 In last week's episode,
we talked about CRISPR gene
editing authenticity,
and in what situation
you would edit the
genes of your children.
Let's see what you had to say.
Scarker writes a really
great and, I think,
thorough comment that we're
gonna sort of take in sections.
We're not gonna to be able
to respond to everything,
but the thing that they
mention that is echoed
in a lot of comments
from last week's video
is that it feels much more
passable to edit your child's
genome, genetic
material, if it's
in the interest of
curing a disease,
and that cosmetic
things less so.
It feels a lot more
unnecessary or risky.
And this is echoed in a
lot of the conversation you
see about this technology
and the way that sort
of the public at
large thinks about it,
that this kind of technology,
things related to it
tend to have a
much wider adoption
or sort of get a
pass when they have
really clear sort of safety and
medical-related applications.
And as soon as we start getting
into the cosmetic stuff,
people are like,
eh, do we really
need to, like, mess with it?
Like, what's the point?
Scarker, though, does make
a really interesting point,
saying that if they make some
cosmetic change to themselves
that is then inherited
by their children,
that's maybe a little bit
more forgivable, because they
haven't done something
to their kids
that they haven't
done to themselves,
and I had never actually
thought about that,
and that, in my mind, too, seems
to make it a little bit more
forgivable.
It's like, you know.
It sort of makes it feel more--
and I know this
is a loaded word--
natural if you're
inheriting it that way.
More significantly,
though, Scarker responds to
and even sort of extends
our stated concern
about who decides what exactly
a disability is, and relates it
specifically to autism, which is
something that we didn't really
have time to talk
about but is, I
think, a huge and important
part of this conversation.
Because from a
certain view, autism
is not like a disability that
needs correcting or erasing.
It's just a kind of diversity.
You know, it is a way that
certain people happen to be,
and it is just simply different
and not any worse than the way
other people happen to be and
provides, I think, a really--
a really important
test case for thinking
through how this
technology is used
and how it is
practically applied,
because we will be able
to, if it is so decided,
essentially reduce the
diversity of the world
by claiming certain things are
pathologies when, in fact, they
are just differences.
And it's, I think,
an encouragement
to be very careful.
And related to this
idea of diversity,
YuKi Mekishiki writes a
really fascinating comment
that extends our
idea of authenticity
to something in Mexico,
which is called--
I wanna make sure
I get it right--
malinchismo.
YuKi explains that malinchismo
is when someone-- and I'm gonna
read this just to make sure
that I get it right-- is when
someone values foreign
culture or a foreign phenotype
over an indigenous one.
And, you know, I
think the idea here
is that there is one
potential use, or, you know,
maybe misuse, of this technology
where if your parents do not
value a more sort of indigenous
phenotype or, you know,
a sort of indigenous
expression of your genes,
that they could
design and select
for more foreign
features or, you know,
a more foreign genetic makeup.
Which is maybe, as
YuKi points out,
another sort of
challenge or facet
to this idea of authenticity.
You know, like how much
is your genetic makeup
and your physical expression
of that genetic make up
an expression of authenticity
as it relates to your--
to your background, and to
your heritage, and, you know,
is there something that is lost
in the potential eventual use
of this technology to, you
know, purposefully homogenize
an entire group of people.
I mean, it seems--
yeah.
I mean, this is, like,
real far down the
what happens when this
technology becomes available
and the cosmetic use
of it is widespread.
But, I mean, better to think
about it now than later.
Alice Pow writes a comment
about how all of this
relates to being
gay and being trans,
and confronts right
upfront the idea
that the existence of a
gay gene or a trans gene
is not an uncontroversial thing.
And I think that
this, before we get
into sort of the main
part of this comment,
is something that is also worth
considering, that, you know,
there are a lot of
people who, I think,
want to boil down the
entirety of human experience
and human existence
to our genes.
You know, like, did you
get the dog lover gene?
And like, that's-- you know,
there are a lot of things that
might describe why someone does
and does not like dogs that
goes far beyond
their genetic makeup.
But that, when you
boil down everything
that makes someone who
they are into their genes,
you get into--
really, you get into
hot water very quickly.
So that being said, in this
situation, like many others,
there is a question
about whether or not
it is responsible for you to
make a decision for your child
before--
you know, based upon what you
would assume they would want.
And the relative or
comparative value
of going through an
experience like transition,
and is that something that
you want to save them from,
or is that something that is an
important part of that identity
or their assumed identity.
And yeah.
I mean, as Alice very,
very clearly says,
there's no easy answer.
Eric, I completely
agree, and I think
that if there's one thing that
I have learned over, and over,
and over again from thinking
through all of this stuff
and reading all the
literature, it's
that, man, authenticity
is just a complete crock,
and it's a thing that
human beings make up
to judge other human beings.
But I think that's maybe
precisely why we should
think it through or consider
it really seriously,
because it might end up
being not what we currently
think it is.
Like you judge someone often
now for not being authentic,
but is there a time where
we will judge people
for being authentic?
And it doesn't seem outside
the realm of possibility.
Nicholas Boudreau comes at
this from a very strongly
biological perspective
saying that, you know,
does gene editing
really even make sense
if the point of having kids is
to pass your genes on to them
and then to have them pass
those genes on to their kids?
And I mean, yeah.
I understand this.
I think that there is probably--
I think now, it's
maybe more related
to the continuation of, like,
the family name and the way
that your family sort of has
the values, your family values,
than it is the strict sort of
evolution-inspired continuation
of the species.
But there, of course, will
be people who strongly
disagree with me on that fact.
But I think that, from
the other perspective,
the way to look at
it is you are going
to pass on the best
version of your genes
and that you're going to
get rid of all of the gunk.
You're gonna, you know,
clean out the closets.
And that's still you.
It's the best version of you.
Insert "Gattaca" scene here.
Joe Alias looks at the
genetic modification question
through the lens
of antinatalism,
which is this idea that it
is perhaps morally troubling
to even have children.
That, you know, human
beings should maybe
just stop having kids
for a little while,
because it's not a good idea.
It causes all kinds of problems.
And Joe makes some
really good points,
but his comment
actually makes me
think about the collision
between these two things.
That if there is a--
if there is a moral imperative
to stop having kids because
of the state of the world,
but there is gene editing
technology, what is
our moral imperative
to use gene editing
technology to assist
in the state of the world?
Like, does it become
a moral imperative
to somehow attempt to create
children that, you know,
don't need to eat
as much food, or who
can survive in some way
in hotter temperatures
because we appear to
really want to ruin
the planet with fossil fuels?
And are these things
that we should
be seriously considering?
That if we are going to continue
having kids, which it looks
like we are, should we
be future-proofing them
in some way as soon as possible?
I had never thought about that
before reading this comment,
and now I'm kind of freaked out.
Dothwile.
Face, all the way, though
I normally am the GM,
so I rarely get
to, you know, like
just focus on one character.
But the ones that I have the
most fun playing as are Faces.
In the episode, we
talk about the sort
of political and social
ramifications of parents
deciding to edit the
genes of their children
so that they are born
without disabilities,
It is a massive,
massive conversation,
well beyond the scope
of the video itself,
and folks in the subreddit
took us up on that invitation
to have a massive conversation,
and it starts with a comment
by hoseja.
So I just want to
point out that this
is a great
conversation with lots
of really good
points being made,
and if you have some
time, it's a great read
to sort of get a feel for
how people feel about us.
