First of all, HIV doesn’t make sense as an example because that’s a virus, not genetic.
I’m also not debating the scientific legitimacy of CRISPR. It’s obviously much more valid as a science than the eugenics of the past.
Sure but the same thing can be said of any illness.
No, it can’t. I’m not even talking about illnesses. There are plenty of examples of genetic diversity that and not intrinsically bad, but many would prefer to change because of stigma. What about sex? Height? ADHD? Skin/hair color? All of these could arguably make someone’s life more challenging. But we should make our society more accepting of this diversity, not altering our genes to remove it. That is eugenics. Period.
There are wonderful anxiety-riddled or depressed people in the world. Should we prevent them from getting anti-depressants because it would make them less unique?
This argument makes no sense. You’re comparing informed consent medication with editing an embryo’s DNA? Also, anxiety and depression, as an example, do have genetic predispositions, but are mostly triggered by environmental factors. Which again, brings us back to fixing our society, not our genes.
I said it’s like HIV, as an analogy. I intentionally chose something not genetic.
What about sex? Height? ADHD? Skin/hair color?
All of these things are mutable already (or treatable, in the case of ADHD). But “diversity” and a serious disorder like Down Syndrome are completely different things. Why should we embrace Down Syndrome when we could eradicate it? If you really believe that Down Syndrome is a good thing, then why not invent whole new disorders for the sake of adding diversity?
I’m well aware of the difference.
First of all, HIV doesn’t make sense as an example because that’s a virus, not genetic.
I’m also not debating the scientific legitimacy of CRISPR. It’s obviously much more valid as a science than the eugenics of the past.
No, it can’t. I’m not even talking about illnesses. There are plenty of examples of genetic diversity that and not intrinsically bad, but many would prefer to change because of stigma. What about sex? Height? ADHD? Skin/hair color? All of these could arguably make someone’s life more challenging. But we should make our society more accepting of this diversity, not altering our genes to remove it. That is eugenics. Period.
This argument makes no sense. You’re comparing informed consent medication with editing an embryo’s DNA? Also, anxiety and depression, as an example, do have genetic predispositions, but are mostly triggered by environmental factors. Which again, brings us back to fixing our society, not our genes.
I said it’s like HIV, as an analogy. I intentionally chose something not genetic.
All of these things are mutable already (or treatable, in the case of ADHD). But “diversity” and a serious disorder like Down Syndrome are completely different things. Why should we embrace Down Syndrome when we could eradicate it? If you really believe that Down Syndrome is a good thing, then why not invent whole new disorders for the sake of adding diversity?
I’m not saying that either. Check out the edit on my original post.