Louise Perry vs Mary Harrington on the ethics of designer babies | SpectatorTV
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- Louise Perry and Mary Harrington join Mary Wakefield to debate genetic engineering and the quiet return of eugenics. They discuss the ethics of biotech that allows you to change the characteristics of your children, and ask whether it's inevitable that this technology enters all of our lives.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 John Lewis/Waitrose voucher
www.spectator.co.uk/tvoffer
// FREE PODCASTS FROM THE SPECTATOR
Hear more from The Spectator's journalists on their podcasts, covering everything from the politics of the UK, US and China, to religion, literature, lifestyle and more.
www.spectator.co.uk/podcasts/
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
/ thespectatormagazine
By the way, technology has done nothing to eliminate Downs Syndrome other than diagnosiing the problem only to kill the child prior to birth.
Thus, it has actually been quite horrendous for some of the most wonderful human beings one can ever meet.
We have a long way to go. Push forward
Looking at some of the recent and current leaders of the world the chances of us making informed and sensible decisions of how humans make use of advancing technology are close to zero.
a bad trait in one context can be what is needed in another (eg stubbornness)
Love both Mary and Louise ❤ gonna enjoy this!
It would be a good idea to provide a link directly to the article which prompted the discussion. Apologies if there was one and I missed it.
Two of my favorite women, both brilliant, articulate, and circumspect. Thank you ❤
Two of my favourite female speakers/thinkers at the moment. Always means I’m hear to listen.
As a carrier of genetic defects I can say very honestly that I would have them gone in a second if I could. But would I stop there I wonder if I were able to take some of the inconvenient traits away also…🤔
I’m glad these conversations are being had
Polygenic screening is NOT “treating diseases at a genetic level.” It’s more like a bunch of potential children being lined up and placed in order of desirability, with the losing kids on the end… unselected for team “happy family.”
You’re telling a potential child of your own-“You show a likelihood of being broken later in life. You don’t make the cut, kiddo.”
It’s NOT deletion of a disease for the sake of a person you accept; it’s deletion of a potentially diseased person whom you refuse to accept. It’s nihilism masquerading as empathy: to look at a potential person and decide, “Nope, your life isn’t worth living-I won’t inflict existence on you because it will be too much suffering. Best to snuff it out now.” Isn’t that what antinatalists think? That existence isn’t worth the “price” (the suffering) of admission?
It’s one thing for the female body to naturally screen for abnormalities and trigger a miscarriage (that’s extremely common), but it’s really different to consciously choose who to discard. If you already have multiple living children, just imagine lining them up and sorting them according to “fitness” while they watch you do it.
Wouldn’t your kids come to realize later that the first born actually IS the favorite? The youngest kid will always be known as the “leftovers.” Talk about a set up for sibling rivalry and family pathology. “Mom and Dad wanted ME the most!”
Having kids should be about love and hospitality to “the little surprising stranger” who shows up your womb because you and your spouse love each other. Parenthood shouldn’t be about building your “dream team” or avoiding all surprises and sufferings.
I’m not sure this new thing should be called a “family” anymore (didn’t Robert Frost say that home is the place where they HAVE to take you in?). This household of the eugenic line-up will need a new name other than “family/home” if it ever actually becomes a thing, because the fundamental dynamic of hospitality will have been replaced by consumer control and the purchase of “products.”
Both of these ladies are wonderful, but I’m with Mary on this one.
Amen!
Your "lining up your children" analogy is very unconvincing, although perhaps that's because I don't consider embryos to be people?
But your point about the psychology of birth order, after embryo screening, is interesting.
In practice the difference in 'desirability' between number 1 and, say, number 5 may be very low.
It may be that some couples prefer to 'play with the ordering'. For example, they may decide that the older they get, the less effective they'd be at handling any problems their children have, so save number 1 until last.
Other couples might want to pick the number of children they're likely to want, in advance, and then randomise the order.
Most couples would probably happily commit to keeping it permanently a secret, whether they did or did not do anything along the above lines. I guess this would just become the societal norm.
There are various mitigations available. But it's definitely something to think about.
Totally disagree. By the same logic, every month that you don't conceive a child, it is as if you are killing that child that never was.
@@anomietoponymie2140 What’s “lost” in a period is an UNfertilized egg.
What’s lost in a miscarriage is a fertilized egg (embryo), but it’s lost through no choice of your own.
