I agree but you purposely left out the fact that embryo selection means checking tens of embryos and selecting the best, terminating the rest. This essentially is abortion which all Christian disagree with.
"One technology that may soon offer a golden opportunity to address pressing health challenges, while also enhancing human capabilities, is gene editing"
Well, which one is it? The persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the entire column turns on this. Healing deficiencies begins with recognizing them as such. These are the easier arguments, particularly where people share a common conception of health, or at the very least, of injury.
"Enhancement," though, requires challenging existing notions of health, and this is where the quotation of Christian sources here is either shallow or misguided. No one has ever doubted that we are to ameliorate suffering. The more important question is whether we are supposed to change our fundamental notions of "excelling" through a piecemeal accumulation of mechanical tinkerings, aimed at alterations of traits in insolation.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if people learned a damn thing from the covid vax debacle. Evidently not.
I was speaking of the vax, not covid itself. But in neither case did I insinuate that the matter was about gene enhancement.
But it does have everything to do with manipulating one thing in isolation and hoping for a positive result. It has everything to do with the philosophical error of supposing nature is mechanism alone. It has everything to do with the arrogance of believing that mastering one chemical pathway is to solve a problem.
We could go on, but the point is that Christianity is not about kindness. There is a first commandment, which is the antidote to all of this.
The question is what sort of research should be supported and advanced. This is a matter of public concern, and for all such things, the farty old liberal "leave it to individual choice" formulae are sorely inadequate.
The same sort of lesson holds in the big and the small: just as the immune system is not a sum of antibody reactions, or the body is not a sum of genes; nor is the public good a sum of individual choices.
Everything is my business. As it is yours. Putting a fence around something intellectually and declaring it not open to judgment: this is pretty much what leftists do with the racism charge. In the end, libertarians are little different.
I fear there is too much potential for the misuse of genetic engineering. There is a more conservative, albeit much slower, method for improving our genetic fitness. It is one described in Robert A. Heinlein's novel "Beyond This Horizon". It involves choosing the individual chromosomes that are combined from two parents, selecting the most favorable natural combinations out of more than a quarter-million possibilities, which would gradually remove undesirable genes. It does require in-vitro fertilization, but this is a decades-old technique that does not seem to have any undesirable outcomes. In his novel it was a completely voluntary method. but an almost universal practice.
I don't think that we should be messing with DNA. Let's consider what happened recently when scientists tried to cure covid by using a MRNA gene therapy. First they put the payload heavy spikes into the bloodstream, which lead to people dying. Then there are the side effects of messing with the genes. Heart problems, lung problems, thick blood clots that clog the veins, and brain death.
It's one thing to know how DNA strands are laid out, it's another to kill human beings when the gene's that are edited bring about death.
No. Not Orthodox Christian nor Catholic. Pope Pius condemned transhumanist ideas. Orthodox Christianity would be against this by tradition.
Voluntary eugenics is better than gene editing, and it’s condemned also. The principles which condemn voluntary eugenics, through sterilization, condemn gene editing more.
I'm an Atheist, but I'm terrified of what people can do with that knowledge. I'm chronically ill as well, so I understand that the advancement of science is good, especially for us with chronic pain that have no treatment...but still, I'm terrified of that knowledge in the wrong hands.
no gene editing is evolutionary transhumanism which is anti freedom and christainity and the science like vaccines is not there and does not work. it will be connected with eugenics.
"no gene editing is evolutionary transhumanism which is anti freedom and christainity and the science like vaccines is not there and does not work. it will be connected with eugenics."
It only makes sense if you consider this material world as part of the final evolution. I personally think that the last step is metaphysical and can't be achieved by any material being, so even though genetic enhancement can help us understand this world our true goal is beyond physics.
I agree but you purposely left out the fact that embryo selection means checking tens of embryos and selecting the best, terminating the rest. This essentially is abortion which all Christian disagree with.
"This essentially is abortion, which all Christians disagree with."
Are you the one writing the rules for what Christians believe?
No I am just quoting the bible
"No I am just quoting the bible"
Tell us where in the bible it says that embryo selection is abortion.
If Christians or anyone else does not want to use embryo selection for any reason, that is fine; it should be voluntary only.
"One technology that may soon offer a golden opportunity to address pressing health challenges, while also enhancing human capabilities, is gene editing"
Well, which one is it? The persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the entire column turns on this. Healing deficiencies begins with recognizing them as such. These are the easier arguments, particularly where people share a common conception of health, or at the very least, of injury.
