Gene editing of humans

[DrZoidberg]

For societies which value human life and do not consider individuals to be disposable, the concerns are not dissimilar to the concerns with the Nazi belief in and desire to create a superior race.

Unintended consequences also spring to mind. I'm thinking primarily of biological consequences, but only a fool does not see how these could ripple throughout society.

Then, there is the entire question of whether or not we believe that this person has done what he says he has done. It would hardly be the first time that someone has lied about data or accomplishment, nor the first time that someone in China has done so.

If a technology has enough potential benefit research will happen. Somewhere. Any country that sits on a revolutionary technology will rule the world. I'd rather that wasn't China.

For example, Australia and South Korea have the most liberal rules regarding animal research. That means that they're more likely to come out ahead when it comes to any studies in biochemistry, and are now magnets for researchers. That's good for business in these countries.

Right now, in most of the world, the ethical hoops we've put around animal research or even human research are extreme to the point where it is silly.

As far as whether or not China would own the rights to all the technology, I hardly see why this is a concern. China does not respect the intellectual property of others and there is no reason to respect any 'intellectual property' created in China.

Gene editing is known in Western countries.

Not really relevant. That assumes China will even try to patent it. That implies that they share the technology in order for it to get patented internationally. What if they don't bother with that? What if they just sit on it? Good luck reverse engineering it.

But even if they do. Historically, no country has respected intellectual property until that country started to produce intellectual property of it's own. USA is a prime example. Initially copyright was considered a violation of the American constitution since it went against freedom of speech. Then they noticed that Mark Twain didn't publish any of his books in USA. Only in England. And so did all the other American authors. They considered USA a non-market. So an amendment was made and respecting copyrights was suddenly no longer considered unpatriotic and un-American. Then Hollywood happened and USA became extreme proponents of it. Copyrights isn't a natural right. It's just a tool we've invented to encourage artists and companies to invest more in R&D. That's all it is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just wait until the penis or breast size genes have been unlocked. Then people's morals will be instantly out the window.

 

[Toni]

For societies which value human life and do not consider individuals to be disposable, the concerns are not dissimilar to the concerns with the Nazi belief in and desire to create a superior race.

Unintended consequences also spring to mind. I'm thinking primarily of biological consequences, but only a fool does not see how these could ripple throughout society.

Then, there is the entire question of whether or not we believe that this person has done what he says he has done. It would hardly be the first time that someone has lied about data or accomplishment, nor the first time that someone in China has done so.

If a technology has enough potential benefit research will happen. Somewhere. Any country that sits on a revolutionary technology will rule the world. I'd rather that wasn't China.

For example, Australia and South Korea have the most liberal rules regarding animal research. That means that they're more likely to come out ahead when it comes to any studies in biochemistry, and are now magnets for researchers. That's good for business in these countries.

Right now, in most of the world, the ethical hoops we've put around animal research or even human research are extreme to the point where it is silly.

As far as whether or not China would own the rights to all the technology, I hardly see why this is a concern. China does not respect the intellectual property of others and there is no reason to respect any 'intellectual property' created in China.

Gene editing is known in Western countries.

Not really relevant. That assumes China will even try to patent it. That implies that they share the technology in order for it to get patented internationally. What if they don't bother with that? What if they just sit on it? Good luck reverse engineering it.

But even if they do. Historically, no country has respected intellectual property until that country started to produce intellectual property of it's own. USA is a prime example. Initially copyright was considered a violation of the American constitution since it went against freedom of speech. Then they noticed that Mark Twain didn't publish any of his books in USA. Only in England. And so did all the other American authors. They considered USA a non-market. So an amendment was made and respecting copyrights was suddenly no longer considered unpatriotic and un-American. Then Hollywood happened and USA became extreme proponents of it. Copyrights isn't a natural right. It's just a tool we've invented to encourage artists and companies to invest more in R&D. That's all it is.

You don’t understand: gene editing technology exists in the US.

It is not at all certain that the Chinese have done what they claim to have done.

Whether or not the Chinese patent their technique is not a question. There is zero reason for anyone to respect any claims to intellectual property of the Chinese.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why the fuck are we just giving away all these potential breakthroughs to China? Why is it illegal to do genetic experimentation on human fetuses? The enormous potential for humanity of these treatments is of course massive. Who cares about the human rights of a couple of cells in a petrie dish? Where's the ethical dilemma?

