This is interesting because you propose that eugenics is inherently bad because it requires a lot of sacrifice, is that right? Because it doesn’t have to. This line from Gattaca always stuck with me:
[Vincent’s parents are planning a second child, and are shown four candidate embryos]
Geneticist: We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn’t need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply, the best, of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.
I could argue, could, that not doing eugenics on this level would be immoral. If we can use science to make people less prone to disease, to make them stronger and smarter, why wouldn’t we? I’m not a fucking nazi here, I’m looking for a serious debate. We are already doing this in a different categorical scope with modern medicine. If we claim that all births must be “natural”, then perhaps disease and death are also “natural” and we shouldn’t intervene, and do without medical science and just have nature run its natural course.
I don’t want parents to be able to choose whether their kids are autistic, because there’s nothing wrong with us, but society would rather change us than change the world so it can accommodate us.
We’re not just talking about autism here though. We’re talking about hereditary diseases, maybe a bad back, extreme allergies, etc. Their point is that if we had the technology to prevent our future child from carrying all sorts of genetic burdens (exposure to cancer, compromised immune system, terrible eyesight…) wouldn’t it be immoral to not use that technology?
I’m not saying that this kind of thing cannot be used for bad purposes. I’m asking the philosophical question of where our moral obligation to do everything we can to give our children the best possible life begins.
Should we let them be born “as is”, and then have a moral obligation to do everything we can to make the best of whatever genetic baggage they have, or should we do whatever is in our power even before they’re born to give them a better shot at a good life?
Explosives have caused enormous amounts of death, but also allowed enormous amounts of people to live in safer, more affordable houses, and have been critical for mineral extraction that essentially makes modern society possible, as well as modern transportation infrastructure. Explosives, like most technology, aren’t an inherently “evil” thing, even though they’re used for bad purposes.
But that doesn’t answer the question of whether we are morally obliged to use it for good purposes when possible. It’s just a different point entirely.
It’s actually absurd to me that you’re able to read that out of my comment. I’m literally asking whether we have a moral obligation to use the technology available to us to prevent cancer, ALS, Alzheimer’s, compromised immune systems, metabolic diseases, and fragile backs in our future children.
I even specifically stated that this wasn’t about whether the same technology can be used for nefarious purposes, which is a different discussion entirely.
This is interesting because you propose that eugenics is inherently bad because it requires a lot of sacrifice, is that right? Because it doesn’t have to. This line from Gattaca always stuck with me:
I could argue, could, that not doing eugenics on this level would be immoral. If we can use science to make people less prone to disease, to make them stronger and smarter, why wouldn’t we? I’m not a fucking nazi here, I’m looking for a serious debate. We are already doing this in a different categorical scope with modern medicine. If we claim that all births must be “natural”, then perhaps disease and death are also “natural” and we shouldn’t intervene, and do without medical science and just have nature run its natural course.
I don’t want parents to be able to choose whether their kids are autistic, because there’s nothing wrong with us, but society would rather change us than change the world so it can accommodate us.
We’re not just talking about autism here though. We’re talking about hereditary diseases, maybe a bad back, extreme allergies, etc. Their point is that if we had the technology to prevent our future child from carrying all sorts of genetic burdens (exposure to cancer, compromised immune system, terrible eyesight…) wouldn’t it be immoral to not use that technology?
We’re not, no. Sexual preference is genetic.
I’m not saying that this kind of thing cannot be used for bad purposes. I’m asking the philosophical question of where our moral obligation to do everything we can to give our children the best possible life begins.
Should we let them be born “as is”, and then have a moral obligation to do everything we can to make the best of whatever genetic baggage they have, or should we do whatever is in our power even before they’re born to give them a better shot at a good life?
Explosives have caused enormous amounts of death, but also allowed enormous amounts of people to live in safer, more affordable houses, and have been critical for mineral extraction that essentially makes modern society possible, as well as modern transportation infrastructure. Explosives, like most technology, aren’t an inherently “evil” thing, even though they’re used for bad purposes.
And I’m saying it will be.
But that doesn’t answer the question of whether we are morally obliged to use it for good purposes when possible. It’s just a different point entirely.
Sounds to me like you’re fine with collateral damage as long as you get to edit certain neurodiverse people out of the gene pool.
It’s actually absurd to me that you’re able to read that out of my comment. I’m literally asking whether we have a moral obligation to use the technology available to us to prevent cancer, ALS, Alzheimer’s, compromised immune systems, metabolic diseases, and fragile backs in our future children.
I even specifically stated that this wasn’t about whether the same technology can be used for nefarious purposes, which is a different discussion entirely.