"Enhancement," though, requires challenging existing notions of health, and this is where the quotation of Christian sources here is either shallow or misguided. No one has ever doubted that we are to ameliorate suffering. The more important question is whether we are supposed to change our fundamental notions of "excelling" through a piecemeal accumulation of mechanical tinkerings, aimed at alterations of traits in insolation.
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if people learned a damn thing from the covid vax debacle. Evidently not.
"Honestly, sometimes I wonder if people learned a damn thing from the covid vax debacle. Evidently not."
Covid has nothing to do with gene enhancement.
I was speaking of the vax, not covid itself. But in neither case did I insinuate that the matter was about gene enhancement.
But it does have everything to do with manipulating one thing in isolation and hoping for a positive result. It has everything to do with the philosophical error of supposing nature is mechanism alone. It has everything to do with the arrogance of believing that mastering one chemical pathway is to solve a problem.
We could go on, but the point is that Christianity is not about kindness. There is a first commandment, which is the antidote to all of this.
Gene enhancement should be voluntary. It is not a religious matter; it is no one's business what others do with their genetics.
The question is what sort of research should be supported and advanced. This is a matter of public concern, and for all such things, the farty old liberal "leave it to individual choice" formulae are sorely inadequate.
The same sort of lesson holds in the big and the small: just as the immune system is not a sum of antibody reactions, or the body is not a sum of genes; nor is the public good a sum of individual choices.
"The question is what sort of research should be supported and advanced."
It is none of your business what others decide for themselves as long as no government money is involved.
"This is a matter of public concern, and for all such things, the farty old liberal "leave it to individual choice" formulae are sorely inadequate."
No, it isn't...mind your own business.
Everything is my business. As it is yours. Putting a fence around something intellectually and declaring it not open to judgment: this is pretty much what leftists do with the racism charge. In the end, libertarians are little different.
I fear there is too much potential for the misuse of genetic engineering. There is a more conservative, albeit much slower, method for improving our genetic fitness. It is one described in Robert A. Heinlein's novel "Beyond This Horizon". It involves choosing the individual chromosomes that are combined from two parents, selecting the most favorable natural combinations out of more than a quarter-million possibilities, which would gradually remove undesirable genes. It does require in-vitro fertilization, but this is a decades-old technique that does not seem to have any undesirable outcomes. In his novel it was a completely voluntary method. but an almost universal practice.
I don't think that we should be messing with DNA. Let's consider what happened recently when scientists tried to cure covid by using a MRNA gene therapy. First they put the payload heavy spikes into the bloodstream, which lead to people dying. Then there are the side effects of messing with the genes. Heart problems, lung problems, thick blood clots that clog the veins, and brain death.
It's one thing to know how DNA strands are laid out, it's another to kill human beings when the gene's that are edited bring about death.
No. Not Orthodox Christian nor Catholic. Pope Pius condemned transhumanist ideas. Orthodox Christianity would be against this by tradition.
Voluntary eugenics is better than gene editing, and it’s condemned also. The principles which condemn voluntary eugenics, through sterilization, condemn gene editing more.
I'm an Atheist, but I'm terrified of what people can do with that knowledge. I'm chronically ill as well, so I understand that the advancement of science is good, especially for us with chronic pain that have no treatment...but still, I'm terrified of that knowledge in the wrong hands.
Gene enhancement should be voluntary.
Of course! I agree, but I also worry we might go too far with our advancements in Frankenstein style, you know?
Since it should be voluntary, it is no one else's business.
That's like saying "It's no one else's business if I build a nuclear bomb".
"That's like saying "It's no one else's business if I build a nuclear bomb"."
Stupid analogy.
How so? Genetic changes don't stay isolated.
no gene editing is evolutionary transhumanism which is anti freedom and christainity and the science like vaccines is not there and does not work. it will be connected with eugenics.
"no gene editing is evolutionary transhumanism which is anti freedom and christainity and the science like vaccines is not there and does not work. it will be connected with eugenics."
Gene enhancement would be voluntary.
It only makes sense if you consider this material world as part of the final evolution. I personally think that the last step is metaphysical and can't be achieved by any material being, so even though genetic enhancement can help us understand this world our true goal is beyond physics.
Gene enhancement should be voluntary, so it is no one else's business what others choose.