Chinese have passed petrie dish stage, first 2 GMC (Genetically Modified Chinese) were born already
Ethical dilemma with GMC is what if it works and they became Super-Chinese? I don't think you want that

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46368731

Soon we'll be in a position where the Chinese government will own all the rights to all the human gene editing tools and the rest of humanity will be genuflecting in front of their dictatorship in order to get a taste. Who ever thought that was a good idea?

I doubt anyone would care about ownership rights. It's more about tech secrets

That sounds like some racist bullshit. I don't think anyone really has a right to tear down or prevent others from having more capabilities, physically or mentally. I DO want super-humans, so long as we are all ready to acknowledge someone being freakishly faster or stronger or more disease resistant doesn't invalidate the person hood of everyone else.

 

[Jarhyn]

We've reverse engineered the entire process from fertilization to zygote to differentiation. I don't think it'll be all that hard to add in analysis of clearly altered Gene sequences. It's not like we can't literally crack it open and look at how it functions.

 

[bilby]

Anything that can be invented, will be invented. Ethics might, perhaps, slow things down a tiny bit. But they won't stop invention. They might stop people from using a technology once it is invented, but even that is only going to happen if there are extreme and strictly enforced consequences for those who cross the line - and extreme and strict enforcement of the law is itself widely considered to be unethical (we call it 'dictatorship').

Take nuclear weapons. Before WWII, many physicists considered that a 'super bomb' based on splitting the atom might be possible. But they refrained from researching it, partly for ethical reasons, (but mainly because of the cost). Then a war broke out, and suddenly it was OK to develop super weapons, because killing Nazis was determined not to be unethical. So the Manhattan District Project spent billions of dollars, and made some bombs. The war with the Nazis finished before the bombs were ready, but the Japanese Empire was still fighting, so the bombs got dropped on them. Debate over the ethics of doing that still rages - but ethical considerations certainly didn't stop Hiroshima and Nagasaki from being nuked.

Since then, nobody has nuked anybody (yet). But it's not so much ethics that has prevented this. The thing that has stopped people from nuking each other is a combination of cost - meaning that only the wealthier nation states can afford nukes; And Mutually Assured Destruction - meaning that any first use of nukes will lead to extreme and severe punishment of the transgressor. That's not ethics - it's enforcement.

If a non-state actor (say, the People's Front for the Liberation of Dumfuckistan) gets a nuke, they will probably use it. Because as a non-state actor, they are not easily retaliated against. The annihilation of the PFLD is not assured, so if (when) they get that technology, it will probably be used.

We can discuss the ethics of a given technology 'til the cows come home. It makes no difference to whether or not it gets used, unless and until there is a legal system in place that can detect and severely punish unethical behaviours - and such a system would itself be unethical.

The question, then, is not whether gene editing of humans is ethical - it is what limits can we practically place on it, and how can we enforce those limits.

Gene editing of humans will happen. Decrying it as 'unethical' is pointless. All we can reasonably do is try to define legal limits on what specific outcomes are unlawful, and ensure that these limits are sufficiently lax as to be enforceable. Otherwise it will just be the province of rogue states and criminals. And those laws will, of course vary from one jurisdiction to another, with the least draconian law setting the bar for what actually occurs. Ban all genetic modification of humans in the USA, and the Chinese will simply ignore the ban. Ban it in China, and the research will go elsewhere. Worldwide bans on anything - even something as unethical as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons - are inevitably ineffective, either unless the jurisdictions who don't enforce the ban are too poor to develop the technologies; Or the powerful nations all agree to impose harsh punishments on transgressors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For societies which value human life and do not consider individuals to be disposable, the concerns are not dissimilar to the concerns with the Nazi belief in and desire to create a superior race.

But genetic engineering is independent of race, this isn't like the Nazis "master race" at all.

Unintended consequences also spring to mind. I'm thinking primarily of biological consequences, but only a fool does not see how these could ripple throughout society.

Any change to society risks being disruptive. To refuse change for that reason is to be a luddite.

However, in this particular case I agree with you. They deleted a protein to give HIV immunity--but what other changes will that cause? This is not something that we should be doing in humans yet! (Now, if they had edited it to replace it with the HIV-immune version that would be another matter.)

Then, there is the entire question of whether or not we believe that this person has done what he says he has done. It would hardly be the first time that someone has lied about data or accomplishment, nor the first time that someone in China has done so.

