Discussion:
Could Designer Babies Close America_s Education Gap?
Add Reply
El Castor
2020-10-03 20:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
Johnny
2020-10-03 21:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.

.............

I agree.

I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
El Castor
2020-10-03 23:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.
.............
I agree.
I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
Needless to say, I disagree. In a world of the future, a world that
will rely on AI in ways you and I can't understand, Homo Sapiens will
need all the brains they can muster if they are to avoid an existence
little different than animals in a zoo. I would add that genetic
engineering can be used to boost those significantly less bright out
of the pit of despair they may currently find themselves in.
islander
2020-10-04 00:38:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.
.............
I agree.
I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
Needless to say, I disagree. In a world of the future, a world that
will rely on AI in ways you and I can't understand, Homo Sapiens will
need all the brains they can muster if they are to avoid an existence
little different than animals in a zoo. I would add that genetic
engineering can be used to boost those significantly less bright out
of the pit of despair they may currently find themselves in.
You are skating pretty close to eugenics. Would you require that the
cost of genetic engineering to raise intelligence, if that was possible,
would be fully covered under health insurance? Wouldn't it be elective?
Or would it only be available to the wealthy like IVF is in many
private insurance programs? Would you make it available at no cost to
everyone?
El Castor
2020-10-04 02:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.
.............
I agree.
I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
Needless to say, I disagree. In a world of the future, a world that
will rely on AI in ways you and I can't understand, Homo Sapiens will
need all the brains they can muster if they are to avoid an existence
little different than animals in a zoo. I would add that genetic
engineering can be used to boost those significantly less bright out
of the pit of despair they may currently find themselves in.
You are skating pretty close to eugenics. Would you require that the
cost of genetic engineering to raise intelligence, if that was possible,
would be fully covered under health insurance?
Absolutely covered by health insurance, and if not covered by
insurance, then paid for by the government. I would add that in
addition to intelligence enhancement, or optionally instead of, there
should be correction for genetic defects resulting in the likelihood
of ailments such as Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, Alzheimers, etc.
Post by islander
Wouldn't it be elective?
Of course it would be elective.
Post by islander
Or would it only be available to the wealthy like IVF is in many
private insurance programs? Would you make it available at no cost to
everyone?
It MUST be made available at on cost to EVERYONE.

I would add that realistically, universal availability would have to
be preceded by a lengthy period of voluntary testing.
El Castor
2020-10-04 16:59:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 19:47:58 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.
.............
I agree.
I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
Needless to say, I disagree. In a world of the future, a world that
will rely on AI in ways you and I can't understand, Homo Sapiens will
need all the brains they can muster if they are to avoid an existence
little different than animals in a zoo. I would add that genetic
engineering can be used to boost those significantly less bright out
of the pit of despair they may currently find themselves in.
You are skating pretty close to eugenics. Would you require that the
cost of genetic engineering to raise intelligence, if that was possible,
would be fully covered under health insurance?
Absolutely covered by health insurance, and if not covered by
insurance, then paid for by the government. I would add that in
addition to intelligence enhancement, or optionally instead of, there
should be correction for genetic defects resulting in the likelihood
of ailments such as Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, Alzheimers, etc.
Post by islander
Wouldn't it be elective?
Of course it would be elective.
Post by islander
Or would it only be available to the wealthy like IVF is in many
private insurance programs? Would you make it available at no cost to
everyone?
It MUST be made available at on cost to EVERYONE.
Oops, typo. Above should read "at no cost to EVERYONE".
Post by El Castor
I would add that realistically, universal availability would have to
be preceded by a lengthy period of voluntary testing.
islander
2020-10-04 17:41:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.
.............
I agree.
I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
Needless to say, I disagree. In a world of the future, a world that
will rely on AI in ways you and I can't understand, Homo Sapiens will
need all the brains they can muster if they are to avoid an existence
little different than animals in a zoo. I would add that genetic
engineering can be used to boost those significantly less bright out
of the pit of despair they may currently find themselves in.
You are skating pretty close to eugenics. Would you require that the
cost of genetic engineering to raise intelligence, if that was possible,
would be fully covered under health insurance?
Absolutely covered by health insurance, and if not covered by
insurance, then paid for by the government. I would add that in
addition to intelligence enhancement, or optionally instead of, there
should be correction for genetic defects resulting in the likelihood
of ailments such as Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, Alzheimers, etc.
Genetic engineering of embryos would have to be done in conjunction with
IVF unless you are somehow aware of a method of doing it in in vitro.
IVF costs $12,000 plus $3,000 to $5,000 per attempt. Since genetic
engineering is much more complicated, it would cost an unknown amount
more. Since we have nearly 4M pregnancies in the US per year, you are
probably looking at a minimum liability of $80B per year and probably
much more. Since you cannot definitively claim that intelligence is
genetic, the insurance companies would likely refuse to cover cost,
either because it would view it as an elective procedure or because
there is no way to force them to cover it without legislation that would
be unlikely to pass Congress.

