Rise of the Genetic Database

[yung.carl.jung]

Honestly, I think it's a good idea if it's accurate. If there had been a way to determine in the first trimester if I'd be what I am today, I should not have been allowed to come to term. Humans reproduce so effectively that there is little reason to knowingly bring genetic disease and defects into the world, especially when the fetus hasn't reached any stage resembling viable life yet.

who is the arbiter who says that human with genetic "defects" are inferior to humans without? i'm sure that your condition really sucks, and if you're of the opinion that you should not have allowed to been born, then that's fine. that decision, imho, is entirely up to you.

but how in the world would anyone decide that for anyone besides himself? why do parents or the government get to decide what life is worth living and not the actual people affected by their genetic "defect"? that's highly ***** up.

knowing some people with autism and downs, you'd have to be a complete irredeemable ******* to think that these people shouldn't be allowed to walk the earth, or were objectively "better off" without. it's part of what makes them the person that they are. matter of fact I probably prefer them over the average genetically "fit" person.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

why do parents or the government get to decide what life is worth living and not the actual people affected by their genetic "defect"? that's highly ***** up.

Parents get to decide whether a kid happens at all, though given that recent ruling on a divorced woman using a frozen egg to get pregnant post divorce against the man's will still receiving child support maybe plural isn't appropriate.

Regardless, parents are almost certainly going to treat crippling genetic diseases (especially the really bad stuff that will kill < 5 years after much suffering for the child) in their kids before they're born once this technology is available. It will flow naturally from there. The kid doesn't get a say for the same reason the kid doesn't get a say on what exact foods they eat or where they live as minors.

 

[Synobun]

who is the arbiter who says that human with genetic "defects" are inferior to humans without? i'm sure that your condition really sucks, and if you're of the opinion that you should not have allowed to been born, then that's fine. that decision, imho, is entirely up to you.

but how in the world would anyone decide that for anyone besides himself? why do parents or the government get to decide what life is worth living and not the actual people affected by their genetic "defect"? that's highly ***** up.

knowing some people with autism and downs, you'd have to be a complete irredeemable ******* to think that these people shouldn't be allowed to walk the earth, or were objectively "better off" without. it's part of what makes them the person that they are. matter of fact I probably prefer them over the average genetically "fit" person.

I am objectively less capable than well over 90% of the population. My absolute best is possibly less than a healthy individual's worst. Someone who is missing limbs is still more capable than I am.

I had the misfortune of knowing health before becoming this way.

The question of "how would anyone decide that for anyone besides themself" is one that's bankrupt on delivery since fetuses have no opinions and are thus incapable of consenting or withholding consent.

I do believe that it's irresponsible and somewhat reprehensible to knowingly bring in life that will be disadvantaged, or is likely to be disadvantaged, especially when there is such a large population of children that could be adopted or fostered. And you'll note that I said my preference would be for the defect to be repaired instead of having the fetus aborted. With defects that occur post-birth, well, that's that. I don't think they "shouldn't be allowed to walk the Earth".

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Parents get to decide whether a kid happens at all, though given that recent ruling on a divorced woman using a frozen egg to get pregnant post divorce against the man's will still receiving child support maybe plural isn't appropriate.

Regardless, parents are almost certainly going to treat crippling genetic diseases (especially the really bad stuff that will kill < 5 years after much suffering for the child) in their kids before they're born once this technology is available. It will flow naturally from there. The kid doesn't get a say for the same reason the kid doesn't get a say on what exact foods they eat or where they live as minors.

I realize all of that, but that doesn't make it less screwed up, no? there will never be a world where a child decides whether or not he/she's born and to whom, because frankly that's utterly impossible from any standpoint whatsoever. but that doesn't make the whole ordeal less unjust. being brought into existence is always fundamentally unfair, is my point.

1 I am objectively less capable than well over 90% of the population. My absolute best is possibly less than a healthy individual's worst. Someone who is missing limbs is still more capable than I am.

I had the misfortune of knowing health before becoming this way.

2 The question of "how would anyone decide that for anyone besides themself" is one that's bankrupt on delivery since fetuses have no opinions and are thus incapable of consenting or withholding consent.

