I think the frames in which you are looking at this are just completely wrong. We aren’t really talking about “decisions about an individuals’ reproduction”. We are talking about how a parent can treat their child. This is something that is already highly regulated by the state, CPS is a thing, and it is good that it is a thing. There may be debates to be had about whether CPS has gone too far on certain issues, but there is a core sort of evil that CPS exists to address, and that it is good for the state to address. And blinding your child is a very core paradigmatic example of that sort of evil. Whether you do it by genetic engineering or surgically or through some other means is entirely beside the point. Genetic engineering isn’t special. It is just another technology. To take something that is obviously wrong and evil when done by other means, that everyone will agree the state should prevent when done by other means, and say that the state should allow it when done by genetic engineering, that strikes me as a major political threat to genetic engineering. We don’t get genetic engineering to happen by creating special rules for it that permit monstrosities forbidden by any other means. We get genetic engineering by showing people that it is just another technology, and we can use it to do good and not evil, applying the same notions of good and evil that we would anywhere else. If a blind parent asked a surgeon to sever the optic nerve of of their newborn baby, and the surgeon did it, both the parents and the surgeon would go to jail for child abuse. Any normal person can see that a genetic engineer should be subject to the same ethical and legal constraints there as the surgeon. Arguing otherwise will endanger your purported goal of promoting this technology.
This notion of “erasing a type of person” also seems like exactly the wrong frame for this. When we cured smallpox, did we erase the type of person called “smallpox survivor”? When we feed a hungry person, are we erasing the type of person called “hungry person”? None of this is about erasing anyone. This is about fixing, or at least not intentionally breaking, people.
As for your list, I’m not going to go through point by point. There surely are debatable cases. I’ll just reiterate my basic point that genetic engineering is not special. Would we allow a parent to take a normal child and give them the specified condition by non-genetic means? On some of these society may not have a consensus, as there just isn’t a known non-genetic means for reliably inducing some of these conditions. But that’s the question to ask. We have had parents and other adults interacting with children for as long as there have been adults and children. We have pretty well developed notions of what things it is ok to do to a child and what things it is not ok to do to a child. Those notions don’t change when we have to evaluate whether we should do things to a child by means of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is not special.
We get genetic engineering by showing people that it is just another technology, and we can use it to do good and not evil, applying the same notions of good and evil that we would anywhere else.
The eugenicists in early 20th century America also believed they were increasing good and getting rid of evil. Do you endorse their policies, and/or their general stance toward public policy?
Any normal person can see that a genetic engineer should be subject to the same ethical and legal constraints there as the surgeon. Arguing otherwise will endanger your purported goal of promoting this technology.
Maybe, I’m not sure and I’d like to know. This is an empirical question that I hope to find out about.
This notion of “erasing a type of person” also seems like exactly the wrong frame for this. When we cured smallpox, did we erase the type of person called “smallpox survivor”? When we feed a hungry person, are we erasing the type of person called “hungry person”? None of this is about erasing anyone. This is about fixing, or at least not intentionally breaking, people.
That’s nice that you can feel good about your intentions, but if you fail to listen to the people themselves who you’re erasing, you’re the one who’s being evil. When it comes to their own children, it’s up to them, not you. If you ask people with smallpox “is this a special consciousness, a way of life or being, which you would be sad to see disappear from the world?”, they’re not gonna say “hell yeah!”. But if you ask blind people or autistic people, some fraction of them will say “hell yeah!”. Your attitude of just going off your own judgement… I don’t know what to say about it yet, I’m not even empathizing with it yet. (If you happen to have a link to a defense of it, e.g. by a philosopher or other writer, I’d be curious.)
Now, as I’ve suggested in several places, if the blind children whose blind parents chose to make them blind later grow and say “This was terrible, it should not have happened, the state should not allow this”, THEN I’d be likely to support regulation to that effect.
I’m not especially distinguishing the methods, I’m mainly distinguishing whether it’s being done to a living person.
Genetic engineering is a thing you do to a living person. If a person is going to go on to live a life, they don’t somehow become less a person because you are influencing them at the stage of being an embryo in a lab. That’s just not a morally coherent distinction, nor is it one the law makes.
