I'm sure we all agree that gene editing is good, ONCE the issues have been sorted out.
But I would like /sci/ to play devils advocate, and speak only on the ethics of the situation.
From an ethical point of view, how can you justify the point of view that, research into gene editing of embryos should not be allowed?
>>7655674
The same reason we don't do human drug testing until after testing on animals. Imagine if the procedure isn't 100%, or something wrong is copied. You've just turned a viable human into a retard.
>>7655674
If we gene edit we will eventually erase the identity of our species and replace ourselves with superior organisms.
Is that really what we want? I would say yes because fuck being biologically mortal. Some ethicsfags will inevitably write misconstrued thesis' on it because they couldn't find a better topic for their shitty philosophy degree though.
>>7655685
>You've just turned a viable human into a retard.
But why is turning one out of literal billions into a retard bad when it could greatly uplift the remaining billions?
You're no longer human.
>>7655690
Because you can't test long term effects, essentially. It takes 18ish years for a human embryo to be fully grown. You make some changes, and cannot be sure of the outcome until a generation passes. The tech may seem to be good, but then puberty kicks off, in 10 years after birth, and you've made a billion retards by fucking up the puberty process because of some weird interactions.
>>7655699
Well obviously we won't make alterations to billions of embryos without knowing what happens to a few over the period of a few decades. Maybe like 20 years. The question is: is the risk of one or a couple embryos turning into retards for the betterment of future billions
>>7655706
Justifiable for the betterment of billions*
Because the West has ethnic laws. China doesn't it. Which means just wait 10-20 years. That's how long the west will say oh look there is nothing wrong with it. Europe/US doesn't want to be the first country to do such trails because muh feelings and human rights. What /sci/ wants, China will do. There is a reason why their leaders in the field of life sciences.
>>7655711
>ethnic laws
I mean Ethics.
>>7655706
What do you imagine the number would need to be for you to be accepting of doing these alterations happening on your own children?
1%?
0.01%?
0.00001%?
How much testing would you need to do to get within 0.0001% certainty within of the entire human population? 1 in 1000000, given the genetic diversity of the human race.
>>7655674
one could argue that you are making a choice for the child by editing their genes without their consent
>>7655731
You could argue that. But no child decides what their genome is going to be anyway, so it doesn't make a difference
I think it's more ethical than allowing people with sub < 110 IQ top breed. Also, allowing naturally occurring retardation by choosing not to abort is more questionable than genetic engineering.
Fite me cunts.
>>7655767
>Fite me cunts.
I think you would find that 90% of /sci/ agrees with you and the remaining 10 are filthy crossboarders from /lit/ et. al.
>>7655877
What's the matter, sperg, mad because you weren't aborted I see. Don't worry, it's never to late to right a wrong.
>>7655685
>The same reason we don't do human drug testing until after testing on animals.
Except from the fact that some actually went straight to the slums to test new drugs. Ethics? What ethics?
>>7655674
It's gonna get bombarded by hippie liberal retards with their superior morals over science all over again.
It doesn't need ethical justifucation, and fuck ups are one way scientists learn. Ethics holds science back. Scientists should be given free license to clone humans, modify humans, resurrect dinosaurs, treat apes like shit, etc. Most of out medical knowledge used today about hypothermia and its treatment came from Mengele's work in Nazi death camps.
If we don't understand humanity at a deterministic level then how can we hope to improve upon the successes of 4 billion years of evolution? Think of gene editing as a more refined form of animal husbandry/selective breeding. Sure we can modify animals in ways that are very useful to us, especially in their ratios of fat and muscle and generalized suppression of aggressive behavior, but when we get to actually altering their functions then it's always one step forward and four steps back.
Gene editing might be useful for wiping out certain genetic diseases and perhaps even making designer eye colors, dick sizes, and facial structure (though such things always prove more difficult than one imagines). But if you think having access to the source code of humanity means we can improve upon it when we haven't even begun to reverse engineer it (no, mapping and labeling all the genes doesn't constitute reverse engineering), then you have a bit of a god complex.
I'm sure your immediate thought is "increase the number of neurons in the brain, thus making us smarter", but, though there's a correlation between brain size/number of neurons and analytical intelligence, it's hardly a direct causality. The CPU with more transistors is not always better, usually it's a matter of architecture. And if you blindly increase the size of this lobe and that you'll probably just end up creating encephalitis and mental disorders.
>>7655674
>ONCE the issues have been sorted out.
Fuck the issues. People die and suffer for all manners of reasons. Glow in the dark babies would atleast ensure their novelty values keep them fed until adulthood unlike so many others.
Mankind is a meatgrinder, not a beauty salon, accept this and try to amend it instead of turning a blind eye to reality in favour of retarded ideologies.
