Reprogenetic technology like polygenic embryo screening actually gives more control to the parent and facilitates better-informed reproductive decisions that produce children that live better lives.
What exactly do you disagree with?
That tech allows to analyze embryo genome before implantion?
That tech allows to choose from multiple embryos to implant for pregnancy?
That polygenic indices have relevant relationship to live outcomes?
I think the comment you're replying to is pretty much just FNE expressing an aesthetical-moral distaste for the concept, not exactly a disagreement on the technical aspects.
Oh, the technology may work lovely. It's when it comes to "and the baby is gestated and delivered and growing up, and oopsy-daisy turns out we made a boo-boo and now this kid is stuck for life with a problem" that I am not sold on.
I can see the benefits of "this embryo has been selected to not have the genes for breast cancer that are in the maternal family". That reduces the risk greatly, but doesn't of course mean that the child produced isn't at risk for something else. But when it comes to the blue-sky visions of Better Babies, I am very damn dubious because it's all too redolent of past sunny forecasts of "well now we have psychiatry, we understand the impulses in the human subconscious, crime and mental illness will be a thing of the past!" That didn't happen, and I don't think polygenic selection as we currently have it is going to do any better when it comes to "and your kid will be healthier, smarter, more attractive, and be a Fortune 500 company owner, we guarantee it!"
We do not know enough and we're looking to run the equivalent of human testing doing this with current generation of pregnancies. Get enough of these done, over time, we'll see the pitfalls and "oh yeah, turns out that location wasn't the one we wanted after all". But the problem is that we are doing this to humans, and creating (if it goes through) a cohort of babies that are, to be blunt, lab rats. Babies and their families who will have to live with the consequences of "yeah, seems like picking X without Y to accompany it was a fuck-up, ah well we'll know better for the next batch of embryos!"
By this logic, all medicine is bad because sometimes we accidentally get thalidomide.
Thanks to modern antipsychotics, number of permanently instituionalized patients was reduced by 10-100 times.
crime
that was offset by governments and population not wanting to solve crime, it's not that science on it was useless.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Completely unsubstantiated claim.
What exactly do you disagree with? That tech allows to analyze embryo genome before implantion? That tech allows to choose from multiple embryos to implant for pregnancy? That polygenic indices have relevant relationship to live outcomes?
That we can just pick out Better Babies as though we're comparison shopping between brands of cornflakes.
Which of aardvark2's four premises do you specifically disagree with?
I think the comment you're replying to is pretty much just FNE expressing an aesthetical-moral distaste for the concept, not exactly a disagreement on the technical aspects.
Oh, the technology may work lovely. It's when it comes to "and the baby is gestated and delivered and growing up, and oopsy-daisy turns out we made a boo-boo and now this kid is stuck for life with a problem" that I am not sold on.
I can see the benefits of "this embryo has been selected to not have the genes for breast cancer that are in the maternal family". That reduces the risk greatly, but doesn't of course mean that the child produced isn't at risk for something else. But when it comes to the blue-sky visions of Better Babies, I am very damn dubious because it's all too redolent of past sunny forecasts of "well now we have psychiatry, we understand the impulses in the human subconscious, crime and mental illness will be a thing of the past!" That didn't happen, and I don't think polygenic selection as we currently have it is going to do any better when it comes to "and your kid will be healthier, smarter, more attractive, and be a Fortune 500 company owner, we guarantee it!"
We do not know enough and we're looking to run the equivalent of human testing doing this with current generation of pregnancies. Get enough of these done, over time, we'll see the pitfalls and "oh yeah, turns out that location wasn't the one we wanted after all". But the problem is that we are doing this to humans, and creating (if it goes through) a cohort of babies that are, to be blunt, lab rats. Babies and their families who will have to live with the consequences of "yeah, seems like picking X without Y to accompany it was a fuck-up, ah well we'll know better for the next batch of embryos!"
By this logic, all medicine is bad because sometimes we accidentally get thalidomide. Thanks to modern antipsychotics, number of permanently instituionalized patients was reduced by 10-100 times.
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly? Kids with horrible problems get born every day, in numbers I expect to absolutely dwarf any IVF polygenic experiments.
The only thing that's worse about the latter option is that now you have someone to blame.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link