I'm pro eugenics. Parents should design their kids to be the best. Design kids to be productive, solve big problems, healthy, have the right hair color, etc. It's worth great sacrifice and more important than life. I'd want to be aborted if I got a better replacement.
My general view is no, we shouldn’t. Complications we don’t have any way of predicting must be a problem to consider. Just because we think it’s going to only affect one aspect of a person, it’s likely not.
I would be more open to modifications of people already existing in the world. For instance, someone who is 20 and has a genetic disease that they might want to deal with.
Does it matter if the artificial selection requires artificial generation with the intent of discarding the unselected? [7:16] https://youtu.be/-BYJSE-OPnw?t=436
Why? Because we don't yet posses the maturity or wisdom to be doing that and just because one can always claim "Someone is going to do it" that doesn't mean we're supposed to beat them to the finish line. We are facing a population collapse after multiple generations constantly being told we have over populated the earth and some are still claiming today we're over populated. This can be fixed with design people by simply encouraging, perhaps even coercing, men and women back to being men and women instead of trying to be the other.
Only women can give babies and with gestation and recovery it's a best 1a year with 2 every 3 years being a more reasonable figure. Risks with child birth increases significantly after the women enter her early 30's. This mean that currently society is encouraging women to spend the limited time they have to get married and have babies, to instead go into debt (women hold most college debt) and pursue a useless career and seek family only after she's too old to do so safely. Feminism has done this and it will end only when men and non-feminist women say no more.
The pro-feminist can scream and holler sexism all they like but this is biological reality. We can either recognize the harm that feminism has caused and course correct and we can continue down the path of societal collapse from a population collapse.
This topic raises so many issues related to eugenics, a movement that was endorsed by the world's smartest, most cultured and respected people in the US and the rest of the civilized world.....until it all fell apart due to a German guy whose name begins with H.
I have often wondered what would/could/might have happened if Mr. H had never lived or had never executed his "final solution" to what he considered the world's problems. What a very different world we could be living in today. If everyone were born smart and capable, would there be any remaining concerns about equality versus equity? Would there even have been any DEI movement or affirmative movement?
Presumably if parents could design their progeny, everyone would want the smartest, most beautifully perfect babies. Or would the ability to design babies be rationed to only a certain segment of the population, based on some criterion/criteria, leaving everyone else to take what fate can offer, leaving rouglly the same mixture of individuals we already have. One can easily foresee a dystopian result, even likely worse than our current situation.
There’s some interesting ethical literature on this. Why is it, ethically, that we view curing “defects” as positive but bringing individuals “from neutral to enhanced” is universally considered to be unethical?
I'm uncertain that either "curing defects" is ethically accepted, or that bringing individuals "from neutral to enhanced" is universally considered unethical. I particularly question the former proposition. What about the Tennessee ban on child sex-change treatment, now being decided in SCOTUS? If a child and his parents believe he was born into the wrong-sex body, and he should really be a girl, would that be considered curing a defect, and is it ethically accepted? The Tennessee legislature didn't think so when it passed the sex-change ban.
I haven't heard a convincing argument against it. It's going to happen, whether people like it or not.
I think that’s absolutely correct. Like it or not, it’s coming. And it’s likely closer than you think.
Wonderful conversation! Just wasn’t long enough. 😉
I'm pro eugenics. Parents should design their kids to be the best. Design kids to be productive, solve big problems, healthy, have the right hair color, etc. It's worth great sacrifice and more important than life. I'd want to be aborted if I got a better replacement.
My guess is that the Overton window will move on this—and quickly as the technology falls in price.
My general view is no, we shouldn’t. Complications we don’t have any way of predicting must be a problem to consider. Just because we think it’s going to only affect one aspect of a person, it’s likely not.
I would be more open to modifications of people already existing in the world. For instance, someone who is 20 and has a genetic disease that they might want to deal with.
I found the whole video interesting. Some highlights for me:
Do we need to know more first, or just FAFO?
[1:11] https://youtu.be/-BYJSE-OPnw?t=71
What is the difference morally between natural selection and artificial selection? [8:47] https://youtu.be/-BYJSE-OPnw?t=527
Does it matter if the artificial selection requires artificial generation with the intent of discarding the unselected? [7:16] https://youtu.be/-BYJSE-OPnw?t=436
Thank you
NO.
Why? Because we don't yet posses the maturity or wisdom to be doing that and just because one can always claim "Someone is going to do it" that doesn't mean we're supposed to beat them to the finish line. We are facing a population collapse after multiple generations constantly being told we have over populated the earth and some are still claiming today we're over populated. This can be fixed with design people by simply encouraging, perhaps even coercing, men and women back to being men and women instead of trying to be the other.
Only women can give babies and with gestation and recovery it's a best 1a year with 2 every 3 years being a more reasonable figure. Risks with child birth increases significantly after the women enter her early 30's. This mean that currently society is encouraging women to spend the limited time they have to get married and have babies, to instead go into debt (women hold most college debt) and pursue a useless career and seek family only after she's too old to do so safely. Feminism has done this and it will end only when men and non-feminist women say no more.
The pro-feminist can scream and holler sexism all they like but this is biological reality. We can either recognize the harm that feminism has caused and course correct and we can continue down the path of societal collapse from a population collapse.
This topic raises so many issues related to eugenics, a movement that was endorsed by the world's smartest, most cultured and respected people in the US and the rest of the civilized world.....until it all fell apart due to a German guy whose name begins with H.
I have often wondered what would/could/might have happened if Mr. H had never lived or had never executed his "final solution" to what he considered the world's problems. What a very different world we could be living in today. If everyone were born smart and capable, would there be any remaining concerns about equality versus equity? Would there even have been any DEI movement or affirmative movement?
Presumably if parents could design their progeny, everyone would want the smartest, most beautifully perfect babies. Or would the ability to design babies be rationed to only a certain segment of the population, based on some criterion/criteria, leaving everyone else to take what fate can offer, leaving rouglly the same mixture of individuals we already have. One can easily foresee a dystopian result, even likely worse than our current situation.
There’s some interesting ethical literature on this. Why is it, ethically, that we view curing “defects” as positive but bringing individuals “from neutral to enhanced” is universally considered to be unethical?
I'm uncertain that either "curing defects" is ethically accepted, or that bringing individuals "from neutral to enhanced" is universally considered unethical. I particularly question the former proposition. What about the Tennessee ban on child sex-change treatment, now being decided in SCOTUS? If a child and his parents believe he was born into the wrong-sex body, and he should really be a girl, would that be considered curing a defect, and is it ethically accepted? The Tennessee legislature didn't think so when it passed the sex-change ban.
Thanks