Heh, I call myself a transhumanist, but I'm not exactly involved with the "community." I think I'd probably find most of them a bunch of entitled asshats.
I think there's always a danger of letting people experiment on their offspring--and that's what these are, experiments. If we assume that the ability to make genetic tweaks is distributed equally across society, then the problem becomes that it is really hard to slap the brakes on once you get going. I would argue for more regulation rather than less just because while socially it's hard to get rid of regulation of things (See: age of drinking in America,) it's much, much harder to undo the damage done by a generation of bad science. See: Global climate change. I mean, let's face it, it's a luxury. I'm all for more luxury, but I think it's better to have procedures for an undo in place.
Which doesn't even get INTO the way that that's already assuming something that will not be true--that genetic enhancement will be equally available to the entire population. It won't. As you said, it'll wind up being a rich person's privilege--and it'll end up strengthening the class divide. Even if we aren't talking things like "intelligence strengthening", even screening for, say, all hereditary diseases/cancers and mental illnesses does a HUGE amount for your health insurance. So for just that reason alone, curtailing it is necessary to prevent a whole series of other social problems.
Though allowing the rich to make all the expensive genetic mistakes does have an aura of 1930s pulp fiction to it.
no subject
I think there's always a danger of letting people experiment on their offspring--and that's what these are, experiments. If we assume that the ability to make genetic tweaks is distributed equally across society, then the problem becomes that it is really hard to slap the brakes on once you get going. I would argue for more regulation rather than less just because while socially it's hard to get rid of regulation of things (See: age of drinking in America,) it's much, much harder to undo the damage done by a generation of bad science. See: Global climate change. I mean, let's face it, it's a luxury. I'm all for more luxury, but I think it's better to have procedures for an undo in place.
Which doesn't even get INTO the way that that's already assuming something that will not be true--that genetic enhancement will be equally available to the entire population. It won't. As you said, it'll wind up being a rich person's privilege--and it'll end up strengthening the class divide. Even if we aren't talking things like "intelligence strengthening", even screening for, say, all hereditary diseases/cancers and mental illnesses does a HUGE amount for your health insurance. So for just that reason alone, curtailing it is necessary to prevent a whole series of other social problems.
Though allowing the rich to make all the expensive genetic mistakes does have an aura of 1930s pulp fiction to it.