What would i like to genetically improve, to feel less biologically impaired?
wording not genetic decay (outer judgement), but genetic impairment (inner/personal judgement)! - Both matters: the individuals experience AND the individuals impact on it's envirionment, particularily other sentient beings.
Currently our way of equipping the next generation with the most useful genes for their development and their best possible future is through sexual partner selection - being guided by sexual attraction towards carriers with promising set of genes for potential offspring. But this approach is very error prone, and not at all reliable to ensure healthy gene equipment.
We now have the chance to develop and apply technologies to equip the next generation much more purposefully with the genes they need to have the best chances of a happy and successful lifes. And although the development of the technologies come with a fair amount of risks and experimentation before becoming an actual safe approach, there will be no away around it to ensure flourishing future generations with high rates of well being and abolished suffering for biological sentient beings.
Why might genetic health interventions be crucial?
Most established approaches today to maintain and improve population's well-being are advanced pedagogy, education, welfare with individual and socio-cultural interventions and medical care. But there is a major sustainability issue with these approaches: in populations with lack of selection pressure due to e.g. welfare systems exponential natural genetic diversification takes place. This leads to accumulations of functional impairments, which eventually can’t be compensated for with external factors, such as education and welfare.
Only if we establish pre-conception genetic welfare approaches, can we compassionately counterbalance the pathological and impairing fraction of genetic diversification.
Unfortunately, a common misconception is that genetic diversification and decay takes roughly the same amount of generation cycles as genetic adaptations with ‘gain of function mutations’.
I believe a very understandable reason behind this misconception, as well as a prevalent avoidance of this topic in general, is the fear of re-enactment of horrendous forms of eugenics and genocide on people with disabilities, which happened in Nazi Germany and other parts of the world.
The mindset behind these empathy reducing dehumanisations that led to these crimes are common (unconscious) tendencies of valuing or devaluing gene carriers for the presumable quality of their genes, instead of acknowledging genetic factors as a source of privilege and substrate for suffering or wellbeing.
However, with appropriate educational campaigns and a genetic welfare approach for all sentient beings, we might prevent inhumane and exploitative narratives.
Justified, still, remain the serious concerns for non-human victims of the research. But widely spread concerns for non-human animals and ability to alleviate their suffering might likely only be achieved sustainably through the utilisation of genetic interventions that also address human compassion capacities.
And avoiding or suppressing the topic of genetic diversification processes under conditions with lack of selection pressure can not be an adequate response to the oppression of carriers with impairing genes. We can advocate, instead, for welfare for all sentient beings that utilises gene engineering technologies as much as it utilises classical medical care and social welfare.
discussion on down sides
- Caution should be applied, particularly when it comes to:
- altering balance of agreeability and assertiveness
- normative trait optimisation
- raising of hedonic set point or pain reduction/threshold
- increase in capabilities / ‘productivity’
and reversibility of genetic alterations: