I think what's really being proposed in this article is super interesting. Because I think everyone can acknowledge that people, taken as a group, really kinda suck. As Agent K in Men In Black so...
I think what's really being proposed in this article is super interesting. Because I think everyone can acknowledge that people, taken as a group, really kinda suck. As Agent K in Men In Black so famously said "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals."
I think it's also pretty widely known that people can be really amazing. They can be wonderful, kind, and thoughtful. People can be great, and often really wonderful people have always been like that. Our life experiences shape us, but the backgrounds of truly lovely people are as varied as possible.
So what is it that makes some people wonderful and some people shitheads, if not purely their formative environment? If there are genetic markers for traits like altruism, empathy and a sense of justice (as the article suggests) then shouldn't we control for that? What would be the harm in turning that up to eleven? You're not genetically coding a type of morality, or a particular viewpoint on a fetus. You're just turning up their sensitivity to moral choices. You're giving Jiminy Cricket a bullhorn.
A world that includes these people would obviously shunt me to second-class status. If there is someone who you know is genetically coded to be honest and moral, you're going to be far more likely to elevate that person to a position of power. In Gattica, we saw this play out with people altered to be physically and mentally more powerful. But would it play out the same with people altered to be morally superior? I don't know. I don't think so.
I'm having my first son next week, and my step-son turns eleven in December, so raising my children to be good and moral people is something of an immediate concern as opposed to a hypothetical one. If I had a switch I could flip that would ensure that my kids would grow to be good men, I would flip it right now. I would have some reservations about the world it would be creating (and my place within that brave new world), but I would still do it. I don't think I would do the same thing to ensure my kids were smart, or strong, or tall. But to make sure they were good? Yeah, I'd go in for that.
Could you elaborate? Isn't rationality just making the best choice according to a certain performance metric? If ethics is that metric, is that not rationality already? (And for the record, I...
Could you elaborate? Isn't rationality just making the best choice according to a certain performance metric? If ethics is that metric, is that not rationality already?
(And for the record, I disagree that this is a thing we should be doing)
If there are certain genetic diseases that impact the Y chromosome, I think it makes sense to only want a girl. There are a bunch of recessive disease traits that could be avoided with a bit of...
If there are certain genetic diseases that impact the Y chromosome, I think it makes sense to only want a girl.
There are a bunch of recessive disease traits that could be avoided with a bit of genetic engineering, too. So long as whatever combo they make is possible naturally between the two partners, and we just pluck out the one we want, I’d be OK with that to avoid a sick baby.
Ah man, the first post I skim. Go figure! Goes to show how needed it is to read articles. I think that the Tildes community will differentiate itself from reddit by doing this, as hypocritical as...
Ah man, the first post I skim. Go figure! Goes to show how needed it is to read articles. I think that the Tildes community will differentiate itself from reddit by doing this, as hypocritical as I may sound right now. Let’s hope at least, that’s why vetting users is so important at this stage.
I think what's really being proposed in this article is super interesting. Because I think everyone can acknowledge that people, taken as a group, really kinda suck. As Agent K in Men In Black so famously said "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals."
I think it's also pretty widely known that people can be really amazing. They can be wonderful, kind, and thoughtful. People can be great, and often really wonderful people have always been like that. Our life experiences shape us, but the backgrounds of truly lovely people are as varied as possible.
So what is it that makes some people wonderful and some people shitheads, if not purely their formative environment? If there are genetic markers for traits like altruism, empathy and a sense of justice (as the article suggests) then shouldn't we control for that? What would be the harm in turning that up to eleven? You're not genetically coding a type of morality, or a particular viewpoint on a fetus. You're just turning up their sensitivity to moral choices. You're giving Jiminy Cricket a bullhorn.
A world that includes these people would obviously shunt me to second-class status. If there is someone who you know is genetically coded to be honest and moral, you're going to be far more likely to elevate that person to a position of power. In Gattica, we saw this play out with people altered to be physically and mentally more powerful. But would it play out the same with people altered to be morally superior? I don't know. I don't think so.
I'm having my first son next week, and my step-son turns eleven in December, so raising my children to be good and moral people is something of an immediate concern as opposed to a hypothetical one. If I had a switch I could flip that would ensure that my kids would grow to be good men, I would flip it right now. I would have some reservations about the world it would be creating (and my place within that brave new world), but I would still do it. I don't think I would do the same thing to ensure my kids were smart, or strong, or tall. But to make sure they were good? Yeah, I'd go in for that.
If you want genetically instill ethics into people, you need to instill rationality at the same time.
Could you elaborate? Isn't rationality just making the best choice according to a certain performance metric? If ethics is that metric, is that not rationality already?
(And for the record, I disagree that this is a thing we should be doing)
If there are certain genetic diseases that impact the Y chromosome, I think it makes sense to only want a girl.
There are a bunch of recessive disease traits that could be avoided with a bit of genetic engineering, too. So long as whatever combo they make is possible naturally between the two partners, and we just pluck out the one we want, I’d be OK with that to avoid a sick baby.
Ah man, the first post I skim. Go figure! Goes to show how needed it is to read articles. I think that the Tildes community will differentiate itself from reddit by doing this, as hypocritical as I may sound right now. Let’s hope at least, that’s why vetting users is so important at this stage.