Uplifting News

Isn't eugenics more about choosing who can reproduce for the best outcome? Curing after the facts doesn't seem to fit that.

I remember this was literally the question posed to us by an ethics professor 20 years ago. Now it's a reality.

A person with Down's can live a happy fulfilling life, but most parents would never choose to have a child with Down's if it could be born 'normal' instead. So we're essentially removing them from the gene pool and human race.

It's eugenics for sure. I'm not sure if it's unethical though. It's pretty complex.

This isn't eugenics or close to it, it's fixing actual problems before someone is born, not choosing who has rights to breed. If they announced a therapy to guarantee a child will grow up immune to corporate propaganda or be able to use their brain in a rational, well-planned and thoughtful way, and have exceptional language skills, we should voluntarily hand the world over to them. Because what's happening right now is the opposite of that.

Right now capitalism is imposing eugenics on us. The system and the cost of life has created a very real system deciding who can have families. If tools emerged that could guarantee the kids we DO have aren't subject to the same weaknesses and limitations, we need to capitalize on every advantage we can.

There will be no line for anyone who can afford it. Morality will not be in question. It's basic human nature. To believe anything else is crazy

RED ALERT! WOKE LIBERAL COMMUNISTS ARE USING CRISPR BEAMS FROM LOW IRBITING SATTELITES TO FORCIBLY CHANGE OUR GENDERS! BUY MY ANTI-WOKE SUPPLIMENTS TO PROTECT YOUR MANLINESS.

By my limited understanding that might be feasible right now in utero, which obviously is not exactly what we want.

I think that maybe in the future we could change someone's sex when they're older. Honestly I think it's maybe just the matter of research on this not being focused on genetic changes after the womb.

Pretty sure Autism is a lot more complex genetically and we don't even know just how complex.

So...Remember the X-Men series of movies? I forget which of the films it was, I stopped giving a shit about superhero movies a decade before it was cool, but one of them involved a "mutant cure." Most of Professor X's mutants saw it as an existential threat, but Rogue--whose 'powers' utterly sucked--saw it as something she wanted to do.

Ultimately I think the key here is individual consent. Yes and No need to be equally valid answers otherwise it gets pretty fucked up.

Some folks make a pretty good living for themselves looking at the world slightly differently than everyone else, other folks would like to do something with their life other than drool. Surely we the civilization that can split the atom and splice the genome can help both of these people live their best lives? Otherwise what the fuck are we even doing here?

I don't know if you personally have any disabilities, but generally, when I see this take, the person doesn't.

I'd take a crispr treatment without hesitation. And everyone I know would do the same. My partner and I are doing IVF not for fertility reasons but to ensure certain genes don't get passed down to our kids.

That whole disability-is-a-positive view is a very privileged thing to say.

Yeah, on the one hand it isn't fair to let someone be born with a condition that negatively effects their life when there's a treatment to prevent it happening. On the other hand, as you say it's good to have divergent people in society - there really is strength in diversity.

Or enforce social hierarchies based on genetic traits? (Gattaca)

As I recall, the reason the Federation outlawed genetic manipulation is due to what happened with the Eugenics Wars, the details of which are murky due to temporal interference, but one of the root causes was clear. While the end results of genetic engineering (Khan Noonien-Singh and his Augments) were undoubtedly superior to normal humans in every way, they also incredibly aggressive and arrogant, a flaw their creators could not correct, as the science was still in its infancy. One of the scientists remarked that "Superior ability breeds superior ambition".

Yes but you will get that extra chromosome back

CRISPR is the uranium of biology. Could use it to make cheap, reliable, clean energy, or could use it to make nukes.

And in the US, religious assholes want to ban IVF for exactly this reason, because it's "playing God".

Until someone who knows more tells me otherwise, no. It would have to be applied to a human at the stage of a single cell

I work with special needs adults. Your experiences, while valid, with many of those that arent so disabled that they actually can engage with society, do not represent those with more extreme versions of this disability.

Often they will never get to experience the fullness of life they could without. Basically, people with Downs who dont have caretakers with means are fucked pretty hard.

Of the 6 I interact with daily, I think they all would rather not have the disability, and 2 have said they would trade places with the guy in the wheel chair that has seizures sometimes, but is otherwise living a normal life.

But how would them not having the disease make them worse people?

It's fine and not at all contradictory to care for existing people with Downs and also work to eliminate the condition.

Idk man, having down syndrome also gives you a much greater chance of things like heart defects. Life expectancy has improved recently to 50-60yrs old for them according to a quick search. I don't think there's a dilemma here at all. I wouldn't want a disease that decreases my lifespan.

they still can be.

I've known plenty of people with down syndrome that were abused and were some of the most vile people I've ever known.

perhaps they are the best because they are treated differently and we should treat everyone that way.