Ethicality: Eradicating Homosexuality through Genetic Engineering

[PartySick 160,214]

8 minutes ago, justhislife said:

Melanin does help prevent from sun damage.

So does sun screen which is arguably easier to use than genetic manipulation 

It's also easier to just inform people about why being queer is fine than to erase it from our genetic code.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,395]

6 minutes ago, Lynyrd Skynyrd said:

you can isolate all the ones who are mostly responsible and homossexuality it would be keeping

you would need isolate ALL the ones, which is IMPOSSIBLE unless you're God

Yes homosexuality would still exist. I acknowledged this when I said there are other factors as well. This is about reducing the chances, not eliminating them. I agree that even if we learned all the current genes that contribute to homosexuality, there are so many chances of mutation that it would be hard to keep up with all variations of genes unless we indexed all existing genes and then were able to keep up with all people that are born after. But the thing is, this is not entirely impossible. We have mapped the entire human genome though the Human Genome Project, and such things are becoming more and more standard. The first genome was sequenced for $2,700,000,000, and today it can be done for $1,400, just demonstrating the speed at which we are researching gene technology.

[God Control 2,181]

It’s unethical because instead of tailoring what somebody will be born as to feel more accepted and advantaged, we need to make the world a better place for everyone.

If some form of technology can be done after birth, as a form of conversion therapy that a consenting adult would subject themselves to, that would be fine, because it’s their choice, provided it has no mental or physical side effects.

Also, I’m no scientist but isn’t homosexuality a combination of nature vs. nurture and many factors from both contributing to it? How many of those are you gonna tamper with to “fix” or “decrease” homosexuality and what the hell for? 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, justhislife said:

Yes homosexuality would still exist. I acknowledged this when I said there are other factors as well. This is about reducing the chances, not eliminating them. I agree that even if we learned all the current genes that contribute to homosexuality, there are so many chances of mutation that it would be hard to keep up with all variations of genes unless we indexed all existing genes and then were able to keep up with all people that are born after. But the thing is, this is not entirely impossible. We have mapped the entire human genome though the Human Genome Project, and such things are becoming more and more standard. The first genome was sequenced for $2,700,000,000, and today it can be done for $1,400, just demonstrating the speed at which we are researching gene technology.

so this is how heterosexuality will end, FINALLY

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,395]

12 minutes ago, PartySick said:

So does sun screen which is arguably easier to use than genetic manipulation 

It's also easier to just inform people about why being queer is fine than to erase it from our genetic code.

At the moment sun screen is easier to use than engineering. But what about in the long run? When it's possible to choose a baby like creating a Sim? And what about the environmental consequences of producing sun screen when such things could be solved by making a baby darker? Also, based on current rates of inter-racial procreation (and a desire to avoid a shallow gene pool), at some point people will be around the same skin color. 

7 minutes ago, God Control said:

It’s unethical because instead of tailoring what somebody will be born as to feel more accepted and advantaged, we need to make the world a better place for everyone.

If some form of technology can be done after birth, as a form of conversion therapy that a consenting adult would subject themselves to, that would be fine, because it’s their choice, provided it has no mental or physical side effects.

Also, I’m no scientist but isn’t homosexuality a combination of nature vs. nurture and many factors from both contributing to it? How many of those are you gonna tamper with to “fix” or “decrease” homosexuality and what the hell for? 

I agree that such editing should not be done in order to appease haters and exclusivity should be promoted. What if you had the chance to make your child heterosexual and it later grew up to be hurt because they can't biologically reproduce with the person they love? I do not ask to cause distress, but to really create a consideration for such things. And yes, homosexuality is not exclusively biological or else we would see higher rates of homosexuality within twins (though there would have to be a control for people who misreport because they're not ready to come out and rates would probably never reach 100% due to misreporting etc.).

[God Control 2,181]

2 minutes ago, justhislife said:

At the moment sun screen is easier to use than engineering. But what about in the long run? When it's possible to choose a baby like creating a Sim? And what about the environmental consequences of producing sun screen when such things could be solved by making a baby darker? Also, based on current rates of inter-racial procreation (and a desire to avoid a shallow gene pool), at some point people will be around the same skin color. 

