• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Yeah this is scary. Down syndrome is definitely in the gray area too where it can be viewed negatively but plenty of people have it and lead fulfilling lives. Wipe cystic fibrosis out of a fetus and all but the most staunch biological purists would agree it was a good thing. Make your fetus white, blonde, and blue eyed and it’s obviously eugenics. I don’t know how I feel about this.

    Completely apart from the ethics, I think this technology is really cool though.

    • dil@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      They live fulfilling lives at the detriment of others who have to live less fulfilling lives, maybe they don’t see it that way, but its added responsibility

    • x3x3@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 hours ago

      There are a lot of reports and interviews with ppl who have down syndrome that are not happy at all with their situation. Ie. Unable to have a driving licence, go to university, huge disadvantage on the dating market… the list goes on. I’m not saying they can’t have fulfilling moments but we also shouldn’t kid ourselves and look at down syndrome with rosy eyes. If it could be cured everyone would do it instantly.

    • sudoshakes@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Phenotype vs biological normative.

      Deaf people will decry “fixing” a person hearing impaired in the womb. Yet, it’s a correction to biological normative.

      Adjusting a gender to a different one in the womb would not be.

      Adjusting physical traits for looks wouldn’t be.

      Adjusting a physical trait like spinal deformity would be.

      Adjusting for general height would not be.

      If there is something diagnosable in the ICD-10 codes we have, and it’s preventable in a population, it would not be eugenetics. Remove gene editing as the tool, but just say “magic” a cure. Cures apply to diseases, not traits.

      You don’t cure being black. You CAN cure sickle cell.

      I think the line is pretty clear.

      You simply use existing diagnostic criteria of deviation from biological normative function.

      • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The diagnostic criteria and the culture that determines that criteria are both subject to change. lots of things that people consider perfectly normal now would be classified as a disease or disorder in the past.

    • Bravo@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Gattaca is the semi-dystopian vision of our future if we just walk blindly down this path without legislating it properly in advance.

      For those who haven’t seen the movie: Rich people start paying for perfect “designer babies”. A person’s genetic information becomes their whole identity; businesses only hire employees with the most genetic predisposition towards being good at the job, while regular people conceived “the old-fashioned way” get McJobs. Even wearing glasses is treated like a crippling disability that immediately and visibly marks someone as “inferior”.

      It is extremely important that we pass laws to ensure that genetic engineering doesn’t create a new caste system.