Should altering babies with CRISPR or similar genetic engineering techniques be called "eugenics"?
-
What if this technology came about in the 1950s? Then parents would look for the “gay gene”, they’d try to engineer the queerness out of their kids. It would be on an individual basis, but still lead to population shifts. That seems eugenicist.
Parents will still select against gayness. They'd be silly not to. It's related to mental illness, less happiness, problems in dating, many places social disapproval, shorter lifespan and so on.
-
-
But why is that true? Is it because the society we have is currently not built for gay people? That’s kind of my point: genetic engineering makes this rationalized eugenics the “optimal” decision in some sense, which is morally horrifying.
-
The relationship between gayness and various poor outcomes has to do mostly with biology, not social factors. Society used to be very hostile to gays, now it's the opposite, but associations stay the same, suggests different causes. (No surprise there.)
-
Ah, I see, I think you’re incorrect, could you cite some recent literature supporting your claims?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.