[lemevi]

One of the quoted "transhumanists" is labeling those opposed to CRISPR as "bioconservatives", my first encounter with this word. Let's just keep labeling people and calling them names, this is going to advance the discussion in positive ways I'm sure.

[Karunamon]

Labels are how humans reason about categories of people, behavior, and things, so raging against the way the mind works is pretty futile at best.

Anyways - the label fits. If I want to tinker with my own genes, it is downright regressive to suggest that I don't own my own body enough to do precisely that.

Questions about passing those modifications into the gene pool are a separate from the question from the freedom of a person to do whatever they wish to themselves. I'd be willing to put up money on a bet that we will eventually have restrictive laws against self genetic modification along the same lines as the War On Drugs, and that those laws will not have exceptions for people who are unable to reproduce.

[Retra]

You don't own your body enough to do whatever you want with it. Everything you do comes down to you controlling and manipulating your own body, and every law that exists is a means of restricting your ability to do just that.

If I genetically engineered myself to produce an STD that selectively mutated into a deadly virus when it comes into contact with certain groups of people selected by genetic markers, well... that's not justifiable under the guise of "owning my own body" -- which is a vague concept anyway. I only own it insofar as everyone else allows me to control it. Ownership is negotiated, it is not assumed.

[phkahler]

>> You don't own your body enough to do whatever you want with it. Everything you do comes down to you controlling and manipulating your own body, and every law that exists is a means of restricting your ability to do just that.

Most laws come into play when it involves OTHER people, not just yourself. Laws are to protect people from each other, not themselves.

[Retra]

Laws also protect public resources which you would use if you hurt yourself. For example, emergency rooms. If you hurt yourself, you do hurt others, it's just indirectly. There are plenty of laws for preventing you from hurting yourself. Worker safety. Public health. Motor vehicle safety.

[Karunamon]

Why do these discussions always swing towards reductions to the absurd and otherwise analogies that are more horrible than usual?

Your scenario is not a thing people are actually doing, or will actually do, and in a universe where it was, it's immune to the kind of regulation I was discussing anyways, so it's pointless to talk about.

Everything you do comes down to you controlling and manipulating your own body

We both know what we're discussing here. Stop it.

Who is harmed or even impacted in any way if I, say, make myself immune to malaria? Or give myself red hair or blue eyes? And don't have kids?

[Retra]

No, we don't know what we're discussing here. This is new technology with potentially wide-reaching, unforeseen consequences.

>Who is harmed or even impacted in any way if I, say, make myself immune to malaria? Or give myself red hair or blue eyes? And don't have kids?

When your experiment goes wrong, and you find yourself needing expensive hospital visits that you can't afford, who is going to pay for it?

And what do you mean "immune to regulation?" Is that like a "murder laws can't physically stop murderers, so why make it illegal" kind of thing?

[Karunamon]

who is going to pay for it?

The insurance that everyone in this country is required to have. And I meant "immune to regulation" in the same way that the war on drugs is a complete and total failure at its goals.

[splawn]

This is my first encounter with it as well, but I think its a wonderful label because it accurately describes an attitude towards biotech that I find many people have in a succinct elegant way. I always found calling that group simply "anti-gmo" sort of clunky. What do you find offensive about it?

EDIT: s/strange and nonsensical/clunky/

[lemevi]

People with a shared opinion may have a variety of reasons for why they stand on an issue. By creating a label you make it very easy to dismiss at once the entire group without having to consider any of their arguments because of some personal bias or incorrect idea. Maybe you're less likely consider some new criticism because it came from dirty bioconservative who you're not going to even bother with.

[splawn]

You are correct. My point is that at least its more accurate than the labels and categories I already apply. Idk if removing words from our vocabulary would actually help with bias and other cognitive self-deceptions, its an interesting thought.

[jkoebler]

oh there's all sorts of things you can call people

http://ieet.org/index.php/tpwiki/bioconservative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-progressivism

[kbenson]

You guys need to stop being such cynicists.