3 I do believe that it's irresponsible and somewhat reprehensible to knowingly bring in life that will be disadvantaged, or is likely to be disadvantaged, especially when there is such a large population of children that could be adopted or fostered. And you'll note that I said my preference would be for the defect to be repaired instead of having the fetus aborted. With defects that occur post-birth, well, that's that. I don't think they "shouldn't be allowed to walk the Earth".

I wrote up a big post and then deleted all of it. such a difficult to talk about topic. whenever I want to express my feelings towards an issue I struggle with a "rational" counterpoint inside my head.

1 some people may feel crippled by being "less capable" than their peers, others might not. with physical disabilities, like a missing limb for example, it's pretty hard to argue. so I won't. that's not the hill I want to die on. with mental "disabilities" it's a different argument imho. calling a different way of thinking "wrong" or simply lackluster can only be done if you artifically "normalize" another way of thinking. there can never be an objectively correct mindset, and therefore I think calling, for example, autism a disability is absolutely wrong, and genetically selecting against autistic children is just as wrong. having autism might be a big disadvantage, especially in a competitive capitalist society, but it's not an inherently worse frame of mind or way of thinking.

2 I completely agree, but refer to my answer to TMIT. just stating what seems to me to be an obvious philosophical dilemma.

3 difficult. I agree wholeheardetly on adoption, but am torn on the other point you're making (bold). after all we live in a society that is by its very nature competitive. to me, capitalism boils down to "be productive or starve", which means that people who have an inherent disadvantage in said systems are screwed from birth. and obviously it's horrible to bring someone into this world who is told that he has to either compete or die, but who has the entire game rigged against him from the moment he sees the light. I do believe that if we lived in a different society that this would be less of an issue, but frankly we don't.

just thinking and typing gets me really riled up. so sorry to anyone if I don't respond to posts made towards me in this or the boomer thread. I don't know what it is, but lately I've been getting much too invested in arguments that happen inside my head. debating on the internet just isn't good for some people I think, and I'm one of them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I realize all of that, but that doesn't make it less screwed up, no? there will never be a world where a child decides whether or not he/she's born and to whom, because frankly that's utterly impossible from any standpoint whatsoever. but that doesn't make the whole ordeal less unjust. being brought into existence is always fundamentally unfair, is my point.

Point taken, but I'd rather exist than not and I suspect most would take that stance. If I could make myself better via genetic or cyborg shenanigans I would do that too. Children need to mature before they even have the capacity to evaluate this. It's not ideal but I don't see a clearly better alternative, and I hesitate to accept it as "unjust". It's kind of like saying physics isn't fair. It's our only known option though, so we're doing what we can with existence.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Point taken, but I'd rather exist than not and I suspect most would take that stance. If I could make myself better via genetic or cyborg shenanigans I would do that too. Children need to mature before they even have the capacity to evaluate this. It's not ideal but I don't see a clearly better alternative, and I hesitate to accept it as "unjust". It's kind of like saying physics isn't fair. It's our only known option though, so we're doing what we can with existence.

how can you make a meaningful decision on this matter when you have absolutely no clue what it's like to not exist? that is the question I grapple with. how do we know being alive is preferable when we haven't the faintest idea of any alternative. maybe there are many and it's not at all a black and white decision? what if there are even different ways of existing besides being alive? or maybe being dead is literally nothingness? but then what in the hell is nothingness? so no matter how smart, how educated we are, we may never make an informed decision on this topic.

your comparison with physics is absolutely phenomenal btw, nice one! i'll give you another needless comparison: aliens. what do they look like? well, they resemble something on earth, because we genuinely cannot imagine anything that is not a sum of things previously imagined or experienced. so we cannot, no matter how hard we try, ever imagine a true alien, because it will always resemble the things we are familiar with. same goes for alternate dimensions, alternate universes, and so on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

how can you make a meaningful decision on this matter when you have absolutely no clue what it's like to not exist? that is the question I grapple with. how do we know being alive is preferable when we haven't the faintest idea of any alternative. maybe there are many and it's not at all a black and white decision? what if there are even different ways of existing besides being alive? or maybe being dead is literally nothingness? but then what in the hell is nothingness? so no matter how smart, how educated we are, we may never make an informed decision on this topic.