In time it will be easy enough to test. Sequence his DNA, does he have the gene?

 

[barbos]

Chinese have passed petrie dish stage, first 2 GMC (Genetically Modified Chinese) were born already
Ethical dilemma with GMC is what if it works and they became Super-Chinese? I don't think you want that

I doubt anyone would care about ownership rights. It's more about tech secrets

That sounds like some racist bullshit. I don't think anyone really has a right to tear down or prevent others from having more capabilities, physically or mentally. I DO want super-humans, so long as we are all ready to acknowledge someone being freakishly faster or stronger or more disease resistant doesn't invalidate the person hood of everyone else.

First of all it was a joke. But since you mentioned, by western metrics chinese are pretty racist themselves, just ask people in Africa. Again, it was a joke.

 

[barbos]

In any case, I read research that argued that CRISP is pretty useless for practical uses because it is too inaccurate, so different methods are required.

 

[Toni]

Anything that can be invented, will be invented. Ethics might, perhaps, slow things down a tiny bit. But they won't stop invention. They might stop people from using a technology once it is invented, but even that is only going to happen if there are extreme and strictly enforced consequences for those who cross the line - and extreme and strict enforcement of the law is itself widely considered to be unethical (we call it 'dictatorship').

Take nuclear weapons. Before WWII, many physicists considered that a 'super bomb' based on splitting the atom might be possible. But they refrained from researching it, partly for ethical reasons, (but mainly because of the cost). Then a war broke out, and suddenly it was OK to develop super weapons, because killing Nazis was determined not to be unethical. So the Manhattan District Project spent billions of dollars, and made some bombs. The war with the Nazis finished before the bombs were ready, but the Japanese Empire was still fighting, so the bombs got dropped on them. Debate over the ethics of doing that still rages - but ethical considerations certainly didn't stop Hiroshima and Nagasaki from being nuked.

Since then, nobody has nuked anybody (yet). But it's not so much ethics that has prevented this. The thing that has stopped people from nuking each other is a combination of cost - meaning that only the wealthier nation states can afford nukes; And Mutually Assured Destruction - meaning that any first use of nukes will lead to extreme and severe punishment of the transgressor. That's not ethics - it's enforcement.

If a non-state actor (say, the People's Front for the Liberation of Dumfuckistan) gets a nuke, they will probably use it. Because as a non-state actor, they are not easily retaliated against. The annihilation of the PFLD is not assured, so if (when) they get that technology, it will probably be used.

We can discuss the ethics of a given technology 'til the cows come home. It makes no difference to whether or not it gets used, unless and until there is a legal system in place that can detect and severely punish unethical behaviours - and such a system would itself be unethical.

The question, then, is not whether gene editing of humans is ethical - it is what limits can we practically place on it, and how can we enforce those limits.

Gene editing of humans will happen. Decrying it as 'unethical' is pointless. All we can reasonably do is try to define legal limits on what specific outcomes are unlawful, and ensure that these limits are sufficiently lax as to be enforceable. Otherwise it will just be the province of rogue states and criminals. And those laws will, of course vary from one jurisdiction to another, with the least draconian law setting the bar for what actually occurs. Ban all genetic modification of humans in the USA, and the Chinese will simply ignore the ban. Ban it in China, and the research will go elsewhere. Worldwide bans on anything - even something as unethical as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons - are inevitably ineffective, either unless the jurisdictions who don't enforce the ban are too poor to develop the technologies; Or the powerful nations all agree to impose harsh punishments on transgressors.

Gene editing has been happening for some time now. That's simply fact.

 

[Toni]

But genetic engineering is independent of race, this isn't like the Nazis "master race" at all.

Of course it is exactly like creating a master race. Or can be.

Genetic engineering can be used to correct genes which cause disease and disability.

Genetic engineering can be used to create human beings with enhanced potential abilities and characteristics, including height, athletic ability, pigmentation of hair, eyes, skin, certain talents, intelligence.

What about the second set of characteristics is not like what the Nazi's claimed they were pursuing? Technology did not exist during the 30's and 40's to be able to specifically select characteristics. It doesn't quite exist now--not yet. But yes, it is coming and yes, it is very much like what the Nazi's claimed they were doing: creating a master race.

Any change to society risks being disruptive. To refuse change for that reason is to be a luddite.

