I think the problem is your argument wasn’t for “happy” children, it was for “smart and healthy” children. And that’s where it sounds a bit eugenicist.
What if being particularly intelligent makes people less happy? The evidence is mixed, but I rather suspect there are many EAs who wouldn’t necessarily see their intelligence as a source of happiness, but neither would they choose to give it up.
And with health, the same challenge applies. Neurodivergence is probably over-represented amongst EAs, but I don’t think many people are saying it shouldn’t exist.
I believe that genetic and phenotype diversity is beneficial to any population. And from a human perspective, I believe differences of experience are culturally and morally valuable—in that they force us to expand our empathy to others who are not like us. Activity that has the effect of limiting that diversity, and entrenching economic inequality, has the potential to have net negative impacts on humanity, even if there are benefits at the individual level.
What if being particularly intelligent makes people less happy?
Funny how people never raise this as an argument against preventing lead poisoning.
Here’s a parity principle I think we should all accept: if we would encourage prospective parents to undertake environmental precautions or modifications to shift the balance of probabilities for their future child in a certain way, we should encourage them to pursue the same ends via genetic means.
I don’t assume that every form of “divergence” from “typical” functioning is necessarily a disability or health problem. There will always be unclear or controversial cases about which reasonable people can disagree. But there are also very clear cases, like Tay-Sachs disease, which we should obviously want to prevent if we can (including via embryonic selection or gene editing).
Agreed on Tay-Sachs and other diseases which cause suffering.
That’s not the same as gene-editing and embryo selection for “smarter” kids. That’s making a moral judgement about the value of someone’s life based on their intelligence. By your logic, if we tell people not to drink alcohol when pregnant, then we should also prevent those with lower intelligence from passing on their genes?
No, I support genetic reproductive freedom, not coercion. This is all a bit off-topic here though, so perhaps you can follow-up over at the linked post if you want to discuss this more.
I think the problem is your argument wasn’t for “happy” children, it was for “smart and healthy” children. And that’s where it sounds a bit eugenicist.
What if being particularly intelligent makes people less happy? The evidence is mixed, but I rather suspect there are many EAs who wouldn’t necessarily see their intelligence as a source of happiness, but neither would they choose to give it up.
And with health, the same challenge applies. Neurodivergence is probably over-represented amongst EAs, but I don’t think many people are saying it shouldn’t exist.
I believe that genetic and phenotype diversity is beneficial to any population. And from a human perspective, I believe differences of experience are culturally and morally valuable—in that they force us to expand our empathy to others who are not like us. Activity that has the effect of limiting that diversity, and entrenching economic inequality, has the potential to have net negative impacts on humanity, even if there are benefits at the individual level.
Funny how people never raise this as an argument against preventing lead poisoning.
Here’s a parity principle I think we should all accept: if we would encourage prospective parents to undertake environmental precautions or modifications to shift the balance of probabilities for their future child in a certain way, we should encourage them to pursue the same ends via genetic means.
I don’t assume that every form of “divergence” from “typical” functioning is necessarily a disability or health problem. There will always be unclear or controversial cases about which reasonable people can disagree. But there are also very clear cases, like Tay-Sachs disease, which we should obviously want to prevent if we can (including via embryonic selection or gene editing).
Agreed on Tay-Sachs and other diseases which cause suffering.
That’s not the same as gene-editing and embryo selection for “smarter” kids. That’s making a moral judgement about the value of someone’s life based on their intelligence. By your logic, if we tell people not to drink alcohol when pregnant, then we should also prevent those with lower intelligence from passing on their genes?
No, I support genetic reproductive freedom, not coercion. This is all a bit off-topic here though, so perhaps you can follow-up over at the linked post if you want to discuss this more.