Nothing in my position is hinging on my personal moral views. I am trying to point out to you that almost everyone in our society has the view that blinding children is evil. And our society already has laws against child abuse which would prohibit blinding children by genetic engineering. Virtually nobody wants to change that, and any politician who tried to change those laws would be throwing away their career. It’s not about me. I’m pointing out where society is.
If you want to start a campaign to legalize the blinding of children, well, we have a free speech clause, you are entitled to do that. Have you considered maybe doing it separately from the genetic engineering thing? The technology to blind children already exists. If you really think it is worth running an experiment on a generation of children, why don’t you try to legalize doing it with the technology we already have and go from there? If, somehow, you succeed in changing the law, you’d even get your experiment quicker.
if you fail to listen to the people themselves who you’re erasing, you’re the one who’s being evil.
How would a person who has been blind their whole life know? They haven’t had the experience of sight to compare to. They seem like the people in the worst position to make the comparison. People who have the experience of seeing are necessarily the ones who can judge whether that is a good thing or not.
When it comes to their own children, it’s up to them, not you.
When it comes to any child, it is up to the existing law of child abuse. That trumps whatever an individual parent may think.
if you ask blind people or autistic people, some fraction of them will say “hell yeah!”
Lets not get into autistic people. Autism comes in more varieties than blindness, and some of those varieties I think are much more debatable. For blindness, do you have any idea what that fraction is?
On the “self-governing” model, it might be that the blind community would want to disallow propagating blindness, while the deaf community would not disallow it:
Judy: And how’s… I mean, I know we’re talking about the blind community now, but in a DEAF (person’s own emphasis) community, some deaf couples are actually disappointed when they have an able bodied… child.
William: I believe that’s right.
Paul: I think the majority are.
Judy: Yes. Because then …
Margaret: Do they?
Judy: Oh, yes! It’s well known down at the deaf centre. So some of them would choose to have a deaf baby! (with an incredulous voice)
Moderator: Actually, a few years ago a couple chose to have a deaf baby.
Margaret: Can’t understand that!
Judy: I’ve never heard of anybody in our blind community talk like that.
Paul: To perpetuate blindness! I don’t know anybody in the blind community who’d want to do that.
Interesting. I think I’d take the same position about deafness that I would about blindness. But I also find it a very understandable and natural human emotion for a person who is damaged to want to surround themselves with others who are damaged in the same way, and to be disappointed when their child isn’t. That seems entirely compatible with not being willing to intentionally damage a child.
I agree. We aren’t talking about whether blind people should be allowed to reproduce freely, even when doing so has the foreseeable consequence that the child will be blind. We are talking about whether they should be allowed to do an action, beyond the simple act of reproducing, to cause their child to be blind.
On second/third thought, I think you’re making a good point, though also I think you’re missing a different important point. And I’m not sure what the right answers are. Thanks for your engagement… If you’d be interested in thinking through this stuff in a more exploratory way on a recorded call to be maybe published, hopefully I’ll be set up for that in a week or two, LMK.
you are influencing them at the stage of being an embryo
I’m mainly talking about engineering that happens before the embryo stage.
That’s just not a morally coherent distinction, nor is it one the law makes
Of course it’s one the law makes. IIUC it’s not even illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol.
If you want to start a campaign to legalize the blinding of children, well, we have a free speech clause, you are entitled to do that. Have you considered maybe doing it separately from the genetic engineering thing?
I can’t tell if you’re strawmanning to make a point, or what, but anyway this makes absolutely no sense.
I’m mainly talking about engineering that happens before the embryo stage.
I’m not sure if you’re correcting my technical vocabulary or trying to counter my argument. Either is welcome. While I am excited about this technology and its potential to improve the human species, I’m obviously not a biologist myself.
Of course it’s one the law makes. IIUC it’s not even illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol.
