so when you get a variety of idea that has very high volatility (as this cluster does) you see really dramatic cognitive dissonance and lossy compression effects and it becomes impossible to engage with the idea on a mass scale. its DoA in popular discourse.
so in the case of evolution it's not the fact of transmission of heritable traits through the genome that's political. it's the idea of a state eugenics policy affecting reproductive freedom that is. that's not a policy that ANYONE (in power) is promoting though, afaik.
-
-
what I have trouble understanding is the the doctrinal adoption of slippery slope hyper-vigilance by those on the left. I find the right wing Christian fundamentalist objection to be a lot easier to understand (they have a religious doctrine directly undermined by the facts).
-
I'm saying that in a tactical political sense they are correct in doing so. There is more to lose than gain in opening that can of worms. As Marx said, they seek not to understand the world, but to change it.
-
there's a lot of collateral damage. suppose there are gene therapies that have to be administered in utero to be effective? or what about people that voluntarily have gene tests to see if they're recessive carriers of genetic diseases?
-
Pffft, nuance. We're talking about the degraded generally comprehensible version, remember?
-
fair point. how much nuance does it take to convince people that the cure for cancer is probably going to be a gene therapy?
-
It's ok if they do evo thinking about populations of cells, and don't draw any political conclusions. Sure ppl will line up for cancer gene therapy.
-
ok, so thought experiment is needed here. compare and contrast: CRISPR style adult gene editing vs. germ-line gene hacking that is only expressed in the children. the former "cures" cancer like an anti-biotic cures strep throat. the latter prevents cancer inter-generationally.
-
the former case is boring. too obvious that it would be widely accepted. how about the latter case. that's a eugenics program that could make treated people no longer have offspring that are vulnerable to the most common types of heritable cancers. how would that be accepted?
- 1 more reply
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.