I agree that gene editing to reduce suffering is good. I’m not sure “designer babies” is a label that includes those gene edits. Or, if it does, it groups the with too many other gene edits so the good ones are no longer exemplary of the label.
I always imagine it to be fairly gattaca-esque in its intended conclusion. Human work horses of terrifying intellect, stamina, and resilience to breach the barriers our forebears failed to surpass. Though that’s speculation and likely beyond my lifetime.
The name is mostly marketing. You don’t feel involved if it’s an “edited baby.” But designing it, that gets the people going. It’d be near impossible to sell “baby alpha .82 patch 1.” Fortunately for their sales department, an absence of ailments also tends to produce hotter people. Current trajectory, they intend to go after major genetic issues before considering looks. That’s the only effect I expect to see in my lifetime.
I agree that gene editing to reduce suffering is good. I’m not sure “designer babies” is a label that includes those gene edits. Or, if it does, it groups the with too many other gene edits so the good ones are no longer exemplary of the label.
I always imagine it to be fairly gattaca-esque in its intended conclusion. Human work horses of terrifying intellect, stamina, and resilience to breach the barriers our forebears failed to surpass. Though that’s speculation and likely beyond my lifetime.
The name is mostly marketing. You don’t feel involved if it’s an “edited baby.” But designing it, that gets the people going. It’d be near impossible to sell “baby alpha .82 patch 1.” Fortunately for their sales department, an absence of ailments also tends to produce hotter people. Current trajectory, they intend to go after major genetic issues before considering looks. That’s the only effect I expect to see in my lifetime.