Advances in gene editing & eugenics

Might be for the politics section but I didn't find an existing thread that fits

Anyways nit sure how I feel about eugenics but these scenarios are interesting and controversial

https://mobile.twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1462824227090976772

fuck eugenics in general because it's a slippery slope... but i'll answer each question from that poll:
1) i can support that
2) hard no!
3) not eugenics/no
4) lol?
5) ehh, not the same as down syndrome, here's where it gets slipper already with its health factor
6) lol
7) hard no
not eugenics/hard no
9) holy shit hella no
10) piss off
11) lmaooo the poll results on this, this could be a good indicator for how inherently hypergamous women are/or how society teaches today's women to be hypergamous because i bet you a bunch of woman voted in support for this... but not eugenics and miss me with that bullshit
12) not eugenics/don't support
13) don't support
14) don't support
15) not eugenics/don't support
16) not eugenics (could make for a very interesting discussion on its own though, i can support it in some instances, but it can also play a role in women abusing the system and purporting poverty)
17) fuck off

1) Eugenics but don't support. The "recommending" feels weird to me. I am 100% fine with individuals choosing to have an abortion in the case of trisomy 21. I don't think I'm OK with state-sponsored eradication of it, but I have some wiggle room in my opinion on this one

2) Eugenics, I don't support. The fitness of parents and the outcomes of their offspring is far too complicated to boil it down to "smart people should have kids", and incentivizing it. No one is getting incentivized to have a child over $5k anyway, the $$ here should be far far more.

3) This isn't eugenics, and I'm surprised that "not eugenics" isn't the majority answer

4) Seems like a question to test if people know what eugenics is

5) Eugenics, I support

6) Eugenics, I don't support

7) Eugenics, I don't support

Not eugenics. I'm trying to justify my answer on this one. The way I think about eugenics tends to be that you're trying to increase desirable, heritable traits (like intelligence, or athleticism) in a population, and eliminating undesirable, heritable traits (like high blood pressure, sickle cell anemia). Sex is a 50/50, it's not a heritable trait. That being said, it is a trait that can be considered desirable. I think part of my reaction, too, is that this technology is already available, despite society's rejection of eugenics.

9) Eugenics, I don't support -- insane power dynamics at play with no real scientific evidence to justify them

10) Eugenics, I don't support -- taking away reproductive autonomy doesn't seem to me to be a correct punishment for a crime, there are other avenues. That said, I'm closer "Eugenics, I support" than I thought initially with this one, especially since the reaction to this question is pretty stark (only 23.2% support, really really low compared to most of the questions)

Edit: I'm unsure that this one is eugenics. I don't know what the studies are on inheritance when it comes to predisposition to crime. My guess is that there is no genetic link. If that's true, then this isn't eugenics.

11) Not eugenics - People are allowed to choose who they want for whatever reason they desire

12) Not eugenics - People are allowed to choose who they want to be a sperm donor for whatever reason they desire

13) Eugenics, I don't support

14) I'm really confused as to why this one only has 9.8% as "not eugenics" (people who are at a high risk for child abuse can elect to get sterilized). Unless narcissism or sociopathy are heritable traits, then this isn't eugenics. You're not trying to take traits out of the gene pool or boost others, you're limiting who can and can't be a parent based on their predisposition. That's not eugenics.

15) Clearly not eugenics, and already exists

16) Not eugenics

17) Eugenics, I support. "Support" is doing a lot of work here. I think it's definitely gross, I would not want to be on such an app, but I think it's a legitimate thing that people could worry about. A lot of people are going to end up screening their kids for genetic disabilities or other diseases anyway, this just kills that from happening before it actually does.

I guess the way I'd put it is, I don't really support it, but I don't think I would agree with a government or State sponsored entity killing that app. I think if there is demand for it, it should be allowed to exist. I do think that it would be an unsuccessful app though, even though the poll indicates people support it. I think the link to eugenics is too strong for this to gain any sort of broad support (especially any sort of institutional/monetary support).

Looks like I'm primarily in agreement with El G, with some disagreement.

