It sucks that GP’s comment is flagged dead… it’s an opinion a lot of people seem to disagree with but IMO it’s not against the site’s guidelines or anything. It could be an interesting conversation if folks are willing to debate in a curious way.

My personal take is that it’s a moral imperative for humans to eventually edit obviously-bad disorders out of the gene pool going forward, through CRISPR-style editing or just selecting sperm/eggs to exclude the known bad genes. We have to come up with a good definition of “disorder” that people can be happy with, but I don’t think it’s an impossible task to do so.

I think it’s a moral imperative precisely because we’re so good at medical intervention that we’re able to keep people with a variety of conditions and disorders alive and even procreating, when “naturally” they wouldn’t have been able to do so without advanced medicine. Because of this, such disorders become more and more common in the gene pool because they’re no longer being effectively selected against.

We ought to prevent the human race from being utterly dependent on advanced medicine for survival, is my point. And IMO the way to do that, is to make sure that if we’re using advanced medicine to allow people with a genetic disorder to live a healthy life and procreate, we ought to do the gene editing necessary to make sure the disorder itself is not passed on to the next generation. (Basically address the “root cause” as well as the symptoms.)

>It sucks that GP’s comment is flagged dead…

Why is "flagged" considered a super downvote? I flag spam, and that's pretty much it.