This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why is that exactly? I'm genuinely quite curious.
Just to be clear--you're against gene editing for moral reasons, rather than "we don't know enough and shouldn't mess with it" reasons or something else, yes?
If so, we know of a good number of traits that are influenced by genetics, and generally cause people to live better lives. IQ, self-control, disease risk, general positive vs depressive temperament, etc. Even something like superficial beauty might be slightly positive for society overall. Wouldn't you rather these advantages be accessible to everyone, rather than just those lucky enough?
Editing and screening are two different things, though I'm not particularly supportive of either.
In principle I have no objection to genetic medicine. If we could alter somebody's genes so as to end or remove illnesses, that would be a good thing. However, the line between medicine and enhancement is, in practice, pretty murky. If we could use gene editing to genuinely cure Down syndrome, that would be good, but in practice I suspect that if we had that technology it would inevitably be used for enhancement - that is, in an attempt not to improve the lives of actually existing people, but to manufacture better people. I think the risks of instrumentalising human life that way are considerable.
Screening is a step beyond that, isn't it? Screening is the equivalent of aborting an infant with Down syndrome prior to birth, only quicker and more efficient. So all moral objections there would apply.
More options
Context Copy link
genetic screening doesn't make it available to anyone who otherwise had an issue. Those people just don't get to be alive.
I’m not convinced that it makes sense to count potential people as, well, people.
The eggs which are never fertilized don’t get to be living people, either.
More options
Context Copy link
That isn't really how people think about counterfactual people in other contexts. Relevant post from Scott:
Who Does Polygenic Selection Help?
This isn’t about counter factual people. You’re starting with the premise that’s under dispute.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe.
It seems to me that this requires the belief that a person is defined by their DNA, either 1. axiomatically, or because 2. the soul exists, and is inextricably linked to one's DNA.
Counterpoint--in the aftermath of Chernobyl and the atomic blasts in Japan, we have empirically witnessed people with tremendous DNA damage survive for several hours or days. Many of them could still talk, express their memories, behave as they always had. Due to the alterations in their DNA, would it be accurate to say that these people were, in fact, entirely different people to what 'they' were before?
This analogy doesn’t make sense. We’re not talking about genetic manipulation, we’re talking about picking which embryo is selected.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see how that relates? In fact, it seems like an instance of the same mistake?
Both genetic screening and treating someone differently after DNA modification seem like genetics-based discrimination. In both cases the correct approach is the same, which is to say that people or their worth cannot be reduced to genetics. Genetics do not encode personhood.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link