How about this then:there is likely a good reason that people who don't do those things are still alive, even if we don't know that reason yet. We need to be incredibly careful to fully understand the changes we are making when attempting to get rid of these diseases, and we are nowhere near the level of understanding required in order to safely make them yet, unless in the case where the person literally would die at birth, or be totally incapable of living a normal life.
OK I'm responding to this first. In your very first sentence we have fundamentally changed this discussion. The question this article poses is 'Should You Edit Your Children's Genes?' And by your own admission there are cases where genetic therapy should be used. So the actual question we are facing is 'When should genetic therapy be used?' Which is a very different debate, and a far more nuanced one. And I'm just as positive that the truth of biology is more nuanced than that. Just as no single gene controls hair color or eye color, I highly doubt that a single switch flips causing both life-destroying schizophrenia and whatever benefits there may be. Which leads to the next point. I agree wholeheartedly that genetics is complex, but we have to start somewhere. There's no foreseeable reason why an expensive, labor intensive and time consuming medical procedure would ever become mandatory. I'm a huge pessimist by and large, but if we get to that point, we have bigger issues than everybodies musculature. I couldn't disagree more vehemently. But we've already agreed that the question at hand is "In what cases do you use genetic therapy? " or if you wanted to be cruel about it "In what cases do you NOT use genetic therapy? "Things like schizophrenia run in families, ... ...I'm positive that in order to get rid of the disease, you have to get rid of the benefits that the genes that cause that disease also lead to.
The problem is that genetics is complex... ..... but there is a good reason that people who don't do those things are still alive, even if we don't know that reason yet.
We need to keep that attitude, the idea that all bad things are good, and good things bad, when it comes to human biology and traits.
Firstly, I do not believe the conversation has changed context. Answering "You should sometimes use gene editing" is a valid answer to the original question. I made it clear from my first post that there are specific times gene editing should be used, and that there are many times that it should not. When people answer "yes" to a question like the article, it automatically implies "yes, always", which is not something I am willing to say. That's the thing, a single gene probably controls not only things with Schizophrenia, but also changes areas of the brain to make someone more creative, or to make them more observant. While these genes can be a predictor for schizophrenia, those who do not develop the illness due to some reason, such as environmental, epigenetic, or other factors, can greatly benefit directly from having the genes that cause the disease. This isn't necessarily true, but it's very much a possibility. I don't get where you are coming from when talking about the problems when "an expensive intensive, and time consuming procedure becomes mandatory". I was assuming moral choice, if we should morally choose to edit genes. As for mandating or not mandating it, people should always be free to choose, as individuals, what to do.I highly doubt that a single switch flips causing both life-destroying schizophrenia and whatever benefits there may be.
Ok that's a fair point, and one that I agree with. I think we also both would agree with the statement 'You should sometimes NOT use gene editing' without further qualifier. Here's the issue as I see it. There is a population of people, a LARGE population of people that are opposed to ANY AND ALL modifications to the human genome. This same population is also largely ignorant of the realities of genetic drift/flow and natural selection causing genomic change. Those people are unquestionably wrong. You and I both agree that there are cases in which genetic modification is the morally correct thing for a parent to pursue (Tay-Sachs, HTI, things like that) and that there are cases in which it is morally questionable to pursue. (Changing someones sexual orientation, as an example) Can we have this debate again once we have gotten rid of Tay-Sachs, HTI, and a few other diseases?Answering "You should sometimes use gene editing" is a valid answer to the original question.
The problem is that "getting rid" of diseases like this may well have consequences down the line, ones we do not understand, and will not be aware of until they occur. The only way I would support the "eradication" of these diseases is if that happened naturally through editing the genes only when it is known for sure that the child is going to have it, not as a preemptive measure to end some people's genetic lines because it has a higher chance of that disease occurring.Can we have this debate again once we have gotten rid of Tay-Sachs, HTI, and a few other diseases?
Why is it impossible for you to conceive of the possibility that there are some variations in the human code that are purely bugs, and which have no latent feature? I totally concede that we need to tread carefully, but we still need to take some steps.