1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna

@the-grey-tribe

Totally not eugenics, then. Just compassion with the poor. Nothing to see here, move along!

CRISPR means we’re going to start getting designer babies soon enough.

Suppose you are from a family with a severe heritable peanut allergy.  You contract with Genetic Enhancements, Inc. to create an embryo, modify it to remove the genes for the peanut allergy, and then implant it.

This is technically eugenics.

But, on the other hand, there is no benefit whatsoever to a severe peanut allergy.  Not on an individual level.  Not on a family level.  Not on a societal level.  We are much better off if such an allergy doesn’t exist.

But there is a difference between people that are already created and people that don’t yet exist and may never exist, and there is a difference between mandatory, quasi-optional, and payment-based practices.

But I don’t think “is this eugenics or not?” is a good question for untangling the morality of this, because “I refuse to have children because I have a heritable genetic heart problem that will kill me at 50″ is also eugenics.

So to me, the suitable grounds to oppose it on is that they’re in prison, under the state’s care, or something along those lines.

And of course, in the original issue that was brought up, genes may not even be relevant.  Fetal Alcohol Syndrome can be extremely expensive, and how much do you want to bet that other kinds of drugs can cause similarly expensive medical disorders?

mitigated future politics