Bioethics is pretty philosophical. But this seems like a lot more than a hypothetical because it’s dealing with a real illness spread by real ticks and the authors point out it’s “presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks” while presenting an argument we have an obligation to do such a thing.
But this seems like a lot more than a hypothetical because it’s dealing with a real illness spread by real ticks and the authors point out it’s “presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks” while presenting an argument we have an obligation to do such a thing.
Are hypotheticals only things that could not happen? What’s the value of discussing them and their ethics if they are impossible?
I think many people would argue that there is a moral obligation to protect human rights, including the right to food, water and shelter. It’s certainly feasible. Still waiting for that to materialize…
Also, did you read the part where they also said:
The primary obstacle to the permissibility of our recommendation is that lone star ticks can transmit other conditions, which can cause serious harm, including death. Primarily, in addition to tularemia and ehrlichiosis, the lone star tick can transmit diseases that cause mild infections and rashes, which, though rather ordinary and common in the scope of human disease, still count.
Sorry, I missed where scientist are editing ticks to not carry serious and potentially fatal pathogens, breeding them on an industrial scale and releasing them to the wild to out compete populations that do still carry them. Seems pretty hypothetical to me.
Genetic editing of ticks would require ethics approval. Ethics approval is more likely if there are ethicists arguing that we’re morally obliged to do this sort of things. This is step one of the process. Stop being a pedant.
I’ll stop being pedantic when people stop giving me a reason to. The link you posted was full of people misrepresenting the discipline and purpose of the paper. That’s what I was replying to.
If this post was just a link to the paper itself, there would be no misrepresentation.
I don’t see how it was misrepresented. The X post didn’t claim this was being done already and clearly states it was an argument in a bioethics journal. It seems to me the paper’s authors are not just presenting an interesting argument somebody could make but an argument they actually support so I don’t think it would be right to treat it as a purely hypothetical argument.
Bioethics is pretty philosophical. But this seems like a lot more than a hypothetical because it’s dealing with a real illness spread by real ticks and the authors point out it’s “presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks” while presenting an argument we have an obligation to do such a thing.
It is literally philosophy.
Are hypotheticals only things that could not happen? What’s the value of discussing them and their ethics if they are impossible?
I think many people would argue that there is a moral obligation to protect human rights, including the right to food, water and shelter. It’s certainly feasible. Still waiting for that to materialize…
Also, did you read the part where they also said:
…
Sorry, I missed where scientist are editing ticks to not carry serious and potentially fatal pathogens, breeding them on an industrial scale and releasing them to the wild to out compete populations that do still carry them. Seems pretty hypothetical to me.
Don’t worry, the animal exploitation industry is already working on a way to protect their means of deriving wealth from exploiting animals. That’s an actual gene editing research paper, not a philosophical discussion btw.
Genetic editing of ticks would require ethics approval. Ethics approval is more likely if there are ethicists arguing that we’re morally obliged to do this sort of things. This is step one of the process. Stop being a pedant.
I’ll stop being pedantic when people stop giving me a reason to. The link you posted was full of people misrepresenting the discipline and purpose of the paper. That’s what I was replying to.
If this post was just a link to the paper itself, there would be no misrepresentation.
I don’t see how it was misrepresented. The X post didn’t claim this was being done already and clearly states it was an argument in a bioethics journal. It seems to me the paper’s authors are not just presenting an interesting argument somebody could make but an argument they actually support so I don’t think it would be right to treat it as a purely hypothetical argument.