Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/july
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
hyperbad
@hyperbad
still don’t know what i think about embryo selection and optimization. randomness and variance are important for a species. genetics have correlates. if link between high IQ and depression is real what good is having a smart kid if he’s dead? extraversion plays more significant role in success, etc
3 replies
2 recasts
12 reactions
hyperbad
@hyperbad
train’s leaving the station here so doesn’t really matter either way but would be nice to have some aspect of life left unalgorthimized
1 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
kbc
@kbc
I’m pro randomness and noise. At a system level it’s a ein. What’s lacking is individual support I’m frequenting the bipolar subreddit to educate myself and the question to have or not to have kids comes up regularly
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
as someone who studied genetics, understand the concern around embryo selection / optimizing being a slippery slope where today's its health and tomorrow it'll be IQ and then it'll be athleticism. choosing an embryo less likely to develop a debilitating or life altering disease isn't the same as engineering the perfect child. parents already make choices about health: prenatal health, avoiding birth complications via surrogacy, etc. most embryo selection and optimization companies simply provide more information to make an informed decision; they provide probabilistic risk scores, not deterministic ones. people who use these companies are not designing children, but lowering the odds of common diseases. if given the option between high risk of depression/suicide or a bit lower IQ, i bet most parents would choose lower IQ. most genetic companies admit their tools can't (and shouldn't) be used for non-medical trait selection. goal for these tools is to reduce suffering, not select perfection imo.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
