isn't the only area that could be abused or shitty "Where's it gonna end?" sliope fallacious arguments could be said. You could do that on any other serious issue too.

You could do it on abortion for example.

"Sure stem cell research helps save lives and fight cancer but where's it gonna end? Next we'll be slaughtering live toddlers in preschool to harvest their DNA."

or

"Sure fusion energy may one day be a much better source of energy... but where's it going to end? Next we'll be turning to power into a weapon and bombing people even though we already do that already look can you tell yet, Neo, that slippery slope arguments are fucking retarded oh look how I put this inside the quotemarks how amusing oh wait that was intentional."

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Sure stem cell research helps save lives and fight cancer but where's it gonna end? Next we'll be slaughtering live toddlers in preschool to harvest their DNA."

You haven't read much bioethics lately, have you? Infanticide is already on the table.

[WinterHold]

I'm just assuming that today's world is not a park, and I can expect racism between the normal people and the gene-modified humans.
There are no genes for psychology.

But for curing sickness, yes, pretty much

There are no genes for psychology...YET!

But seriously, there are genes that affect a person's psychology.

I'll agree if the human psychology is merely "done" by genetics.
That if we even have a map of the genes with respect to psychological function.

Check this out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/und...ersonality

The current prevailing genetic evidence seems to suggest that we actually don't have genes for personality. And this conclusion doesn't come from a lack of trying: The US government has spent billions on genetic research. Billions. BILLIONS!!! When I think about all the money that went into this "gene for" research, I want to throw myself out the second floor window of the psychology building. The fall wouldn't kill me, but I imagine it would hurt just as bad as it does to realize that much of our research funding was flushed down the "gene for" toilet.

Of course, the conclusion that genes don't influence personality is most certainly wrong, after all, we have decades of twin research showing similarity in personality between identical twins. At least some of that similarity has to be genetic. Are we missing something that might help uncover the great mystery linking genes and personality?

I'll go with the prevailing opinion.
It's a mysterious part in psychology and genetics.

[brewer]

There are no genes for psychology...YET!

But seriously, there are genes that affect a person's psychology.

I'll agree if the human psychology is merely "done" by genetics.
That if we even have a map of the genes with respect to psychological function.

Check this out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/und...ersonality

The current prevailing genetic evidence seems to suggest that we actually don't have genes for personality. And this conclusion doesn't come from a lack of trying: The US government has spent billions on genetic research. Billions. BILLIONS!!! When I think about all the money that went into this "gene for" research, I want to throw myself out the second floor window of the psychology building. The fall wouldn't kill me, but I imagine it would hurt just as bad as it does to realize that much of our research funding was flushed down the "gene for" toilet.

Of course, the conclusion that genes don't influence personality is most certainly wrong, after all, we have decades of twin research showing similarity in personality between identical twins. At least some of that similarity has to be genetic. Are we missing something that might help uncover the great mystery linking genes and personality?

I'll go with the prevailing opinion.
It's a mysterious part in psychology and genetics.

I think that's only half the picture. Don't discount environment and epigenetics. I'll also note that they have identified some genes linked to mental disorders.

[Alex K]

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. 

This is quiiiite a leap.

If editing out diseases is commonplace, why would rabid eugenicists still want to force-sterilize people? It seems to me like the capability of editing out undesirable traits in the germ line would drastically reduce any support for the inhuman brute force approach. As misguided as they may be, eugenics proponents don't automatically want to hurt people unnecessarily. At least I don't see how it would follow from gene editing capability that people get sterilized.

[Astonished]

This is quiiiite a leap.

If editing out diseases is commonplace, why would rabid eugenicists still want to force-sterilize people? It seems to me like the capability of editing out undesirable traits in the germ line would drastically reduce any support for the inhuman brute force approach. As misguided as they may be, eugenics proponents don't automatically want to hurt people unnecessarily. At least I don't see how it would follow from gene editing capability that people get sterilized.

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Sure stem cell research helps save lives and fight cancer but where's it gonna end? Next we'll be slaughtering live toddlers in preschool to harvest their DNA."

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.

[brewer]

Related article on gene editing. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...o-reality/

[Alex K]

If editing out diseases is commonplace, why would rabid eugenicists still want to force-sterilize people? It seems to me like the capability of editing out undesirable traits in the germ line would drastically reduce any support for the inhuman brute force approach. As misguided as they may be, eugenics proponents don't automatically want to hurt people unnecessarily. At least I don't see how it would follow from gene editing capability that people get sterilized.

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?

[FatAndFaithless]

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?

No kidding.  The average number of kids per family in the US has gone down as life expectancy and quality of life has gone up.  You don't NEED to have 8 kids anymore because 3 die before the age of 30.