I agree that such editing should not be done in order to appease haters and exclusivity should be promoted. What if you had the chance to make your child heterosexual and it later grew up to be hurt because they can't biologically reproduce with the person they love? I do not ask to cause distress, but to really create a consideration for such things. And yes, homosexuality is not exclusively biological or else we would see higher rates of homosexuality within twins (though there would have to be a control for people who misreport because they're not ready to come out and rates would probably never reach 100% due to misreporting etc.).

This seems more like a case of one person having to live with who they are and with what life gives them. Like this is why I prefer if it was something we do as adults, because what parent is gonna choose for their son or daughter to be LGBT? Let’s face it, no matter how accepting they are, no one’s ever gonna choose that and even if they did, whatever hardship they face s LGBT, the child is gonna blame it on you for choosing them to be of an oppressed minority.

So I really don’t know, to be honest. It’s hard to picture a world where you can choose who you are like The Sims. It would be a very interesting world to choose everything else too, but for someone to make that choice on your behalf, so early into your life, I’m not sure how to picture it and how either side is gonna deal with it.

[ImTired 3,955]

Wait. Isn't the newest research pointing to it being caused by hormone levels in utero? 

And who cares how I got it? I'm here. Im queer. And y'all heteros could only wish. 

At a certain point, just love all yourself. 

 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,395]

4 minutes ago, God Control said:

This seems more like a case of one person having to live with who they are and with what life gives them. Like this is why I prefer if it was something we do as adults, because what parent is gonna choose for their son or daughter to be LGBT? Let’s face it, no matter how accepting they are, no one’s ever gonna choose that and even if they did, whatever hardship they face s LGBT, the child is gonna blame it on you for choosing them to be of an oppressed minority.

So I really don’t know, to be honest. It’s hard to picture a world where you can choose who you are like The Sims. It would be a very interesting world to choose everything else too, but for someone to make that choice on your behalf, so early into your life, I’m not sure how to picture it and how either side is gonna deal with it.

It's definitely a hard thing to imagine, but I can see it becoming a reality with the power of computing we're achieving at this point. I don't know anybody that would choose for someone to be a minority, simply because of the stigma for those things. Though being a homosexual serves a purpose when other minorities get sh!t for how they look. It depends on if you want to see it as leaving nature intact or creating an "easier" life for your child. 

[God Control 2,181]

1 minute ago, justhislife said:

It's definitely a hard thing to imagine, but I can see it becoming a reality with the power of computing we're achieving at this point. I don't know anybody that would choose for someone to be a minority, simply because of the stigma for those things. Though being a homosexual serves a purpose when other minorities get sh!t for how they look. It depends on if you want to see it as leaving nature intact or creating an "easier" life for your child. 

I can totally see it happening, indeed. I mean technology has evolved greatly from the 90s till now with computers once were a huge case and big ass monitor and keyboard and so many wires of different outlet types to a far superior computer in everyone’s pocket connected the the source of all knowledge and people’s data.

It’s definitely a topic worth discussing but you’d need to imagine that whole world first and then see how the reactions would be. Would you change race too? Would you change gender identity and sex? Would you change intelligence? I guess all of that can be doable at one point and god knows what people will change and to what extent.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,395]

3 minutes ago, ImTired said:

Wait. Isn't the newest research pointing to it being caused by hormone levels in utero? 

And who cares how I got it? I'm here. Im queer. And y'all heteros could only wish. 

At a certain point, just love all yourself. 

 

Yes, there's research on atypical androgen levels. But researchers believe it's a combination of both and other things. Loving yourself is super important, but this is more about the offspring rather than the self.

 

Is making someone heterosexual depriving them of something as homosexuals? Is it just us being scared that such a distinct trait of ours is being erased? And is that selfish?

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,395]

4 minutes ago, God Control said:

I can totally see it happening, indeed. I mean technology has evolved greatly from the 90s till now with computers once were a huge case and big ass monitor and keyboard and so many wires of different outlet types to a far superior computer in everyone’s pocket connected the the source of all knowledge and people’s data.