Nor is it illegal to use harsh language with your children. “Abuse” is a word that exists to pick out a sufficiently extreme degree of wrong that most people would not do it, and intervention is warranted against those who do. Most states do regulate drug use by pregnant women somehow, see https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state. And the controversy around this is based mostly on the idea that taking a medical approach rather than a criminalization approach results in better outcomes for the children, which is an argument that just doesn’t translate over to the genetic engineering context.
I think the frames in which you are looking at this are just completely wrong. We aren’t really talking about “decisions about an individuals’ reproduction”. We are talking about how a parent can treat their child. This is something that is already highly regulated by the state, CPS is a thing, and it is good that it is a thing. There may be debates to be had about whether CPS has gone too far on certain issues, but there is a core sort of evil that CPS exists to address, and that it is good for the state to address. And blinding your child is a very core paradigmatic example of that sort of evil. Whether you do it by genetic engineering or surgically or through some other means is entirely beside the point. Genetic engineering isn’t special. It is just another technology. To take something that is obviously wrong and evil when done by other means, that everyone will agree the state should prevent when done by other means, and say that the state should allow it when done by genetic engineering, that strikes me as a major political threat to genetic engineering. We don’t get genetic engineering to happen by creating special rules for it that permit monstrosities forbidden by any other means. We get genetic engineering by showing people that it is just another technology, and we can use it to do good and not evil, applying the same notions of good and evil that we would anywhere else. If a blind parent asked a surgeon to sever the optic nerve of of their newborn baby, and the surgeon did it, both the parents and the surgeon would go to jail for child abuse. Any normal person can see that a genetic engineer should be subject to the same ethical and legal constraints there as the surgeon. Arguing otherwise will endanger your purported goal of promoting this technology.
This notion of “erasing a type of person” also seems like exactly the wrong frame for this. When we cured smallpox, did we erase the type of person called “smallpox survivor”? When we feed a hungry person, are we erasing the type of person called “hungry person”? None of this is about erasing anyone. This is about fixing, or at least not intentionally breaking, people.
As for your list, I’m not going to go through point by point. There surely are debatable cases. I’ll just reiterate my basic point that genetic engineering is not special. Would we allow a parent to take a normal child and give them the specified condition by non-genetic means? On some of these society may not have a consensus, as there just isn’t a known non-genetic means for reliably inducing some of these conditions. But that’s the question to ask. We have had parents and other adults interacting with children for as long as there have been adults and children. We have pretty well developed notions of what things it is ok to do to a child and what things it is not ok to do to a child. Those notions don’t change when we have to evaluate whether we should do things to a child by means of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is not special.
I’m not especially distinguishing the methods, I’m mainly distinguishing whether it’s being done to a living person. See my comment upthread https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rxcGvPrQsqoCHndwG/the-principle-of-genomic-liberty?commentId=qnafba5dx6gwoFX4a
I think you’re fundamentally missing that your notions of good and evil aren’t supposed to automatically be made into law. That’s not what law is for. See a very similar discussion here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JFWiM7GAKfPaaLkwT/the-vision-of-bill-thurston?commentId=Xvs2y9LWbpFcydTJi
The eugenicists in early 20th century America also believed they were increasing good and getting rid of evil. Do you endorse their policies, and/or their general stance toward public policy?
Maybe, I’m not sure and I’d like to know. This is an empirical question that I hope to find out about.
That’s nice that you can feel good about your intentions, but if you fail to listen to the people themselves who you’re erasing, you’re the one who’s being evil. When it comes to their own children, it’s up to them, not you. If you ask people with smallpox “is this a special consciousness, a way of life or being, which you would be sad to see disappear from the world?”, they’re not gonna say “hell yeah!”. But if you ask blind people or autistic people, some fraction of them will say “hell yeah!”. Your attitude of just going off your own judgement… I don’t know what to say about it yet, I’m not even empathizing with it yet. (If you happen to have a link to a defense of it, e.g. by a philosopher or other writer, I’d be curious.)
Now, as I’ve suggested in several places, if the blind children whose blind parents chose to make them blind later grow and say “This was terrible, it should not have happened, the state should not allow this”, THEN I’d be likely to support regulation to that effect.
