超人类主义是否应该支持基因定制的“设计婴儿”？
Should Transhumanism support genetically tailored "designer babies"?
译文简介
就像有人试图给他们的孩子提供最好的教育，或者是一个高质量的医生。在大多数情况下，我不认为这有什么问题。
正文翻译
Should Transhumanism support genetically tailored "designer babies"?
超人类主义是否应该支持基因定制的“设计婴儿”？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
超人类主义是否应该支持基因定制的“设计婴儿”？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
图
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
Feels similar to someone trying to give their kid the best education, or a quality doctor. I don't really see the problem for the most part.
这就像有人试图给他们的孩子提供最好的教育，或者是一个高质量的医生。在大多数情况下，我不认为这有什么问题。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Hmm, looks like the kid isn't going to have blue eyes, better "fix" that so he does better later in life.
呃，看起来这个孩子不会有蓝眼睛，最好“修复”一下，这样他以后的生活会做得更好？
How does eye color effect someone doing better in life?
眼睛的颜色如何会让一个人生活得更好？
they're talking about discrimination potential I think
我认为他们是在谈论潜在的歧视问题
I suppose thats possible but you're better off fighting discrimination itself rather than fighting technology with the potential to save lives and cure genetic disease and evolve humans to be better.
我想这是有可能的，但你最好是与歧视本身作斗争，而不是与有可能拯救生命、治愈遗传疾病和使人类进化得更好的技术作斗争。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
discrimination is largely waged with technology. you can't battle ideology the same way you can safe guard technology. i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you about the post, but it's important to consider their intersection rather than sugarcoating the role tech plays in oppression
歧视主要是通过技术实现的。你不能在对抗歧视性的意识形态的时候又像这样保卫这种技术。我不同意你这种看法，重要的是要考虑它们（技术和歧视）的交集，而不是粉饰技术在压迫中扮演的角色
Unironically it could be super useful.
Looks are incredibly important in life, and it seems that in general, a nice set of blue eyes can jump a person up a good point or two in attractiveness compared to brown ones.
“眼睛颜色对于生活...”
不讽刺地说，它可能真的非常有用。
外表在生活中非常重要，而且总的来说，一双漂亮的蓝眼睛可以让一个人的吸引力提高一两个百分点。
Why specifically blue. I have my moms hazel eyes and would have prefered my dads green eyes but thats life. Imagine being born green, for all I know I would have wanted the other eye color in that instance.
为什么特别是蓝色？我遗传了我妈妈淡褐色的眼睛，我更喜欢我爸爸的绿眼睛，但这就是生活。想象一下，如果我遗传的是绿色，在这种情况下，我又会想要淡褐色的眼睛了。
I used blue because that was the example used earlier.
Green would work too. Basically any light-coloured eye is generally seen as more attractive (often significantly so) than darker ones.
When my mom was first told about my dad, her friend referred to him as “the guy with the most beautiful [blue] eyes you’ve ever seen” lol. They’re one of the first things people notice, and make a huge difference.
(I did not get his eyes btw lol, I’m salty)
我用蓝色举例是沿袭前面的评论。绿色也是这样。基本上，任何浅色的眼睛一般都被认为比深色的眼睛更有吸引力（通常很明显）。
当我妈妈第一次听说我爸爸时，她的朋友称他是“你见过的最漂亮的蓝眼睛的人”，哈哈。它们是人们首先注意到的事情之一，并产生了巨大的影响。
（顺便说一句，我不觉得他的眼睛有多好看，哈哈，我很酸）
I dont think changing minor things like eye color is that bad but I do see that its possible it could be used for discrimination which is bad
我不认为像改变眼睛的颜色这样的小事情能有多糟，但我确实看到它有可能被用于歧视，这是不好的
Let me tell you what some people thought (and still think) is the perfect form. Blue eyes of course, though as others have noted, light eyes in general have a leg up which is why I used eye color, but I used blue because of this group. Then you have blond hair. Of course they have to be tall. And the nose should be narrow and straight. Finally you want white skin, then you have what the Nazis called the Übermensch. Their vision of the perfect Aryan specimen.
