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.
It’s actually absurd to me that you’re able to read that out of my comment.
I know. You can’t figure out why I’m not as cavalier as you are about something that will absolutely be misused. People are already so hateful of neurodiversity that they’re willing to risk everyone’s health because charlatans have convinced them that the MMR vaccine will cause their children to be autistic. Except there’s actual science behind sexual preference being genetic. You think that bigots aren’t going to try to edit the gay away? Or edit the gays away? And we’ve seen with vaccines in this administration that these assholes are happy to try to give their backwards garbage the force of law.
You’re just clearly not interested in having a reasonable discussion about what I consider to be an interesting topic, and appear more interested in attacking me over opinions I don’t have, and positions I haven’t defended.
I’m not really interested in being talked down to be someone that appears to be wilfully misinterpreting me, so I’m probably just going to leave this comment section now.
Look, if you start out the conversation with “I’m not a nazi or anything” and then handwave away concerns about how what you want to do could be used for horrifying purposes, don’t be surprised if people become even more focused on the stuff you tried to handwave away.
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.
I know. You can’t figure out why I’m not as cavalier as you are about something that will absolutely be misused. People are already so hateful of neurodiversity that they’re willing to risk everyone’s health because charlatans have convinced them that the MMR vaccine will cause their children to be autistic. Except there’s actual science behind sexual preference being genetic. You think that bigots aren’t going to try to edit the gay away? Or edit the gays away? And we’ve seen with vaccines in this administration that these assholes are happy to try to give their backwards garbage the force of law.
You’re just clearly not interested in having a reasonable discussion about what I consider to be an interesting topic, and appear more interested in attacking me over opinions I don’t have, and positions I haven’t defended.
I’m not really interested in being talked down to be someone that appears to be wilfully misinterpreting me, so I’m probably just going to leave this comment section now.
Look, if you start out the conversation with “I’m not a nazi or anything” and then handwave away concerns about how what you want to do could be used for horrifying purposes, don’t be surprised if people become even more focused on the stuff you tried to handwave away.