I think the knock-on effect of making some innate, human characteristics undesirable is probably a net bad. That’s very close to labeling persons with those characteristics as sub-human–specifically due fewer “human” rights.
That said, if I were choosing between gametes or embryos and had genetic information on them available, I do not think it is a moral stance to ignore/discard that information when making the choice. We should be careful to understand our genetic knowledge is still quite limited and, even if our knowledge was perfect, (most) genotypes are not destiny.
I agree that gene editing to reduce suffering is good. I’m not sure “designer babies” is a label that includes those gene edits. Or, if it does, it groups the with too many other gene edits so the good ones are no longer exemplary of the label.
I always imagine it to be fairly gattaca-esque in its intended conclusion. Human work horses of terrifying intellect, stamina, and resilience to breach the barriers our forebears failed to surpass. Though that’s speculation and likely beyond my lifetime.
The name is mostly marketing. You don’t feel involved if it’s an “edited baby.” But designing it, that gets the people going. It’d be near impossible to sell “baby alpha .82 patch 1.” Fortunately for their sales department, an absence of ailments also tends to produce hotter people. Current trajectory, they intend to go after major genetic issues before considering looks. That’s the only effect I expect to see in my lifetime.
I think the knock-on effect of making some innate, human characteristics undesirable is probably a net bad. That’s very close to labeling persons with those characteristics as sub-human–specifically due fewer “human” rights.
That said, if I were choosing between gametes or embryos and had genetic information on them available, I do not think it is a moral stance to ignore/discard that information when making the choice. We should be careful to understand our genetic knowledge is still quite limited and, even if our knowledge was perfect, (most) genotypes are not destiny.
I dunno, man. You can have only so much of a sense of humor about child mortality. Up to a certain point, gene editing is all gravy.
I agree that gene editing to reduce suffering is good. I’m not sure “designer babies” is a label that includes those gene edits. Or, if it does, it groups the with too many other gene edits so the good ones are no longer exemplary of the label.
I always imagine it to be fairly gattaca-esque in its intended conclusion. Human work horses of terrifying intellect, stamina, and resilience to breach the barriers our forebears failed to surpass. Though that’s speculation and likely beyond my lifetime.
The name is mostly marketing. You don’t feel involved if it’s an “edited baby.” But designing it, that gets the people going. It’d be near impossible to sell “baby alpha .82 patch 1.” Fortunately for their sales department, an absence of ailments also tends to produce hotter people. Current trajectory, they intend to go after major genetic issues before considering looks. That’s the only effect I expect to see in my lifetime.