• unphazed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I genuinely wonder where the line is between curing defects and eugenics. It seems razor thin how it can swing easiy into dark territory.

    • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • sthetic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I agree. Eugenics is about harming the rights of the would-be parents. It means telling them, “You have traits we consider undesirable, so we will forcibly prevent you from having any child whatsoever.”

        To me, that’s different from parents choosing to avoid having a child with certain traits. Or not having children at all.

        If parents decide to cure a disorder in their future child, or decide to abort a pregnancy, nobody is stopping those parents from trying again. The parents themselves have not been deemed undesirable and unworthy to pass on their genes.

    • loonsun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re definitely right how this without proper regulation could get out of hand with unethical individuals trying to edit genes. I’d say from my non-geneticist perspective the line would be “would editing this gene improve the individual’s quality of life or improve their life expectancy”. Operationalizing"quality of life" is obviously crucial here and can’t be defined socially but medically such as “no debilitating pain”.

      I do wonder how things like this will impact existing communities of individuals with disabilities. I’d expect it would probably increase discrimination as it will increase the perception of people with disabilities as being “curable” which isn’t always possible or even desirable.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah this is scary. Down syndrome is definitely in the gray area too where it can be viewed negatively but plenty of people have it and lead fulfilling lives. Wipe cystic fibrosis out of a fetus and all but the most staunch biological purists would agree it was a good thing. Make your fetus white, blonde, and blue eyed and it’s obviously eugenics. I don’t know how I feel about this.

      Completely apart from the ethics, I think this technology is really cool though.

      • dil@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 days ago

        They live fulfilling lives at the detriment of others who have to live less fulfilling lives, maybe they don’t see it that way, but its added responsibility

      • x3x3@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        There are a lot of reports and interviews with ppl who have down syndrome that are not happy at all with their situation. Ie. Unable to have a driving licence, go to university, huge disadvantage on the dating market… the list goes on. I’m not saying they can’t have fulfilling moments but we also shouldn’t kid ourselves and look at down syndrome with rosy eyes. If it could be cured everyone would do it instantly.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m not looking at it with “rosy eyes”, I’m just explaining that to me it’s not nearly as cut and dry as something like cystic fibrosis.

    • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      they should poll people with down syndrome. not carers, not family, no people who work with them.

      if they consider they idea obscene, them or should be considered obscene, of they consider it a must, then it’s ok.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think a fair line is removing debilitating genetic conditions, but not for cosmetic uses.

      If the person grows old enough that they have dysphoria for some reason then cosmetic surgeries are pretty routine these days.