On the genetic engineering of babies, and IVF

[Eleanor Ritas]

No one is buying life here. What would be bought is a better organism. No different than buying a boobjob or being able to afford a surgery.

...no, I don't think it's like that at all.

But then you have to explain why the comparison is unsuitable.

Is it that genetic engineering, particular its impact on brain development as it plays a role in behavior, self-awareness, social interaction, etc, may be capable of such radical extrapolations of a human that it would touch on social, political, biological, and philosophical considerations that far exceed those of a breast enlargement?

Something else?

[WestRedMaple]

I say once proven safe and effective we can begin using it on babies. However, I say that it should be free in order to keep the balance in check.

Free just means someone else is paying. Who would you propose do the paying?

[Great Kleomentia]

no sometimes no yes.
I'm not going to reply to ad hominem attacks anymore.

Declaring criticisms as as hominem attacks doesn't help your cause.

Just admit it, you're being hypocritical.

He won't admit it. He either has no idea what he is talking about or has realized he is wrong and is too stubborn to accept. Either way, it's pointless to continue the discussion with him.

[Shnercropolis]

...no, I don't think it's like that at all.

But then you have to explain why the comparison is unsuitable.

Is it that genetic engineering, particular its impact on brain development as it plays a role in behavior, self-awareness, social interaction, etc, may be capable of such radical extrapolations of a human that it would touch on social, political, biological, and philosophical considerations that far exceed those of a breast enlargement?

Something else?

no, you hit it right on the bud. Having a functioning brain is significantly different from having bigger boobs, and it conveys a way higher social advantage.

[Eleanor Ritas]

Yes, I'm aware of what the wealthy can do, I said so in the post that you replied to. I'm in no way advocating that GE be banned, quite the contrary, I think a basic reading of my posts indicate the opposite.

What I'm rather proposing is to accept that there will be early adopters to the technology, but that their use and development of the technology would then open the door for improved methods and economies of scale that would reduce the cost of the technology such that it could be made publicly available, as has occurred with a broad range of high social impact technologies.

In short, the rich using it will fund research that will make it so soon the poor can use it. I'm simply asking that we craft the regulatory environment to catalyze that so the resulting social disparities can be ameliorated. Perhaps I hadn't been clear enough about that in my posts, but I hope some were able to read it enough to understand the position being taken.

Pardon me, i misunderstood you. I fully agree with that.

Well, I understand a lot of ideas are going back and forth in the thread, and I often fail in concisely conveying what I'm trying to say.

The fact is, I don't think we could truly suppress genetic technology even if we wanted to. It simply will be researched and applied by someone, and draconian prohibitions on it will only drive it further into the hands of the hyperwealthy who will pursue it surreptitiously if denied the ability to do so publicly.

Banning it for reasons of unequal distribution will ultimately result in even less equal distribution, but not the creation of the technology.

The War on Genes would fail even more catastrophically than the War on Drugs.

[Pandeeria]

Declaring criticisms as as hominem attacks doesn't help your cause.

Just admit it, you're being hypocritical.

He won't admit it. He either has no idea what he is talking about or has realized he is wrong and is too stubborn to accept. Either way, it's pointless to continue the discussion with him.

I think he genuinely realized how hypocritical he was being, but he has to stand by what he's saying to not look like he messed up.

[Great Kleomentia]

But then you have to explain why the comparison is unsuitable.

Is it that genetic engineering, particular its impact on brain development as it plays a role in behavior, self-awareness, social interaction, etc, may be capable of such radical extrapolations of a human that it would touch on social, political, biological, and philosophical considerations that far exceed those of a breast enlargement?

Something else?

no, you hit it right on the bud. Having bigger boobs is a significantly different from having functioning brain.

It's not. It is a advantage of sorts that puts someone in a better position. It is absolutely the same.

[WestRedMaple]

But by banning it completely, you are essentially doing the same thing: lowering us to the poorest point.

If someone has money, let them afford their extra luxuries.

being able to live is not a luxury, it is a right.
I am firmly against buying rights.

The topic doesn't really have anything to do with buying rights

[Great Kleomentia]

Pardon me, i misunderstood you. I fully agree with that.

Well, I understand a lot of ideas are going back and forth in the thread, and I often fail in concisely conveying what I'm trying to say.

The fact is, I don't think we could truly suppress genetic technology even if we wanted to. It simply will be researched and applied by someone, and draconian prohibitions on it will only drive it further into the hands of the hyperwealthy who will pursue it surreptitiously if denied the ability to do so publicly.

Banning it for reasons of unequal distribution will ultimately result in even less equal distribution, but not the creation of the technology.

The War on Genes would fail even more catastrophically than the War on Drugs.

You're spot on, there. It's best to accept it with open arms, if such a thing was to come around.

[Great Kleomentia]

He won't admit it. He either has no idea what he is talking about or has realized he is wrong and is too stubborn to accept. Either way, it's pointless to continue the discussion with him.

I think he genuinely realized how hypocritical he was being, but he has to stand by what he's saying to not look like he messed up.

Probably.

[Eleanor Ritas]

But then you have to explain why the comparison is unsuitable.

Is it that genetic engineering, particular its impact on brain development as it plays a role in behavior, self-awareness, social interaction, etc, may be capable of such radical extrapolations of a human that it would touch on social, political, biological, and philosophical considerations that far exceed those of a breast enlargement?

Something else?

no, you hit it right on the bud. Having a functioning brain is significantly different from having bigger boobs, and it conveys a way higher social advantage.

But if we agree that the technology will help people have a better functioning brain (a hope that is very dear to me, as I suffer from sub-normative intelligence and cognitive weakness that likely has a genetic component), then the technology is beneficial.