Not that you are not an expert on luddites but disruption of society is not the real risk or concern. The real concern is whether it is moral or right to select characteristics such as height, athletic ability, intelligence, coloration, etc. The Nazis did not think it was wrong. They intended to do so, using the technology at their disposal which was exterminating anyone who did not measure up to their standards of racial purity and physical and mental fitness. The only difference here is the technology.

However, in this particular case I agree with you. They deleted a protein to give HIV immunity--but what other changes will that cause? This is not something that we should be doing in humans yet! (Now, if they had edited it to replace it with the HIV-immune version that would be another matter.)

Yes, if the gene that codes for the receptors that allow HIV to enter a cell is disabled, what other ways is that cell altered? What will be the unforeseen and unintended consequences?

Then, there is the entire question of whether or not we believe that this person has done what he says he has done. It would hardly be the first time that someone has lied about data or accomplishment, nor the first time that someone in China has done so.

In time it will be easy enough to test. Sequence his DNA, does he have the gene?

Well, the individuals are girl babies so there is no HE involved. You can sequence HIS DNA all you want and you won't find out anything. HE does not carry the altered gene. Maybe those baby girls do. Maybe they do not.

Of course that creates the situation whereby what right does the world have to access these children's DNA and sequence it and utilize the results? If their DNA can be examined on demand, why cannot yours or mine?

And of course, does anyone really, truly know what specific gene codes for those particular receptors on T cells? Would we know enough to be able to identify the specific gene? We have not yet identified every gene and its purpose in the human genome. How would the effectiveness be tested? Would we really expose individuals to HIV to test the hypothesis?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anything that can be invented, will be invented. Ethics might, perhaps, slow things down a tiny bit. But they won't stop invention. They might stop people from using a technology once it is invented, but even that is only going to happen if there are extreme and strictly enforced consequences for those who cross the line - and extreme and strict enforcement of the law is itself widely considered to be unethical (we call it 'dictatorship').

Take nuclear weapons. Before WWII, many physicists considered that a 'super bomb' based on splitting the atom might be possible. But they refrained from researching it, partly for ethical reasons, (but mainly because of the cost). Then a war broke out, and suddenly it was OK to develop super weapons, because killing Nazis was determined not to be unethical. So the Manhattan District Project spent billions of dollars, and made some bombs. The war with the Nazis finished before the bombs were ready, but the Japanese Empire was still fighting, so the bombs got dropped on them. Debate over the ethics of doing that still rages - but ethical considerations certainly didn't stop Hiroshima and Nagasaki from being nuked.

Since then, nobody has nuked anybody (yet). But it's not so much ethics that has prevented this. The thing that has stopped people from nuking each other is a combination of cost - meaning that only the wealthier nation states can afford nukes; And Mutually Assured Destruction - meaning that any first use of nukes will lead to extreme and severe punishment of the transgressor. That's not ethics - it's enforcement.

If a non-state actor (say, the People's Front for the Liberation of Dumfuckistan) gets a nuke, they will probably use it. Because as a non-state actor, they are not easily retaliated against. The annihilation of the PFLD is not assured, so if (when) they get that technology, it will probably be used.

We can discuss the ethics of a given technology 'til the cows come home. It makes no difference to whether or not it gets used, unless and until there is a legal system in place that can detect and severely punish unethical behaviours - and such a system would itself be unethical.

The question, then, is not whether gene editing of humans is ethical - it is what limits can we practically place on it, and how can we enforce those limits.

Gene editing of humans will happen. Decrying it as 'unethical' is pointless. All we can reasonably do is try to define legal limits on what specific outcomes are unlawful, and ensure that these limits are sufficiently lax as to be enforceable. Otherwise it will just be the province of rogue states and criminals. And those laws will, of course vary from one jurisdiction to another, with the least draconian law setting the bar for what actually occurs. Ban all genetic modification of humans in the USA, and the Chinese will simply ignore the ban. Ban it in China, and the research will go elsewhere. Worldwide bans on anything - even something as unethical as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons - are inevitably ineffective, either unless the jurisdictions who don't enforce the ban are too poor to develop the technologies; Or the powerful nations all agree to impose harsh punishments on transgressors.

