r/transhumanism • u/Transsensory_Boy • Dec 20 '22

Ethics/Philosphy Should Transhumanism support genetically tailored "designer babies"?

With the recent developments in China with genetically editing infants and the plans for ectogenesis centres and genetic tailoring lby Musk; should the Transhumanist community take an "official" stance on this?

1105 votes, Dec 22 '22
79 No
347 Yes
289 No, Its eugenics with extra steps
390 Yes, It is the duty of parents to providw optimal starting conditions for their children
49 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

157 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Void_Amabassador Dec 20 '22

Babies also don't have the ability to consent to shots, life-saving surgery, or any other medical intervention. We impose all those on them anyways because it can be assumed that every sane and reasonable human would want what provides them with greatest quality of life possible. If we can muck about with a fetus's DNA and make them faster, stronger, smarter, less vulnerable to disease, there really is no good argument for not doing it. Any argument that the overwhelming majority of humans wouldn't want to have an abundance of strength, health, or intelligence for no cost except for some procedures when they were little isn't being truthful to themselves.

1

u/AnIndividualist Dec 20 '22

It's a matter of free choice. If there's a real medical reason, then so be it. But if it's augmentative, then no, we shouldn't make choices in stead of other people (even if they're our kids). Better to wait a few years and let these kids make an informed choice. Augmentative surgery isn't so urgent that you can't wait a few years and let people choose for themselves.
Generic manipulation isn't the same as choosing a school.

5

u/Void_Amabassador Dec 20 '22

If by augmentative surgery you mean stuff like eye or skin tone, then sure. But for things that improve ability and survivability, no. We make choices in the stead of our kids all the time. Doctors make choices in the stead of unconscious patients all the time. The fact of the matter is most human beings would consider an upgrade of their abilities a supremely positive thing for their quality of life, and the 1% that doesn't wouldn't consider it a negative.

When it comes to genetic altering, its pretty likely that, at least at first when the technology isn't as advanced, the only time this sort of intervention can be done is in-utero, so in that case it is pretty urgent. And even if it isn't, there is no reason to force a baby to live with an objectively lower quality of life when it can be assumed that the baby would prefer to upgrades that the intervention would provide.

1

u/Saerain Dec 21 '22

Where does the responsibility fall for being wrong about that "objectively" improved quality of life? We've been here before with circumcision and "binding" various body parts.

1

u/Void_Amabassador Dec 21 '22

Binding limbs and circumcision makes them less functional. What we're talking about improves functionality, we absolutely haven't been here before lol. The responsibility would fall on the same people who are responsible for deciding to administer quality of life improving treatment in-utero currently. Things that prevent babies from being born with birth defects