What’s lost in polygenic screening (and commonly in IVF “leftovers”) are embryos which were both intentionally fertilized AND intentionally discarded. One can see this as morally problematic without having to call an embryo a person. A fertilized egg is at least a “potential person” distinct from its parents; an unfertilized egg is not.
The fact of fertilization and the degree of intentional selection make polygenic screening totally different from a period. I wasn’t equating those things.
Human life has become ‘crude’. Everything has a negative side as well as the positive, we just want the positive!!
Maybe we have no choice other than to take the bad with the good.
All sorts of horrible frightfulness.
Darwin’s son, Leonard was chairman of the Eugenics society from 1911-1928.
I wonder what would have happened if all eugenics were voluntary.
@@skylinefever Trouble is if it was voluntary it would involve other people, legislation, committees, institutions and then it would be promoted. The question of whether it was moral would then be entirely a private concern. In Canada Maid is advised and people, especially the young, the old or the infirm are prone to suggestion.
@@vonroretz3307 The USA then does the opposite, and anyone who wants to shuffle off the mortal coil early will be
1. Arrested
2. Hospitalized
3. Billed for their own hospital imprisonment.
This is why I joke about what a mess te system is.
I say free market Futurama phone booths.
If ever I dreamed about my future children, before I had them, my one desire was to have a child with blonde curly hair and brown eyes. This was simply a combination I loved. And that is how my first baby was born, just by chance.
I enjoyed the measured, informed and good humoured discussion. Well done all. More please Speccie.
Yep, inspiring conversation as always ❤ too short though!
Good luck with your pregnancy, Louise!
We are so short sighted that, in our rapacious appetite to always maintain a competitive edge, we grow blind to the downstream consequences of any enhancement. You see this in breeding practices of dogs. We have bred dogs over the centuries into a whole variety of breeds, so as to favor certain traits and eliminate others. The result of this genetic selection are a host of unintended health consequences to the animal, as seen in certain purebred dogs that have more issues with things like marcel degeneration, hip dysplasia, etc. than their mixed breed counterparts.
I fear the same thing will happen with human genetic selection. We may be successful in selecting for a greater average height and average intelligence within the population, but this may trigger other health and cognitive problems that we, at the moment, do not foresee. Would, for example, selecting for height also increase the likelihood for population wide cancer or an increase in caloric consumption leading to food scarcity? Would an increase in intelligence, through genetic selection, also increase the frequency of psychopathy or sociopathy.
I don’t think those who push that agenda want the population to be more intelligent… Because any smart person can foresee the potential disasters ahead, and the losses, and wastes we may never be able to recover from. It’s not in their interest that the population is intelligent enough to ask questions, challenges, speak and potentially oppose. They want brainless drones.
Love these two, could listen to them all day
Oh brave new world…
Heaven help us new world.
The world has too many epsilons breeding like rabbits.
People who are prepared to prenatally "design" their child obviously have a flaw in their character - a flaw that will eventually screw up the child postnatally.
The discussion missed an oppotunity.
Saying you would be happy to screen out severe genetic diseases is easy. The question is what about non-neurotypucal conditions. Would you screen out ADHD? Etc.
@SA-vz7qi As someone who is diagnosed with ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia & Irlen Syndrome & my child with Autism ADHD Dyslexia & Dyspraxia & now knowing about the genetic links, yes I would edit out these genes.
And also, ww would start using it to enhance beauty, eye Color intelligence. Etc.
no gene for adhd 😂
@ tinootnoot2725
If you can't keep up, it is OK to sit out the conversation.
Autism is prevalent with women as well, a lot of us are late diagnosed and present differently than autistc men do due to higher masking. Autistim isn’t a disease, it’s a brain divergence that brings difficulties but also huge benefits in different areas of evolution.
Everyone has something these days.
I remember peter sloterdijk in 1999 who wrote that humanism failed, we should consider changing our hardware
'So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27).
Surely limited levels of screening is a good thing?
Listening to this after the Michael Levin interview on theories of everything....I think we will be suprised about how bioengenering is going to turn out
Its going to take off and become the norm. With mother's becoming older, low birth rates given the choice people will want to select traits and engineer the baby they want. Where it will become the norm first is the question.....I say Japan and china before Europe.
It’s a nightmare.
Eugenics rides again...
Would you prefer Idiocracy?
Traits hmmm, I"m diagnosed with ADHD Dyslexia Dyspraxia & Irlen Syndrome, my child is diagnosed with Autism ADHD Dyslexia & Dyspraxia.I had no idea there was a genetic link with these problems decades ago when pregnant.The choice to edit these genes might be the better option forthe chids sake..
