Four positions

Bioconservatism says editing is distinct from reproduction and too risky — it commodifies the child, distorts the parent, erodes humility. Right that the site is distinct, that parental authority is bounded, and that pressure towards optimisation can contract at scale. Wrong to collapse every edit into optimisation. Curing a lethal disease is not the same act.

Liberal eugenics says any edit a reasonable future person would endorse is permitted. Right that anticipated consent means something. Wrong to treat expanded options as clean. An edit can widen the surface and contract the depth — selecting a high-functioning configuration that closes the future person’s temperamental room.

Transhumanism says editing is how the operator transcends its biology, and should be accelerated. Right that the biological inheritance is contingent and the operator is extensible. Wrong to turn widening into a direction. More is not wider. Chapter Eight takes this up after the operator exists.

Procedural consent says editing is permitted where the process is adequate. Right that the conditions of the decision matter. Wrong to make process the test. Perfect consent to a narrowing edit is still narrowing. Imperfect consent to a widening one is still widening.

Four positions. The test is a fifth.

This is the short edition of Ø Applications — a summary. Where a step is compressed here, the original carries it in full. The original book (PDF) · This edition (PDF)

The same page on the420code.org: the420code.org/models/applications/06-genetic-engineering/