Ethics of genetic engineering

[Timsup2nothin]

So, the issue came up in another thread.

Homosexuality has harsh consequences (at least until society undergoes much better correction than has so far been applied), so if it is genetic and can be screened out, should parents do so? This met a barrier in the form of many people thinking a more mature society would be the much more appropriate 'fix', but also opened up the issue of "fixing" things that are more universally acknowledged as defects, with deafness being the cited example.

However, even that example had questions. There are some pretty militant deaf people who don't acknowledge deafness as a 'defect'. No one had brought it up yet, but there is a certain amount of "don't fool with mother nature" sentiment to consider. There's also a question about whether a society needs genuinely disadvantaged members to maintain a healthy level of communal humility. And whether people with some sort of disadvantage may be uniquely driven to excel in other areas such that eliminating the disadvantages would produce a net social loss.

I make no claim to having answers, by the way, so I'll let someone else go first with opinions.

 

[Kozmos]

Those are pretty low-level fixes in my opinion. What if we could rewire the brain or genes so that doing good feels orgasmic and doing bad triggers nausea or heart attacks? Much better society results if you are not one of those 'free will' believers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Those are pretty low-level fixes in my opinion. What if we could rewire the brain or genes so that doing good feels orgasmic and doing bad triggers nausea or heart attacks? Much better society results if you are not one of those 'free will' believers.

So parents get to program obedient children who won't talk back to them and keep their rooms clean without being nagged? I'm thinking this leads to the death of the species myself.

 

[Senethro]

I certainly don't think applications of genetic engineering should be directed by Bronze Age social mores.

A culture with less bigots is the better fix as it comes with all kinds of other benefits.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I certainly don't think applications of genetic engineering should be directed by Bronze Age social mores.

A culture with less bigots is the better fix as it comes with all kinds of other benefits.

What if we identify a bigotry gene? Screen that?

 

[Kennigit]

Honestly, something random tangentially related caught my interest. There was random internet thing on what types of human immortality people might want-- e.g. will we have self-repairing organic tissues, upload our consciousness to virtual environment, become cyborgs, etc (included like spirituality such as birth/rebirth cycles)

I think that genetic engineering is going to be replaced by like direct manipulation of the electrical and neurotransmitter signals of the brain.

Why screen sexuality if everyone can have an activated pleasure center (and research can show overstimulation and such is bad too)

 

[El_Machinae]

I think you have an obligation to give your kids the best fighting chance you can. Now, I think an answer to most of the counter-points is to channel Kant; "if everyone did what I did, would things still be okay?". So, for example, sex selection doesn't work because it creates a runaway imbalance. But preventing spina bifida, by taking Folic acid? Refraining from drinking to prevent FAS? No, there's no problem if everyone does this.

In sex selection (to use as a template), I find it interesting. The error isn't 'not having a girl', because intentionally creating a girl is intentionally creating someone you predict will have a sub-acceptable life. The error is "intentionally adding to the imbalance by having a boy". Having the girl aggravates one problem. Having a boy aggravates the other side of the coin.

 

[Borachio]

It depends.

We really don't know which genetic traits are the optimal ones.

And we never can know when we might suddenly want, or need, some trait that previously we thought was a deficit.

 

[Kozmos]

So parents get to program obedient children who won't talk back to them and keep their rooms clean without being nagged? I'm thinking this leads to the death of the species myself.

Ants seem to be doing pretty well. Loyalty to the family unit or the colony as a whole? I think that's the more important choice we have to make.

 

[Borachio]

But blind obedience to the wishes of one's parents? Isn't that the death knell of human progress?

 

[El_Machinae]

The 'programmed obedience' leads to head-scratching. What if they're also programmed to enjoy being obedient, and so they actually find their lives both more satisfying AND fulfilling than normal?

If you're viscerally opposed to the above, then owning a dog becomes morally problematic.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. Good point about the dog.

But what if human children are programmed to "enjoy" being disobedient? And that's the way they find self-fulfillment. Eventually.

I think young dogs go through much the same stages of testing boundaries too, btw.

 

[Kozmos]

But blind obedience to the wishes of one's parents? Isn't that the death knell of human progress?

Maybe for some factions which apply that method. I'm pretty sure lots of experimentation will ensure and that the winning combination will prevail. I mean there's a small chance we'll all stagnate but I really doubt it considering how many ideologies are floating around. The technophiles will certainly never rest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The 'programmed obedience' leads to head-scratching. What if they're also programmed to enjoy being obedient, and so they actually find their lives both more satisfying AND fulfilling than normal?

If you're viscerally opposed to the above, then owning a dog becomes morally problematic.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you don't have a dog.

 

[Kozmos]

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you don't have a dog.

http://io9.com/dogs-exploit-the-parent-child-bonding-mechanism-to-make-1698296261

 

[El_Machinae]

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you don't have a dog.

I both have had dogs and have a strong affection for dogs.

Now, we've gone straight into dystopian ideas in this thread, but there's a large difference between 'this alteration prevents a bad life for my child' compared to the more zany scenarios we see here.

 

[Borachio]

I thought transgenics would be right up your street, Mr Machinae.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I both have had dogs and have a strong affection for dogs.

Now, we've gone straight into dystopian ideas in this thread, but there's a large difference between 'this alteration prevents a bad life for my child' compared to the more zany scenarios we see here.

As long as we are completely off track...

Having had dogs, how do you arrive at them being programmed to not only be obedient but programmed to enjoy being obedient? My dogs can be bribed into obedience, and they enjoy the bribe, but there is no indication they enjoy the obedience or that they are the least bit predisposed to it.

As to going straight to dystopia...that's actually where we started. The origin of the conversation was the idea of 'correcting' genetic homosexuality in order to allow your kids to avoid the societal consequences. Kozmos may have gone right off the deep end, but it wasn't a big step.

 

[Borachio]

I think it depends on the breed of dog. A lot of working dogs seem to enjoy what they do, and make very poor house pets, especially when they're not being given something to do in a very controlled manner.

 

[Flying Pig]

The 'programmed obedience' leads to head-scratching. What if they're also programmed to enjoy being obedient, and so they actually find their lives both more satisfying AND fulfilling than normal?

If you're viscerally opposed to the above, then owning a dog becomes morally problematic.

Only if you believe that humans and dogs should be treated as interchangeable - which is quite a step up from acknowledging that they both deserve to be considered in moral thinking. It's not a problem if you eat beef, I mean.