On one hand, crispr isn’t safe. And life is not something people have a right to create - that tremendous imposition should be met with a responsibility
On the other hand, life is treated as cheap almost everywhere. If we’re going to force people to justify their right to exist, why not take a chance on their genetics to improve the species?
I mean, this was risky science, but not reckless. At some point we need to start fixing our genome, or we’re just going to poison ourselves to extinction
And life is not something people have a right to create
Yes they do?
Having children is literally the one thing most of us are equipped to do, and those who cant can adopt; the children of the future are our responsibility to raise. You seem to have a pretty self centered and unrealistic idea around child rearing; people raise children through invasions, unless you want to stop people from fucking somehow you’re never going to stop reproduction.
“because that would be eugenics” is not an explanation. You’re just asserting that eugenics is bad, which is begging the question – this is a post about the ethics of eugenics. You can’t just come in and say “eugenics is bad because it’s eugenics.”
Anyway, I don’t think anyone is calling China’s former One Child Policy eugenics.
Thats because the one child policy was coerced by the IVF in order for China to survive during a period of economic isolation, more so the one child policy only applied to han Chinese, and many still choose to have children, it wasn’t a ban on having extra children, they where just heavily disincentivized and given access too birth control.
Literally banning who can have sex would be eugenics yes
I don’t really see a strong difference ultimately between “heavily disincentivizing” and banning. Heavy disincentivization basically means the rule only applies to poor people. If it’s eugenics, it’s probably still eugenics even when limited to the poor, since most eugenicists would broadly consider wealthy people to likely have good genes.
Anyway, there are times when we should attempt to lower birth rates as a society. In my country it’s not needed, since the birth rate is so low.
On one hand, crispr isn’t safe. And life is not something people have a right to create - that tremendous imposition should be met with a responsibility
On the other hand, life is treated as cheap almost everywhere. If we’re going to force people to justify their right to exist, why not take a chance on their genetics to improve the species?
I mean, this was risky science, but not reckless. At some point we need to start fixing our genome, or we’re just going to poison ourselves to extinction
and imagine if we had 5 more hands; we could make 5 more points.
#thefuture
Still wouldn’t help people with two braincells
Yes they do?
Having children is literally the one thing most of us are equipped to do, and those who cant can adopt; the children of the future are our responsibility to raise. You seem to have a pretty self centered and unrealistic idea around child rearing; people raise children through invasions, unless you want to stop people from fucking somehow you’re never going to stop reproduction.
Most of us are equipped for rape and murder, but we don’t have a right to it.
Thats why we have laws against rape and murder but not against having kids, because that would be eugenics.
“because that would be eugenics” is not an explanation. You’re just asserting that eugenics is bad, which is begging the question – this is a post about the ethics of eugenics. You can’t just come in and say “eugenics is bad because it’s eugenics.”
Anyway, I don’t think anyone is calling China’s former One Child Policy eugenics.
Thats because the one child policy was coerced by the IVF in order for China to survive during a period of economic isolation, more so the one child policy only applied to han Chinese, and many still choose to have children, it wasn’t a ban on having extra children, they where just heavily disincentivized and given access too birth control.
Literally banning who can have sex would be eugenics yes
I don’t really see a strong difference ultimately between “heavily disincentivizing” and banning. Heavy disincentivization basically means the rule only applies to poor people. If it’s eugenics, it’s probably still eugenics even when limited to the poor, since most eugenicists would broadly consider wealthy people to likely have good genes.
Anyway, there are times when we should attempt to lower birth rates as a society. In my country it’s not needed, since the birth rate is so low.