body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

What's your gender || Would you support the legal ability of parents to genetically modify their children in order to increase intelligence and attractiveness?

Male | Yes
48.6%
Male | No
38.8%
Female | Yes
5.5%
Female | No
7.2%

3,016 votesFinal results

4:14 AM · Apr 19, 2020

S ͭ ͤ ͮ ͤ B

Replying to

Gattaca. You don't think it's going on already?

Replying to

That is... a lot more y's than I was expecting

Replying to

I see some opposition to transhumanism here.

1

Replying to

No kids, but my kids would have been only marginally attractive. They would have an easier life if they were beautiful. Normal mate selection does this anyway, breeding for beauty and intelligence.

Änöther Ängry Äüstriän

@angryaustrian_

Replying to

My assumption is you mean modifying genetics through external technology. This of course calls into question various questions about asymmetric access and it’s moral implications. What’s more interesting to me though is where you draw the line between this and natural selection?

1

2

hyper(bolic) disco(unting) girl

@hyperdiscogirl

Replying to

What's the argument for no?

3

2

Replying to

I don't like it, but yes.

@AdvancedRuckus

Replying to

I think it should be stipulated that there would be no inherent risk, otherwise I cannot vote.

Replying to

Considering how much trouble we have with purebred dogs/cats, you think we'd do better with people?