Good points. But there's more. Since we're not letting unfit humans die like flies, but insist on taking people to the hospital allowing them to reproduce we're already altering the genetics of humans. We're breeding a species increasingly dependent on medical interventions. So I'd say the cat is out of this bag. At this point gene editing is more about fixing stuff we've already broken

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course it is exactly like creating a master race. Or can be.

Genetic engineering can be used to correct genes which cause disease and disability.

Genetic engineering can be used to create human beings with enhanced potential abilities and characteristics, including height, athletic ability, pigmentation of hair, eyes, skin, certain talents, intelligence.

What about the second set of characteristics is not like what the Nazi's claimed they were pursuing? Technology did not exist during the 30's and 40's to be able to specifically select characteristics. It doesn't quite exist now--not yet. But yes, it is coming and yes, it is very much like what the Nazi's claimed they were doing: creating a master race.

What's wrong about that? Men like women with big boobs? Women like men with chiselled bodies with adonis physiques. What's the difference between a taste in that and getting horny for blonde blue eyed men? Our sexual tastes, while once based on fitness selection, make no sense today. They're not going to start making sense any time now.

The fact remains that just having access to hospitals means we're breeding in weakness in our genome. So we're already tampering with our genetics. So I see zero controversy in fixing that.

The problem with Nazism wasn't that they were into eugenics. It was that the Nazi ideology was NOT based on science. It was a continuation of the romanticist movement, which was a reaction against science and reason.

Not that you are not an expert on luddites but disruption of society is not the real risk or concern. The real concern is whether it is moral or right to select characteristics such as height, athletic ability, intelligence, coloration, etc. The Nazis did not think it was wrong. They intended to do so, using the technology at their disposal which was exterminating anyone who did not measure up to their standards of racial purity and physical and mental fitness. The only difference here is the technology.

No, it's not. Nazi race theory was wrong. Their selection criteria was fucked. Using Nazi methods would never have led to creating anything but creating a bunch of inbred sickly weaklings. Nazi ideas were just bonkers.

And worth pointing out... Nazis were Luddites themselves. They wanted things to go back to how they once were. Let's ignore that the mythical past they wanted to return to was a complete fantasy. It's just the same stuff as "Make America Great Again".

However, in this particular case I agree with you. They deleted a protein to give HIV immunity--but what other changes will that cause? This is not something that we should be doing in humans yet! (Now, if they had edited it to replace it with the HIV-immune version that would be another matter.)

Yes, if the gene that codes for the receptors that allow HIV to enter a cell is disabled, what other ways is that cell altered? What will be the unforeseen and unintended consequences?

That's the price to pay for progress. Since we cannot guarantee the health of a child we don't mess with, I see no ethical problems.

Of course that creates the situation whereby what right does the world have to access these children's DNA and sequence it and utilize the results? If their DNA can be examined on demand, why cannot yours or mine?

So any future potential children has a right to have a say in who you sleep with? When you go on a date with a guy part of the equation is figuring out how you can combine your genome with a man's to create healthy off spring. What's the difference between that and having a lab mess around with it?

I reject the notion that anything natural is therefore pure and good. There's nothing about the modern society that is in the least natural for humans.

 

[untermensche]

Intelligence is not a simple matter.

It is not the result of the work of a few genes.

It is the result of hundreds maybe thousands of genes working together.

Many things happen in a developing nervous system. Massive migrations and massive die off of cells. These are spatially dependent, not gene dependent. It is more than genes.

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

It is not something that a person can choose for.

It is not an outcome that can be guaranteed.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

No, they don't. It depends what we're measuring. If we're measuring IQ, then, no. It's highly heritable. If we pick other aspects of intelligence, then there's no commonly accepted metric and so laypeople can chose to creatively interpret anything as anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

While IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, it does correlate with a lot of clever behaviour. So it's good to use as a baseline.

Geniuses might be born to unremarkable parents all the time. But that's not the same thing as them not being intelligent.

 

[untermensche]

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

No, they don't. It depends what we're measuring. If we're measuring IQ, then, no. It's highly heritable.

IQ is a score on a test. And test scores are highly dependent on test-taker motivation and exposure to the concepts tested at an early age.

People can score highly and be completely lost in the real world which requires emotional and social intelligence.

All it means is you are good on a test.

A test that does not measure emotional or social intelligence.

And it is absurd to think that geniuses are only born to people with high IQ test scores.

 

[untermensche]

Is vocabulary dependent on genes or upon exposure?