This experience is all we know. If I had to choose between this and nothing, I choose this. Note that I didn't say anything about being "alive" per se', though at present it's the only apparent way to keep existing as a conscious entity.

I will not privilege some conjecture over other conjecture w/o evidence when it comes to "what it's like" to not exist, or to attempt to define what "nothingness" is or what it's like. I don't even have a good enough grasp of physics to truly understand how things are entering/leaving existence at quantum levels in a true vacuum. Maybe those smarter than me will find new meaning through these channels eventually.

your comparison with physics is absolutely phenomenal btw, nice one! i'll give you another needless comparison: aliens. what do they look like? well, they resemble something on earth, because we genuinely cannot imagine anything that is not a sum of things previously imagined or experienced. so we cannot, no matter how hard we try, ever imagine a true alien, because it will always resemble the things we are familiar with. same goes for alternate dimensions, alternate universes, and so on.

Some of the more creative designs for aliens out there do not resemble anything on Earth, though they're still inspired by observations on Earth. This is assuming sentient alien species and not single-cellular life, which would limit scope enough where we can at least guess to an extent. Note that this might be a little unfair as a comp, since authors will deliberately try to make aliens either appealing or recognizable/understandable so readers can connect to the story. They have active incentive to avoid *too much* creativity in that regard, same for alien thought processes/motivations. If they're not some vague poorly-understood random attacker to drive narrative or background piece of world-building with minimal involvement in the story, they're usually written in a way that relates for the readers.

If we drop evidence and allow anything imaginable (and hold even more isn't imaginable) then you wind up with ideas that don't constrain anticipation in a way useful to humans. That implies that even if there are other universes or mega super 13th dimension thought-only aliens that have consciousness w/o existence but their consciousness means something different than we think...it still isn't anything we can see, interact with, or use to meaningfully drive our decisions. If it were, it would once again imply testable consequences within our universe...

 

[Synobun]

I wrote up a big post and then deleted all of it. such a difficult to talk about topic. whenever I want to express my feelings towards an issue I struggle with a "rational" counterpoint inside my head.

1 some people may feel crippled by being "less capable" than their peers, others might not. with physical disabilities, like a missing limb for example, it's pretty hard to argue. so I won't. that's not the hill I want to die on. with mental "disabilities" it's a different argument imho. calling a different way of thinking "wrong" or simply lackluster can only be done if you artifically "normalize" another way of thinking. there can never be an objectively correct mindset, and therefore I think calling, for example, autism a disability is absolutely wrong, and genetically selecting against autistic children is just as wrong. having autism might be a big disadvantage, especially in a competitive capitalist society, but it's not an inherently worse frame of mind or way of thinking.

The thing about autism is difficult to have a worthwhile discussion about if only because of how imprecise its diagnosis is. At least here, they transitioned to a "level" diagnosis rubric for autism which is about as effective as the old approach (as in, not effective at all). My nephew has "level one" autism but his (lack of a) treatment plan will likely have him in prison before he's of age.

I would agree with you that the stereotypical portrayal of autism with poor social skills and mild obsessions (aka Asperger's) isn't worthy of correction because, as you said, there's nothing actually outright wrong with them. They can lead a life, they can be self-sufficient, and their only real weakness is that they're somewhat out of sync with their peers (which is entirely possible to self-correct if it proves problematic).

But once you start getting into more severe forms of autism, that theory flies out the window. There's absolutely something wrong with autistic people who constantly need to stim, or are incredibly aggressive, completely non-verbal, savant-esque obsession, compulsiveness, and so on. Their ability to lead a life, let alone a "normal" life in the context of modern society, is compromised. If there's a way to correct those things, we should explore it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Here comes the gene editing.

It has begun.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...spr-as-gene-editing-human-trials-get-underway

First U.S. Patients Treated With CRISPR As Human Gene-Editing Trials Get Underway

...
"2019 is the year when the training wheels come off and the world gets to see what CRISPR can really do for the world in the most positive sense," says Fyodor Urnov, a gene-editing scientist at the Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences in Seattle and the University of California, Berkeley...

So far only for diseases.

And only for adults.
No new traits passed to offspring.