It’s definitely a topic worth discussing but you’d need to imagine that whole world first and then see how the reactions would be. Would you change race too? Would you change gender identity and sex? Would you change intelligence? I guess all of that can be doable at one point and god knows what people will change and to what extent.

Depending on racism I would maybe change my hypothetical baby's race. Melanin helps protect from sun damage, without having to manufacture and purchase sun screen. Gender is an interesting one because gender roles will likely persist longer than any other form of discrimination in my opinion. There's an argument to be had about intelligence due to intelligent people seeing the dark holes in the world. It's gonna be really hard to establish a line on what is and isn't ethical. Changing race changes predisposition to certain illnesses (unless they can be manipulated as well). Sex changes reproductive rates. Ridding of disease would increase life expectancy, but it also alters mortality rates. Such manipulations affect ecosystems drastically. A user said that homosexuality might slow down our collapse. So would any alterations at all be ethical on a large scale?

[Galactic Mess 1,393]

If we do that to erase gays, what stops us from erasing blacks or arabs, too? It's all prejudice, after all. 

Genetic engineering should only be used on humans to remove obvious genetic diseases. And even then, it should be heavily regulated. If we start messing with this thing too much, soon there will be no limits. We could eventually split mankind in a genetically improved rich minority (smarter, stronger, healthier) and a poor screwed up majority. The social divide this would cause is unthinkable. Who knows to what extent a person can be planned? If humans can be jerks even without races, what to say if we eventually created a more advanced race? We'd be basically asking for genocide.

[ImTired 3,955]

10 minutes ago, justhislife said:

Yes, there's research on atypical androgen levels. But researchers believe it's a combination of both and other things. Loving yourself is super important, but this is more about the offspring rather than the self.

 

Is making someone heterosexual depriving them of something as homosexuals? Is it just us being scared that such a distinct trait of ours is being erased? And is that selfish?

We aren't even a generation removed from homosexuality being wholly illegal. Those are questions we can't even begin to answer honestly. Too much bias and prejudice, not enough rationality. Ask again in a few hundred years. Hopefully by then we'll have rung out the last drops of racism and can move on to gender and sexuality. And get around to eradicating religion eventually. That one will definitely take muuuuuuuch longer. 

[PartySick 160,214]

34 minutes ago, justhislife said:

At the moment sun screen is easier to use than engineering. But what about in the long run?

You can justify just about anything with a series of "what about" but realistically, sun screen and just letting gays be gays will never become more complicated than genetically manipulating a fetus

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

So, first of all, we need to be clear on one thing: there is no gay gene (or genes). While, as the OP mentions, it is thought that genetics do play a role in determining sexual orientation, it is not as simple as most seem to think. Most of the genes that seem to be associated with homosexuality also have other non-sexual roles (we call these genes pleiotropic, meaning they influence two or more unrelated traits). For instance, a number of genes associated with homosexuality are also integral to determining Rh blood group (and, actually, queer people are more likely to be Rh negative than heterosexual people). In fact, so many of the genes related to homosexuality seem to influence other functions too, so engineering them would be unethical, simply because it would likely affect other functions that are not meant to be targeted. This is, actually, one of the biggest arguments against genetic engineering: we simply are nowhere near knowing enough about the genome to know exactly what the results would be. 

That notwithstanding, given that homosexuality has no fully ascertained genetic origin, even through gene editing it would be impossible to eradicate homosexuality, since some queer people simply don't have any of the common genetic markers that have been discovered. Regardless, a lot of these genetic regulations happen at the transcriptome level, and CRISPR can't help you there anyway. Also, engineering through CRISPR is an arduous process and it will never be effective enough to warrant widespread use (simply because of the molecular mechanisms involved).

Also, to your point about STIs, uhm... sis. I'm just gonna point out that gay women have a much lower incidence of STIs compared to both straight men and women, so. Maybe we should engineer the population so that everyone is a gay woman.