People have an intuitive egalitarian instinct, which has existed as far back as our Hunter gatherer days. They derive value from knocking the top down, despite this action lacking any principled justification.
The leveling down objection should make it clear that inequality is not inherently bad, yet that conclusion contradicts people’s (flawed) moral intuitions.
If it is unethical to handicap the cognitive abilities of those at the top, it should be similarly unethical to deny cognitive enhancements to those who would otherwise reach the top.
I really try to be open-minded and steel manning as much possible, but it really is beyond my comprehension why would someone oppose making your children healthier and smarter. Someone with more money than me should make a study about the type of messaging or branding that makes PGT-P more palatable to normies. Making PGT-P mainstream should be one of humanity's biggest priorities.
Something interesting that came to my mind while reading this article is the following:
Some readers may be familiar with the IQ communication range. This is the idea that if there is a large gap in IQ between two individuals (say, two standard deviations and above), it becomes difficult to form meaningful relationships and communicate effectively. This is specially true for relationships between superiors and subordinates. I can imagine this becoming a problem for parents who cognitively enhance their children. Would you give your child a much higher IQ for the opportunities that it entails if you know it's going to damage your relationship, and that you will be the obvious intellectual inferior of your own child?
Have you read "The Revolutionary Phenotype" by Jean-François Gariépy? It lays out a downside risk of PGT-P, specifically the demotion of humanity to a sort of soulless layer in a new genome (he calls it a quantome). Gariépy's theory is that, with sufficiently widespread usage of PGT-P, this new genome will fundamentally reside within and serve the computers that make the embryo selections, rather than serving humans. I'm just curious whether your pro-PGT-P stance is made with an awareness of Gariépy's theory or not.
People have an intuitive egalitarian instinct, which has existed as far back as our Hunter gatherer days. They derive value from knocking the top down, despite this action lacking any principled justification.
The leveling down objection should make it clear that inequality is not inherently bad, yet that conclusion contradicts people’s (flawed) moral intuitions.
If it is unethical to handicap the cognitive abilities of those at the top, it should be similarly unethical to deny cognitive enhancements to those who would otherwise reach the top.
I really try to be open-minded and steel manning as much possible, but it really is beyond my comprehension why would someone oppose making your children healthier and smarter. Someone with more money than me should make a study about the type of messaging or branding that makes PGT-P more palatable to normies. Making PGT-P mainstream should be one of humanity's biggest priorities.
Something interesting that came to my mind while reading this article is the following:
Some readers may be familiar with the IQ communication range. This is the idea that if there is a large gap in IQ between two individuals (say, two standard deviations and above), it becomes difficult to form meaningful relationships and communicate effectively. This is specially true for relationships between superiors and subordinates. I can imagine this becoming a problem for parents who cognitively enhance their children. Would you give your child a much higher IQ for the opportunities that it entails if you know it's going to damage your relationship, and that you will be the obvious intellectual inferior of your own child?
If you find 1-7 acceptable, would you find human cloning acceptable?
If not, why not?
The main objection to PGT-P is that the science isn’t proven yet rather than the ethical issues.
Have you read "The Revolutionary Phenotype" by Jean-François Gariépy? It lays out a downside risk of PGT-P, specifically the demotion of humanity to a sort of soulless layer in a new genome (he calls it a quantome). Gariépy's theory is that, with sufficiently widespread usage of PGT-P, this new genome will fundamentally reside within and serve the computers that make the embryo selections, rather than serving humans. I'm just curious whether your pro-PGT-P stance is made with an awareness of Gariépy's theory or not.