RE: ADSactly Tech News - The Ethics of Gene Editing

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: ADSactly Tech News - The Ethics of Gene Editing

techblogger (69)in #technology • 7 years ago

Very interesting! I tried my best to create a balanced article about this subject because it is undeniable that this field of research has the potential to save lives as well as improve the quality of life in a countless number of people. You didn't touch on the possibility of creating genetically superior human beings which would in a sense inherit the earth... Any thoughts on that?

7 years ago in #technology by techblogger (69)

$0.05

2 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

clausewitz (60) 7 years ago

Well the first problem we stumble upon is simply that our DNA´s is getting known and when this becomes standard information in our health journals, the more genetically "prime"humans will be regarded better. They will have easier getting insurances, loans and work yeah anthing that runs over long durations. Who would hire someone that will be dement by 50 ? or give life insurance to someone born with high probability of early heart failure or early life cancer ? So by fixing these worst defects, we would only save a few lives from suffering noting more.

Today and in the near future this is the main problem i would say since we can only fix defect genes or knock them out we can´t engineer new genes leading to expression of new proteins which would bring a new phenotype. This has many problems and is far away in time but would lead to a direct elite human project!
Adding non human genes would be a direct way to instead of super humans, create a new race, even a single gene addition to germ line DNA will accomplish this.
This wont be morally obligated untill it comes to the survival of our spices and should be kept away from military complexes etc.

Regulating what we got and fixing the worst errors is within morale obligations, while keeping health journals away from insurance companies and employers.

Regulations of defect genes should not in anyway be confused with creating new ones and inserting or inserting non human genes and does not lead to elite humans just less sick individuals :)

If everyone had severe genetic disorders then it would truly lead to an elite race emerging, consisting of those who lived in the right area and could afford it. Hopefully or genome wont commit suicide anyway soon and I hope that evolution keeps us on path instead of science saving a few individuals from becoming sludge while the rest witter away. But if our genome anyway decides to give out, its still better saving a few elite humans then saving none :)

$0.38

2 votes

[-]

sighmanjestah (54) 7 years ago

This discussion reminds me so much of different SciFi stories.

I immediately thought of Nancy Kress' novel "Beggars in Spain" written in 1993 plot synopsis below courtesy of wikipedia;

Beggars in Spain and its sequels take place in a future where genetic engineering has become a reality, and society and culture face the consequences of genetic modifications (genemods), particularly in the United States. The world of Beggars in Spain is also powered by cold fusion, named "Y-energy" after its pioneer Kenzo Yagai. Yagai also founded "Yagaiism", a moral worldview Kress based on Objectivism, in which dignity is solely the product of what a person can achieve through his or her own efforts, and the contract is the basis of society. As a corollary, the weak and unproductive are not owed anything.
The novel's title comes from its primary moral question, as presented by character Tony Indivino: what do productive and responsible members of society owe the "beggars in Spain", the unproductive masses who have nothing to offer except need? This is underscored by the rift between the Sleepers and the Sleepless; the Sleepless are superior in mind and body, and easily capable of outperforming their normal cousins. All men are not created equal. Where, then, is the line between equality and excellence? How far should any superior minority hold themselves back for fear of engendering feelings of inadequacy in their inferiors?—especially if this minority is not hated and feared, but rather the elite? This question is explored, but not elaborated on by the novel.
Nancy Kress has explained that the book, and the trilogy generally, grapples with the conflicting principles of Ayn Rand on one hand and Ursula K. Le Guin's picture of communist-like community on the other.[1]

I excerpted the following for further consideration;

All men are not created equal. Where, then, is the line between equality and excellence? How far should any superior minority hold themselves back for fear of engendering feelings of inadequacy in their inferiors?—especially if this minority is not hated and feared, but rather the elite? This question is explored, but not elaborated on by the novel.

Looking forward to future discussions.

Thanks @techblogger & @adsactly

SDG

$0.02

1 vote