But for even a beneficial technology to develop, resources have to be allocated, and the wealthy have resources. If you ban them applying those resources to the development of genetic technology (which would likely not even be an effective ban), then you only serve to slow or prevent the technology, and everyone suffers.

[Shnercropolis]

no, you hit it right on the bud. Having bigger boobs is a significantly different from having functioning brain.

It's not. It is a advantage of sorts that puts someone in a better position. It is absolutely the same.

read edited post, I clarified a bit.

being able to live is not a luxury, it is a right.
I am firmly against buying rights.

The topic doesn't really have anything to do with buying rights

well, the topic has drifted to the ethics of purchasing genetic engineering, which can be equated in many cases to purchasing life, which I consider to be a right.

[WestRedMaple]

No. By your logic, we should lower our medical standards to that of Africa so it's fair. That's stupid and an awful idea.

So, when should we burn down our research centers and get rid of disinfectant, o' wise one?

There are lots of ways to make equality besides lowering standards. For instance, we could give them free healthcare, or dramatically reduced cost. With the amount of charity dollars being given to various parts of Africa, that would be to some extent possible.
The thing is, genetic engieneering right now is so ludicrously expensive that it would be impossible to implement something similar. Therefore it ought to be unavailable(or at least strictly regulated) for the super-rich until everyone else can get it.

Why should someone else not be permitted to have something just because you don't have it? Should we take away your computer just because many people cannot afford them?

[Great Kleomentia]

It's not. It is a advantage of sorts that puts someone in a better position. It is absolutely the same.

read edited post, I clarified a bit.

Irrelevant. A degree in a specific field also brings much higher advantage. Perhaps we should destroy universities?

[Shnercropolis]

no, you hit it right on the bud. Having a functioning brain is significantly different from having bigger boobs, and it conveys a way higher social advantage.

But if we agree that the technology will help people have a better functioning brain (a hope that is very dear to me, as I suffer from sub-normative intelligence and cognitive weakness that likely has a genetic component), then the technology is beneficial.

But for even a beneficial technology to develop, resources have to be allocated, and the wealthy have resources. If you ban them applying those resources to the development of genetic technology (which would likely not even be an effective ban), then you only serve to slow or prevent the technology, and everyone suffers.

that's true, a ban could be circumvented by getting the operation done in Mexico.
But the sort of doctors who would do an illegal procedure are also the kind that would prefer it to be expensive, so they have higher profits(read: unethical doctors).
Perhaps it could be legal, but with high taxes which go to funding research into cheaper methods?

[Korouse]

I believe it's perfectly humane (if used for good, we don't want Future Mecha-Hitler to make SS babies) it's perfectly okay. The only time it becomes a problem is when you start calling them "designer babies" and alter them to be how the parent wants, which implies another human being is superior to another human being.

All in all, this technology can either open the key to the gates of heaven, or to the gates of hell.

[Shnercropolis]

There are lots of ways to make equality besides lowering standards. For instance, we could give them free healthcare, or dramatically reduced cost. With the amount of charity dollars being given to various parts of Africa, that would be to some extent possible.
The thing is, genetic engieneering right now is so ludicrously expensive that it would be impossible to implement something similar. Therefore it ought to be unavailable(or at least strictly regulated) for the super-rich until everyone else can get it.

Why should someone else not be permitted to have something just because you don't have it? Should we take away your computer just because many people cannot afford them?

I've explained before that I don't apply this logic to most things.

[WestRedMaple]

It's not. It is a advantage of sorts that puts someone in a better position. It is absolutely the same.

read edited post, I clarified a bit.

The topic doesn't really have anything to do with buying rights

well, the topic has drifted to the ethics of purchasing genetic engineering, which can be equated in many cases to purchasing life, which I consider to be a right.

Genetic engineering doesn't purchase you life. You ALREADY have life.

[Pandeeria]

Why should someone else not be permitted to have something just because you don't have it? Should we take away your computer just because many people cannot afford them?

I've explained before that I don't apply this logic to most things.

Then you shouldn't apply it to this current topic, or else it isn't logical.

[Shnercropolis]

read edited post, I clarified a bit.

well, the topic has drifted to the ethics of purchasing genetic engineering, which can be equated in many cases to purchasing life, which I consider to be a right.

Genetic engineering doesn't purchase you life. You ALREADY have life.

suppose your child has a preventable genetic disease which will kill them within 6 months. Curing it costs more than you could possibly pay. That's where life could be bought.

[Shnercropolis]

I've explained before that I don't apply this logic to most things.

Then you shouldn't apply it to this current topic, or else it isn't logical.

logic isn't set in stone, it's fluid.

[Great Kleomentia]

Genetic engineering doesn't purchase you life. You ALREADY have life.

suppose your child has a preventable genetic disease which will kill them within 6 months. Curing it costs more than you could possibly pay. That's where life could be bought.

Burn all the hospitals then. That should even the playing field.

[Great Kleomentia]

Then you shouldn't apply it to this current topic, or else it isn't logical.

logic isn't set in stone, it's fluid.

Don't attempt to twist the definition of logic with pseudo-philosophy.

[WestRedMaple]

Why should someone else not be permitted to have something just because you don't have it? Should we take away your computer just because many people cannot afford them?

I've explained before that I don't apply this logic to most things.

So, you're saying it isn't so much that you are operating on a principle of people shouldn't have anything unless everyone can afford it as you are operating on a principle of what people should be permitted to have should be based on your whim

[Shnercropolis]

logic isn't set in stone, it's fluid.

Don't attempt to twist the definition of logic with pseudo-philosophy.

how on blurf do you think logic is defined? "the mindset with swhich to approach all problems"? If everyone approached every problem in the exact same way every time, we'd be in a sorry mess.