'So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth"' (Genesis 1:27-28).
@@jonathandnicholson The Bible has been rewritten edited & books removed over the centuries by various religions taking their own slant on the Bible.The simplistic response of just putting up this quotation is not useful in a debate over serious genetic defects, illnesses & life limiting diseases that will cause untold pain, suffering & distress to a child born with them.
Try giving birth multiple, multiple times, risking your life each time, women & babies still die in childbirth, suffering inhumane pain, sometimes debilitating birthing injuries, women who suffer post natal depression if untreated can turn into psychosis, these are the Realities of Child Birth, a man will never experience any of this, so spare me your sanctimonious statement.
@@BibiBitesBack Compassion is suffering with.
Also, I believe ''So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth"' (Genesis 1:27-28). If you have a problem with that, well, that is your problem.
If you believe those verses are an inaccurate translation what should the translation be? If you believe that is false what is the Truth?
@@jonathandnicholson The New Testament was studied extensively at the Catholic Covent Girls School I attended, the Old Testament secondary to followers of Christ, the Old Testament is acknowledged to have books removed, differences over translations & interpretations.You are hiding behind & using a passage that no one can categorically say is absolutely the Truth.The reality I put to you on the real risks & effects of childbirth you just chose to ignore, not much compassion shown eh.
If you choose to believe like a child ignorant of medical & scientific facts, that is your choice.I am not atheist but I am not a believer in the Creation Story because it is at odds with our history, DNA & the evolution of the human race.We are here to learn & grow in knowledge that shouldn't be seen as threat to faith or a belief in God...
@@BibiBitesBack Read Saint Thomas Aquinas and tell me if the t'science is the whole of Truth or if science tells us about the material. I believe if science and scripture do not match then one or both are incorrect. Perhaps that you are reading either or both incorrectly.
Truth is the word of God and truth is fact and meaning. Christianity falls or stands on the resurrection not whether the universe in six days with rest on the seventh. Anyway, with rest, the universe was created completely in a complete amount of time. Jordan Peterson said that seven days meant creation did not happen instantaneously. I do not know if Peterson's view is correct, but its possible you are missing the point because Peterson's point does make some sense. What is the saying about Rome? Ah, yes: Rome was not built in a day. Light is an interesting thing for day one. Presence as darkness is absence (in physics). What does that mean? Catholics in the past believed in an earth-centred universe. That does not mean we do not rotate around the sun, but that earth is the moral centre of the universe.
Secondly, I wrote that compassion is suffering with. Jesus Christ on the cross is ultimate compassion because He was suffering the consequences of the Fall. We have put Jesus Christ on that cross, but He gladly did to suffer with us. Aborting someone because of a medical problem is not compassion because you are not suffering with. You would also be ending life for a bad, unjust and wrong reason. God is good. God is just. God is righteous. To will the good (the Biblical good and you can start with creation and existence) of the other as other for their sake is love. Hate is willing evil upon the other (we can start with injustice and injustice is giving that which he does not deserve). Whilst justice is a higher value than life, justice is retributive: for the act of doing the immoral with the intent to do the immoral. What happened to "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do"? When did God the Father, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit say "Forgive them father for they know not what they do, but those with medical problems should be killed off" or anything like? Seems to me the Gospels would contradict that latter message and, more to the point, medical illness is not immoral. Saint Paul wrote: knowledge without love is pointless. Think about: '"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself"' (Ezekiel 18:20) too.
Also, try reading the full Bible, the Vulgate Bible which the Book of Tobit etc was not taken out. I believe that we are to take the Bible as a whole, old and new testament. When did Christianity become a salad bar of choosing x over y rather than taking x and y.
lol I did not have louise veering towards eugenicist on my bingo card today
Still, we fail to discuss the root of all such terrible diseases. Why do we not have lengthy debates over what we eat , why we do not exercise enough, why there is so much stress. And especially how we can right such wrongs.
Because none of that can be monetised. Transhumanism is coming and it's going to be making some people a lot of money
@mihaelatudor I have never drank alcohol, smoked or taken drugs, I only put on 1stone in pregnancy, I exercised through my pregnancy & ate a Mediterranean diet.I was the picture of health & my baby was a perfect weight & very, very healthy.However they inherited the genes for Autism ADHD Dyslexia & Dyspraxia & where diagnosed in childhood, Bi Polar Disorder 3 generations of my family including 2 of my siblings are diagnosed with this, I fortunately am not, but my now adult child has a diagnosis of MDD.Unfortunely thus far we cannot control what genes we might inherit.
