Read on Twitter
If you decide to have kids, is it good to raise them to be pro-social, kind, anti-racist?
Of course it is.
And if science makes it possible to use IVF preimplantation diagnosis and other methods to shape your kids in those ways *before* birth, is that good?
Thread on:
Of course it is.
And if science makes it possible to use IVF preimplantation diagnosis and other methods to shape your kids in those ways *before* birth, is that good?
Thread on:
Of course, people are already shaping their children before birth today, and in rich countries that's treated as mostly normal.
-Marrying someone tall to have tall kids
-Amniocentesis tests for genetic abnormalities
-IVF Preimplantation Diagnosis
https://familyfertility.com/services/preimplantation-genetic-testing/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-pgd#:~:text=What%20is%20Preimplantation%20Genetic%20Diagnosis,known%20to%20cause%20serious%20disease.
-Marrying someone tall to have tall kids
-Amniocentesis tests for genetic abnormalities
-IVF Preimplantation Diagnosis
https://familyfertility.com/services/preimplantation-genetic-testing/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-pgd#:~:text=What%20is%20Preimplantation%20Genetic%20Diagnosis,known%20to%20cause%20serious%20disease.
U Penn philosopher Jonathan Anomaly combines
1. The *is* of current & especially future genetic innovation with
2. The *ought* growing out of Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence and
3. The economics of positive spillovers.
His result: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z6S4B8S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_63M6FbNCWVSCQ
1. The *is* of current & especially future genetic innovation with
2. The *ought* growing out of Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence and
3. The economics of positive spillovers.
His result: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z6S4B8S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_63M6FbNCWVSCQ
FD: Anomaly and I coauthored a paper on related issues this year--published in Philosophia.
Free here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-020-00189-3
Free here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-020-00189-3
Anomaly evaluates the social & ethical benefits & risks in various forms of enhancement--he is weighing, not cheerleading.
His Table of Contents shows just which issues he considers--and he's unenthusiastic about some, especially if it looks like a zero-sum or negative-sum game:
His Table of Contents shows just which issues he considers--and he's unenthusiastic about some, especially if it looks like a zero-sum or negative-sum game:
The emphasis throughout--and in our paper, and in the real lived experience of people in modern rich countries--is on *voluntary* choices about future children.
People are making these choices today, routinely, privately--and the range of choice will only grow in coming decades.
People are making these choices today, routinely, privately--and the range of choice will only grow in coming decades.
Future people will have to wrestle with these ever-greater questions of how or whether to shape their future children.
They'll debate and decide these questions, mostly in private.
It is excellent to have an insightful philosopher weighing these important issues.
They'll debate and decide these questions, mostly in private.
It is excellent to have an insightful philosopher weighing these important issues.
As my first tweet in the thread suggests, I think the voluntary moral enhancement question is particularly important and worth your consideration.
We spend--waste?--enormous sums trying to make kids better, kinder, more trustworthy.
That's a sign we care about this goal.
We spend--waste?--enormous sums trying to make kids better, kinder, more trustworthy.
That's a sign we care about this goal.
If--if!--voluntary genetic enhancement makes it possible to boost the probability of a nice kid with even modestly, how should we think about that?
If our best friend asks us for advice on this--right after asking if they should have a boy or a girl--what should we say?
If our best friend asks us for advice on this--right after asking if they should have a boy or a girl--what should we say?
Of course, my colleague @tylercowen has already written about the general issue of voluntarily genetically engineered children.
I think that's Cowen's Second Meta-Law, Tyler Cowen has already contributed to every literature.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/08/welcome-genetic-engineering.html
I think that's Cowen's Second Meta-Law, Tyler Cowen has already contributed to every literature.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/08/welcome-genetic-engineering.html
And Tyler is right--the tragedy of the commons is a risk with genetic enhancement.
People may shape their kids to be better predators, shrewder rent-seekers.
Which makes Anomaly's thoughtful, creative, innovative book so important if we want to prepare for our future.
~fin~
People may shape their kids to be better predators, shrewder rent-seekers.
Which makes Anomaly's thoughtful, creative, innovative book so important if we want to prepare for our future.
~fin~