See also https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JFWiM7GAKfPaaLkwT/the-vision-of-bill-thurston?commentId=Y5y2bky2eFqYwWKrz
Genetic engineering is a thing you do to a living person. If a person is going to go on to live a life, they don’t somehow become less a person because you are influencing them at the stage of being an embryo in a lab. That’s just not a morally coherent distinction, nor is it one the law makes.
Nothing in my position is hinging on my personal moral views. I am trying to point out to you that almost everyone in our society has the view that blinding children is evil. And our society already has laws against child abuse which would prohibit blinding children by genetic engineering. Virtually nobody wants to change that, and any politician who tried to change those laws would be throwing away their career. It’s not about me. I’m pointing out where society is.
If you want to start a campaign to legalize the blinding of children, well, we have a free speech clause, you are entitled to do that. Have you considered maybe doing it separately from the genetic engineering thing? The technology to blind children already exists. If you really think it is worth running an experiment on a generation of children, why don’t you try to legalize doing it with the technology we already have and go from there? If, somehow, you succeed in changing the law, you’d even get your experiment quicker.
How would a person who has been blind their whole life know? They haven’t had the experience of sight to compare to. They seem like the people in the worst position to make the comparison. People who have the experience of seeing are necessarily the ones who can judge whether that is a good thing or not.
When it comes to any child, it is up to the existing law of child abuse. That trumps whatever an individual parent may think.
Lets not get into autistic people. Autism comes in more varieties than blindness, and some of those varieties I think are much more debatable. For blindness, do you have any idea what that fraction is?
On the “self-governing” model, it might be that the blind community would want to disallow propagating blindness, while the deaf community would not disallow it:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4059844/
Judy: And how’s… I mean, I know we’re talking about the blind community now, but in a DEAF (person’s own emphasis) community, some deaf couples are actually disappointed when they have an able bodied… child.
William: I believe that’s right.
Paul: I think the majority are.
Judy: Yes. Because then …
Margaret: Do they?
Judy: Oh, yes! It’s well known down at the deaf centre. So some of them would choose to have a deaf baby! (with an incredulous voice)
Moderator: Actually, a few years ago a couple chose to have a deaf baby.
Margaret: Can’t understand that!
Judy: I’ve never heard of anybody in our blind community talk like that.
Paul: To perpetuate blindness! I don’t know anybody in the blind community who’d want to do that.
Interesting. I think I’d take the same position about deafness that I would about blindness. But I also find it a very understandable and natural human emotion for a person who is damaged to want to surround themselves with others who are damaged in the same way, and to be disappointed when their child isn’t. That seems entirely compatible with not being willing to intentionally damage a child.
Our society also has the view that people should be allowed to reproduce freely, even if they’ll pass some condition on to their child.
I agree. We aren’t talking about whether blind people should be allowed to reproduce freely, even when doing so has the foreseeable consequence that the child will be blind. We are talking about whether they should be allowed to do an action, beyond the simple act of reproducing, to cause their child to be blind.
On second/third thought, I think you’re making a good point, though also I think you’re missing a different important point. And I’m not sure what the right answers are. Thanks for your engagement… If you’d be interested in thinking through this stuff in a more exploratory way on a recorded call to be maybe published, hopefully I’ll be set up for that in a week or two, LMK.
I’m mainly talking about engineering that happens before the embryo stage.
Of course it’s one the law makes. IIUC it’s not even illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol.
I can’t tell if you’re strawmanning to make a point, or what, but anyway this makes absolutely no sense.
I’m not sure if you’re correcting my technical vocabulary or trying to counter my argument. Either is welcome. While I am excited about this technology and its potential to improve the human species, I’m obviously not a biologist myself.
Nor is it illegal to use harsh language with your children. “Abuse” is a word that exists to pick out a sufficiently extreme degree of wrong that most people would not do it, and intervention is warranted against those who do. Most states do regulate drug use by pregnant women somehow, see https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state. And the controversy around this is based mostly on the idea that taking a medical approach rather than a criminalization approach results in better outcomes for the children, which is an argument that just doesn’t translate over to the genetic engineering context.