I think a pretty core lesson from this concern is that communication to parents is very important. Parents should understand:
What the traits do and don’t mean that they are selecting for, including plausible consequences.
What uncertainties exist in the PGSes that are being used (generally lots of uncertainty), e.g. are they accidentally tracking something else as well, or might they perform less well than expected.
How much variation is still being left up to chance or environment; pointing out important things that aren’t being tracked.
That overall the methods will have uncertain outcomes.
How to raise kids well regardless of their genomic foundation (i.e. cultural tech for parenting so your kids flourish).
That, at least in the scheme of genetic variation, the nudges applied by germline genomic engineering are a drop in the bucket.
And the framing here, that “superbabies” is a category of people who would be generally better to have around, is incompatible with the value of equality.
I agree with this and commented this on a draft. It’s not a good way of thinking of germline engineered kids, and inaccurately implies there’s some gradation and some single direction of desirability or superiority.
But no “super” people can exist in an ethical system where people are of equal intrinsic worth. A superbaby and a regular baby are both worth unity.
All this said though.… I think you’re going really wrong here. The benefits are just enormous. And while I hold the positions above, I don’t think they can justify you imposing on me and my child the requirement to have a chance to be deaf or HIV or sickle cell.
I agree with this as a significant thing to keep in mind, and have written about it here: https://berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Potential_perils_of_germline_genomic_engineering.html#objectification
I think a pretty core lesson from this concern is that communication to parents is very important. Parents should understand:
What the traits do and don’t mean that they are selecting for, including plausible consequences.
What uncertainties exist in the PGSes that are being used (generally lots of uncertainty), e.g. are they accidentally tracking something else as well, or might they perform less well than expected.
How much variation is still being left up to chance or environment; pointing out important things that aren’t being tracked.
That overall the methods will have uncertain outcomes.
How to raise kids well regardless of their genomic foundation (i.e. cultural tech for parenting so your kids flourish).
That, at least in the scheme of genetic variation, the nudges applied by germline genomic engineering are a drop in the bucket.
I agree with this and commented this on a draft. It’s not a good way of thinking of germline engineered kids, and inaccurately implies there’s some gradation and some single direction of desirability or superiority.
I agree with this and agree it’s pretty crucial, and possibly threatened by germline engineering, and possibly threatened by thinking of them as “super”. I’ve written about this a bit here: https://berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Potential_perils_of_germline_genomic_engineering.html#loss-of-human-dignity
Right, also true. And we (society) should be oriented around not abandoning people who become less typical because of germline engineering. https://berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Potential_perils_of_germline_genomic_engineering.html#centrifugal-force-on-marginalized-people https://berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Potential_perils_of_germline_genomic_engineering.html#erasure-of-some-kinds-of-people
Also, I think that, although some may find it immoral, and clearly it has substantial negative first-order consequences, deaf people should be allowed to choose for their children to be deaf. This falls under propagative liberty (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DfrSZaf3JC8vJdbZL/how-to-make-superbabies?commentId=ZeranH3yDBGWNxZ7h).
All this said though.… I think you’re going really wrong here. The benefits are just enormous. And while I hold the positions above, I don’t think they can justify you imposing on me and my child the requirement to have a chance to be deaf or HIV or sickle cell.