I definitely don't think a lot of users in that poll have a consistent view of eugenics. Or they didn't think long/hard enough before answering each question to make sure they were consistent in their view of eugenics. I parsed through the questions slowly and even double checked one or two to make sure I felt I was consistent in my definition and even I wonder if I was truly consistent.

Questions like 10 and 14, to me, seem like eugenics because you're limiting the reproduction of people based on their traits/actions...but if those traits aren't heritable, you're not really altering the gene pool in any sort of controlled or directed way. To me, that's not eugenics.

Happy new year !!

As for eugenics i am not in favor. Even to remove disease etc it only leads to more inequality. Don't think there will a eugenics store available to everyone it will be an instrument of power. Totally against sterilizing people for any given reason that's orwellian measure and a slippery slope. Use eugenics to improve beauty and intelligence ? Build-a-child basically ? No i have a big problem with artificially programming life of people before they are born

I suggest to watch Gattaca, a good film on this subject

1. Eugenics I support
2. Eugenics I don't support, it would be impossible to design an unbiased test that is actually reliable as what passes for intelligence is not objective
3. Eugenics I don't support
4. Not eugenics
5. Eugenics I support
6. Eugenics I don't support, clearly this is the mother of all slippery slopes, I could see people selecting for skin color, nose narrowdness, etc
7. Eugenics I don't support, no difference to me with the prior one
8. Eugenics I don't support, although unfortunately it still happens in the real world
9. Eugenics I don't support as I don't think it's right to 'bribe' desperate people into accepting sterilization. But if he were to say, instead subsidize these procedures for people with bad outcomes in life who already want these procedures but can't currently afford them, I could be for it.
10. Eugenics I don't support
11. Not eugenics
12. Eugenics I support
13. Eugenics I don't support, but not exactly sure what they mean by "strongly encouraging"
14. Eugenics I don't support, but as in the other similar scenario I could be for it if this were a subsidized treatment for those that already want it as opposed to a lump sum payment
15. Not eugenics
16. Not eugenics
17. Eugenics I support

1. Eugenics I don't support
2. Eugenics I don't support
3. Eugenics I don't support
4. Eugenics I don't support
5. Eugenics I don't support
6. Eugenics I don't support
7. Eugenics I don't support
8. Eugenics I don't support
9. Eugenics I don't support
10. Eugenics I don't support
11. Eugenics I don't support
12. Eugenics I don't support
13. Eugenics I don't support
14. Eugenics I don't support
15. Eugenics I don't support
16. Eugenics I don't support
17. Eugenics I don't support

Can't believe we are even entertaining this discussion

Going to give pretty straightforward answers:

1. Support
2. Support
3. Support
4. Not Eugenics
5. Support
6. Don't Support
7. Support
8. Don't Support
9. Don't Support
10. Don't Support
11. Not Eugenics
12. Support
13. Support
14. Support
15. Not Eugenics
16. Not Eugenics
17. Support

Eugenics can be useful, with ethics-based regulation. I am very wary of private companies operating in this space as they have a tendencies to set aside ethics in favor of profit. The same with the State.

It's interesting how people support tweaking with IQ/character traits but not with physical traits

Pedram wrote:1. Eugenics I don't support
2. Eugenics I don't support
3. Eugenics I don't support
4. Eugenics I don't support
5. Eugenics I don't support
6. Eugenics I don't support
7. Eugenics I don't support
8. Eugenics I don't support
9. Eugenics I don't support
10. Eugenics I don't support
11. Eugenics I don't support
12. Eugenics I don't support
13. Eugenics I don't support
14. Eugenics I don't support
15. Eugenics I don't support
16. Eugenics I don't support
17. Eugenics I don't support

Can't believe we are even entertaining this discussion

honestly though, why wouldn't you be in favour for screening tests that could help prevent something like Down syndrome for instance?

Myesyats wrote:It's interesting how people support tweaking with IQ/character traits but not with physical traits

Speaking for myself, I care more about my child's mental / psychological traits than her physical ones. If I want to create someone with a specific hair color or eye color, that's what I have video games for.

How do you go about defining what intelligence is? Guys like Messi or Beethoven are clearly not going to top any IQ charts but are savants in their chosen field. If you select for intelligence, what kind of trade offs are you making that you might not even know about?