I'm afraid that should this become possible, it would only be available
to the wealthy.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Wouldn't it be elective?
Of course it would be elective.
Post by islander
Or would it only be available to the wealthy like IVF is in many
private insurance programs? Would you make it available at no cost to
everyone?
It MUST be made available at on cost to EVERYONE.
I would add that realistically, universal availability would have to
be preceded by a lengthy period of voluntary testing.
El Castor
2020-10-04 18:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 03 Oct 2020 13:24:18 -0700
Post by El Castor
"Advances in biotechnology have made the genetic enhancement of unborn
children more and more feasible, raising exciting prospects along with
thorny moral dilemmas. Does such enhancement represent a profound
challenge to our common humanity, on par with the eugenics movement of
the early 20th century? Or does it constitute important progress in a
society that constantly seeks the best for its children?"
https://bigthink.com/think-tank/could-designer-babies-close-americas-education-gap
By contrast, Yale computer scientist David Gelernter views Appel’s
future as a dystopic one. A noted thinker on the ethics of technology,
Gelernter warns that rampant genetic engineering, if undertaken, will
dehumanize us all.
.............
I agree.
I think genetic engineering to enhance the abilities of humans should
be banned. It should be used only for curing or preventing
disabilities.
Needless to say, I disagree. In a world of the future, a world that
will rely on AI in ways you and I can't understand, Homo Sapiens will
need all the brains they can muster if they are to avoid an existence
little different than animals in a zoo. I would add that genetic
engineering can be used to boost those significantly less bright out
of the pit of despair they may currently find themselves in.
You are skating pretty close to eugenics. Would you require that the
cost of genetic engineering to raise intelligence, if that was possible,
would be fully covered under health insurance?
Absolutely covered by health insurance, and if not covered by
insurance, then paid for by the government. I would add that in
addition to intelligence enhancement, or optionally instead of, there
should be correction for genetic defects resulting in the likelihood
of ailments such as Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, Alzheimers, etc.
Genetic engineering of embryos would have to be done in conjunction with
IVF unless you are somehow aware of a method of doing it in in vitro.
IVF costs $12,000 plus $3,000 to $5,000 per attempt. Since genetic
engineering is much more complicated, it would cost an unknown amount
more. Since we have nearly 4M pregnancies in the US per year, you are
probably looking at a minimum liability of $80B per year and probably
much more. Since you cannot definitively claim that intelligence is
genetic, the insurance companies would likely refuse to cover cost,
either because it would view it as an elective procedure or because
there is no way to force them to cover it without legislation that would
be unlikely to pass Congress.
I'm afraid that should this become possible, it would only be available
to the wealthy.
That is a possibility, but the wealthy are in general also the
smartest. Genetic engineering would reduce crime, and in general make
humanity more peaceful, healthy, and productive. The more intelligent
among us would welcome that. A bigger problem might be the less
intelligent. Cranking out babies the old fashioned way would for them
be a lot simpler and more attractive. Then there is something we
haven't mentioned -- cloning. Cloning has come a long way since Dolly
the sheep. Clones are taking over the polo business. It has become an
easy process, and would be more easily accomplished than genetic
engineering. (-8
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Wouldn't it be elective?
Of course it would be elective.
Post by islander
Or would it only be available to the wealthy like IVF is in many
private insurance programs? Would you make it available at no cost to
everyone?
It MUST be made available at on cost to EVERYONE.
I would add that realistically, universal availability would have to
be preceded by a lengthy period of voluntary testing.
Loading...