I was thinking of really deep research into why, all of a sudden, such genetic defects appear. I mean, in my living collective memory (covering 120 years if I include my parents and grandparents), it only very recently that we are seeing an epidemic of genetic disorders !?!?
@@mihaelatudor2417 The primary reason most likely lack of knowledge, understanding & so diagnosis.If I look over the same time period in my family I see the Dyslexia in my Father & his family, them me, then my child, Autism clearly in 1 of my siblings, Bi Polar disorder in several individuals over several generations but formal diagnosis only occurred in my generation.My mother, her mother & several of her mother's sisters & even female cousins where diagnoised with Alzheimers.I firmly believed for decades their must be a genetic link, just recently the findings that show such a genetic form of Alzheimers have been confirmed.Seems we can never run away from our DNA, well not so far anyway!!
@@mihaelatudor2417 One reason for an increase in genetic disorders is explained from 10:04 to 10:57.
Mustafa Monde agrees
medical intervention before or after birth? screening makes more sense but the profitable medical industry needs patients
Life is pain, princess! Anyone who tells you otherwise is...
Oh yeah, the transhumanists literally are
24:17 - The Wrath of Khan.
Nature used to have mechanisms to naturally select for genetically stonger humans. But we screwed all that up 😂
Doesn't it select by who survives and has offspring.
@@freebornjohn2687 Large scale infectious disease outbreaks
The industrial revolution and it's consequences.
Thankfully!
Nature is horrible. Civilization is much more ... civilized.
Make people less disagreeable
genetic modification is probably going to be done on the sperm rather than ovum side. Looking at who is into body modification and would have the money that is mostly the blue collar middle class.
Interesting comment. I wonder if anything like this would show up in actual stats.
@@anomietoponymie2140 the sperm stuff is from actual science. I did a quick update, it has been tested on fish, pigs and rabbits. It is supposed to be easier than ovum but started later.
The social bit is me guessing from life experience. I just have encountered a lot of young blue collar guys on good incomes that buy grey market stuff (not technically illegal but not properly tested either).
China is way ahead
The choice to fight nature over embracing or harnessing nature may seem fruitless.. as though bound by too many constraints and restrictions.. to ever be successful
Mary seems a bit unhinged in here
At the 8:31 mark the interviewer states that eliminating Down syndrome is “arguably good for the child”.
To put it crudely, this is like saying, “it is arguably good for the child to never have been born” or “it is arguably good for the child to be dead”. This is so offensive.
I don’t know if the interviewer actually believes the point, or is just stating it as part of the discussion. But perhaps someone who does believe this, will read my comment and give second thought to what they believe.
Firstly, I don’t think most people would ever do it - but imagine saying to a living, breathing person’s face “you would have been better of to never have been born”.
Secondly, I would encourage you to get to know people who have Down syndrome. (Which is horrifically getting harder to do in some European countries). I promises you will come to see their humanity and that they have a right (and desire) to live, just like everyone else.
I say this as someone who knows and loves multiple people (my cousin and my own child) who have Down syndrome. They both are a joy and love good, fulfilling lives.
Your special needs kids are wonderful to you. What do you to to make life good for those who hate every single day of the special needs life?
The Spectator does realise there is an historic General Election taking place in just 19 days, don't they?
Every election is "historic" apparently. How many times before we realize that it's never historic?
An investment in artificial uteruses would be interesting. This would free women from the burden of motherhood, something they have constantly demanded through feminism.
Could freeing "women from the burden of motherhood", by outsourcing the "burden" to artificial uteruses, lead to children who will lack something psychologically and physically, as a result of the absence of the maternal bond that comes with the growth of a child in the womb? Many times the trials that we seek to unburden ourselves from are necessary for our development and the development of others.
@@alphacausejust because mech wombs exist may not mean people will automatically use them.
@@skylinefever Never underestimate people's willingness to take the easy way out when achieving an objective. Just look at how many people, when given the choice to walk to a location that is a mere half a mile away, would choose to take a car, when given the option, verses doing the more healthy thing and simply walking that short distance.
@@alphacause I don't disagree that a large number will take it. Good thing there will be a certain number of people so motivated by the upsides of natural kids, they'll take it.