The diseases you mention, things that cause imminent death are cases where I do agree that genetic manipulation should be allowed. Things like schizophrenia run in families, yes, but consider the fact that the families with the disease are still alive today, having not been killed off due to one reason or another. I'm positive that in order to get rid of the disease, you have to get rid of the benefits that the genes that cause that disease also lead to. The problem is that genetics is complex, it is something we understand in theory, but rarely do we know the full implication of changing a person's DNA. Making people all big, strong, losing weight fast, and so on, may seem appealing, but there is a good reason that people who don't do those things are still alive, even if we don't know that reason yet. We need to keep that attitude, the idea that all bad things are good, and good things bad, when it comes to human biology and traits. I would never be who I am today if it weren't for my negatives, so to talk about how great it would be if my parents did something to change me as a child is akin to talking about suicide. And I agree that we shouldn't accept parent's doing things like drinking, smoking, or otherwise, if they plan to have kids. Those who do that sort of thing are bad people, no doubt about it. The former is indirect, and often the way people were just acting. The latter is an explicit attempt to equalize, normalize, and generally cleanse humanity of traits that humanity deems negative. Nature, however, has different ideas of negative and positive, and that's the problem. The way people act naturally, the diseases and issues with our genetics, have been around for billions of years, they are a part of our species, and likely have all played some role in helping humanity survive. Human lives only hold a value greater than the lives of any other creature because we a part of a larger system that values us. Without that system, without our ability to be a part of society, we are no better, or more important, than a pig, a cow, or an insect. Physical traits are often linked to genes. Genes often create multiple physical traits, and often being good at one thing requires a sacrifice for another. Hawking is a bad example, because his body and mind are likely effected by different genes, but my point is that, when selecting for good traits, we will also be selecting against great ones. Being greater than others requires being different. Being different implies you will be picked on, bullied, and so on. It's not that being picked on results in genius, but the other way around. Vaccinations are not changing the very genetic code of who we are. Humanity has had the tools with which to change our genetics from the very beginning, in the form of eugenics. We saw how that failed, this will go along the same route.Why can't you fuck them up like this too? What makes genes so different,
I have chosen to believe that individual human lives are valuable, and valuable enough that illness should be prevented when possible.
Where is it written that genius requires physical suffering and deep social ostracization?
By your logic we should ban vaccinations because FDR had polio
I'll address the rest of this with more substance later but this line stuck in my craw and I couldn't even finish the rest of the comment because of it. This is pure deterministic nonsense and you're better than that. there is a good reason that people who don't do those things are still alive, even if we don't know that reason yet.
How about this then:there is likely a good reason that people who don't do those things are still alive, even if we don't know that reason yet. We need to be incredibly careful to fully understand the changes we are making when attempting to get rid of these diseases, and we are nowhere near the level of understanding required in order to safely make them yet, unless in the case where the person literally would die at birth, or be totally incapable of living a normal life.
OK I'm responding to this first. In your very first sentence we have fundamentally changed this discussion. The question this article poses is 'Should You Edit Your Children's Genes?' And by your own admission there are cases where genetic therapy should be used. So the actual question we are facing is 'When should genetic therapy be used?' Which is a very different debate, and a far more nuanced one. And I'm just as positive that the truth of biology is more nuanced than that. Just as no single gene controls hair color or eye color, I highly doubt that a single switch flips causing both life-destroying schizophrenia and whatever benefits there may be. Which leads to the next point. I agree wholeheartedly that genetics is complex, but we have to start somewhere. There's no foreseeable reason why an expensive, labor intensive and time consuming medical procedure would ever become mandatory. I'm a huge pessimist by and large, but if we get to that point, we have bigger issues than everybodies musculature. I couldn't disagree more vehemently. But we've already agreed that the question at hand is "In what cases do you use genetic therapy? " or if you wanted to be cruel about it "In what cases do you NOT use genetic therapy? "Things like schizophrenia run in families, ... ...I'm positive that in order to get rid of the disease, you have to get rid of the benefits that the genes that cause that disease also lead to.
The problem is that genetics is complex... ..... but there is a good reason that people who don't do those things are still alive, even if we don't know that reason yet.
We need to keep that attitude, the idea that all bad things are good, and good things bad, when it comes to human biology and traits.
Firstly, I do not believe the conversation has changed context. Answering "You should sometimes use gene editing" is a valid answer to the original question. I made it clear from my first post that there are specific times gene editing should be used, and that there are many times that it should not. When people answer "yes" to a question like the article, it automatically implies "yes, always", which is not something I am willing to say. That's the thing, a single gene probably controls not only things with Schizophrenia, but also changes areas of the brain to make someone more creative, or to make them more observant. While these genes can be a predictor for schizophrenia, those who do not develop the illness due to some reason, such as environmental, epigenetic, or other factors, can greatly benefit directly from having the genes that cause the disease. This isn't necessarily true, but it's very much a possibility. I don't get where you are coming from when talking about the problems when "an expensive intensive, and time consuming procedure becomes mandatory". I was assuming moral choice, if we should morally choose to edit genes. As for mandating or not mandating it, people should always be free to choose, as individuals, what to do.I highly doubt that a single switch flips causing both life-destroying schizophrenia and whatever benefits there may be.
Ok that's a fair point, and one that I agree with. I think we also both would agree with the statement 'You should sometimes NOT use gene editing' without further qualifier. Here's the issue as I see it. There is a population of people, a LARGE population of people that are opposed to ANY AND ALL modifications to the human genome. This same population is also largely ignorant of the realities of genetic drift/flow and natural selection causing genomic change. Those people are unquestionably wrong. You and I both agree that there are cases in which genetic modification is the morally correct thing for a parent to pursue (Tay-Sachs, HTI, things like that) and that there are cases in which it is morally questionable to pursue. (Changing someones sexual orientation, as an example) Can we have this debate again once we have gotten rid of Tay-Sachs, HTI, and a few other diseases?Answering "You should sometimes use gene editing" is a valid answer to the original question.
The problem is that "getting rid" of diseases like this may well have consequences down the line, ones we do not understand, and will not be aware of until they occur. The only way I would support the "eradication" of these diseases is if that happened naturally through editing the genes only when it is known for sure that the child is going to have it, not as a preemptive measure to end some people's genetic lines because it has a higher chance of that disease occurring.Can we have this debate again once we have gotten rid of Tay-Sachs, HTI, and a few other diseases?
Why is it impossible for you to conceive of the possibility that there are some variations in the human code that are purely bugs, and which have no latent feature? I totally concede that we need to tread carefully, but we still need to take some steps.