Most things that make up "intelligence" are dependent on exposure.

A child never spoken to will not be able to acquire a language after a certain age no matter what they are exposed to.

It is not just exposure it is early exposure during the times when the human is a super learner and can learn words it will remember the meaning of it's whole life on one exposure.

A high IQ test score is also related to a life without large emotional upsets and fears.

Like the daily fears of being a child living in a violent and chaotic US inner city pocket of poverty.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Very intelligent parents have average children all the time and average people give birth to geniuses.

No, they don't. It depends what we're measuring. If we're measuring IQ, then, no. It's highly heritable.

IQ is a score on a test. And test scores are highly dependent on test-taker motivation and exposure to the concepts tested at an early age.

People can score highly and be completely lost in the real world which requires emotional and social intelligence.

All it means is you are good on a test.

A test that correlates to a bunch of clever things.

A test that does not measure emotional or social intelligence.

Yeah, but how do you measure it? Nobody has managed to figure that out. Since we don't know how to do that, we can't draw any conclusions about it. Which is the mistake you made. This only leaves IQ to measure with. It has proven to be a good proxy for general intelligence. No, it's not perfect. There's quite a few people with high IQ's who are completely dysfunctional. But most aren't. And the numbers are stable and predictable. That's good if we want to find a metric.

And it is absurd to think that geniuses are only born to people with high IQ test scores.

Which might explain why I didn't write that.

 

[untermensche]

IQ is a score on a test. And test scores are highly dependent on test-taker motivation and exposure to the concepts tested at an early age.

People can score highly and be completely lost in the real world which requires emotional and social intelligence.

All it means is you are good on a test.

A test that correlates to a bunch of clever things.

Like what?

There is no correlation to creativity. No correlation to athleticism. No correlation to coordination and manual dexterity. No correlation to good looks. No correlation to health. No correlation to happiness.

What are you talking about?

 

[Toni]

What's wrong about that? Men like women with big boobs? Women like men with chiselled bodies with adonis physiques. What's the difference between a taste in that and getting horny for blonde blue eyed men? Our sexual tastes, while once based on fitness selection, make no sense today. They're not going to start making sense any time now.

What a shallow, narrow and not-fact based world view you have.

The fact remains that just having access to hospitals means we're breeding in weakness in our genome. So we're already tampering with our genetics. So I see zero controversy in fixing that.

Again, you are not able to think past the end of your nose--or dick. Look, you have very little understanding of genetics or biology or disease processes. Your world view seems to be based on reading early sci fi. And maybe Mein Kampf.

The problem with Nazism wasn't that they were into eugenics. It was that the Nazi ideology was NOT based on science. It was a continuation of the romanticist movement, which was a reaction against science and reason.

Written like a proper little Nazi.

No, it's not. Nazi race theory was wrong. Their selection criteria was fucked. Using Nazi methods would never have led to creating anything but creating a bunch of inbred sickly weaklings. Nazi ideas were just bonkers.

Yet you seem to embrace Nazi ideals quite willingly.

And worth pointing out... Nazis were Luddites themselves. They wanted things to go back to how they once were. Let's ignore that the mythical past they wanted to return to was a complete fantasy. It's just the same stuff as "Make America Great Again".

Nazis were hardly Luddites. They embraced science and technology of the day--which is understandably decades behind anything you are familiar with. I'm not sure you understand what a Luddite is. I'm not sure that you see that the ideals you are embracing really do not differ in any significant way from Nazi ideals. Just the means and the smug assurance that your values are what could and should and would be catered to. Which is a pretty Nazi way of thinking

That's the price to pay for progress. Since we cannot guarantee the health of a child we don't mess with, I see no ethical problems.

Of course you do not. You do not entertain the idea that there will be unintended consequences. It's all a theory and a game to you.

Of course that creates the situation whereby what right does the world have to access these children's DNA and sequence it and utilize the results? If their DNA can be examined on demand, why cannot yours or mine?

So any future potential children has a right to have a say in who you sleep with? When you go on a date with a guy part of the equation is figuring out how you can combine your genome with a man's to create healthy off spring. What's the difference between that and having a lab mess around with it?

That doesn't follow at all.

I reject the notion that anything natural is therefore pure and good. There's nothing about the modern society that is in the least natural for humans.

Wow. I'd say ignorance is bliss but you've never struck me as particularly happy.