让我告诉你一些人认为（现在仍然这么认为）的人类的完美形式：首相当然是蓝色的眼睛，尽管正如其他人所注意到的，浅的眼睛通常都很吸引人，这就是为什么我把眼睛的颜色也算上，在这里我继续根据前面的评论使用蓝色。然后是金发。当然了，这些人必须要长得很高。鼻子应该很窄，很直。最后你会想要白皮肤，然后，你就成了纳粹口中所谓的“Übermensch（优等人）”。他们对完美的雅利安人的标本。
Transhumanism doesn't support anything. It is simply the definition of a trait and movement. Designer babies would be an example of Transhumanism. You as a Transhumanist decide whether you support such a thing or not.
超人类主义并不支持任何东西。它只是对一种特质和运动的定义。设计师设计的婴儿将是超人类主义的一个例子。作为一个超人类主义者，你可以决定你是否支持这种事情。
There's a lot number of people in this sub who keep assuming they're talking to/about a political party with a formally-defined doctrine accepted across its entire membership instead of umpty dozen different schools of thought often wildly at odds with one another.
在这个帖子里有很多人一直假设他们正在与一个政党交谈/谈论一个政党，好像该政党具有其所有成员都接受的正式定义的学说，而不是经常相互矛盾的许多不同思想流派。
It doesn’t matter how you feel about the topic. It’s inevitable.
If it’s banned then only the ultra wealthy and countries that are pro-eugenics will use it.
If it’s not banned then it will be available to anyone with coin and some of the cheaper advances will trickle into normal fetal care.
不管你对这个话题怎么看法。这都是不可避免的。
如果它被禁止了，那么只有超级富豪和支持优生学的国家才会使用它。
如果它没有被禁止，那么任何有钱人都可以使用它，并且一些更便宜的技术将流入正常的胎儿护理中。
Doubt anyone is talking about banning but I think that regulating the technology would be a good idea in order to avoid abuses of any kind.
好像没有人说要禁止吧，但我认为，为了避免任何形式的滥用，对该技术进行监管将是一个好主意。
As long as it's not paywalled bullshit and we actually get genes that make us better than the average non-genetically modified human being, I support this.
只要这不是个付费的骗局，而且我们真的得到了让我们比一般非转基因人更好的基因，我就支持这个。
The official stance has been a resounding “yes” pretty much since the movement’s conception.
自从该运动（超人类主义）诞生以来，官方的立场就一直是一个响亮的“是”。
OP
Has it? Does this not violate the bodily autonomy and morphogical freedom of the infant?
是吗？这难道不侵犯了婴儿的身体自主权和形态自由吗？
100%, in fact the founder of Transhumanism was a staunch eugenicist.
If we have the technology to prevent disabilities and give people optimal traits; then not making this the default for children in itself violates bodily autonomy, because we would in effect be forcing negative traits onto them.
100%是，事实上，超人类主义的创始人是一个坚定的优生主义者。
如果我们拥有预防残疾的技术，并赋予人们最佳的特质；那么不把这一点作为儿童的默认条件本身就违反了身体自主权，因为我们实际上是在把负面的特质强加给他们。
Who decides what the optimal traits are? Could a couple feel like racism gives you a sub optimal starting point and edit out non-white traits? Could they decide that being male grants manor advantages in sports and edit in the SRY gene? What if the advantages the parents decide are important don’t end up being what the child desires at all?
This is already a problem many parents have trouble coping with but it would be dialed up to eleven because they literally designed their kids for that purpose. “I gave you EVERY genetic trait that would make you a fantastic football star just like I wanted to be how could you want to take up ART of all things you’re wasting your life!”
谁来决定什么是最佳特质？一对夫妇会不会觉得种族主义给了你一个次优的起点而编辑掉非白人的特征？他们会不会认为男性在运动方面有优势而编辑SRY基因？如果父母认为重要的优势最终并不是孩子所希望的，那怎么办？
这已经是许多父母难以应对的问题，现在会更加极端，因为他们实际上会为了某个目设计他们的孩子。"我给了你所有可以使你成为一个梦幻般的足球明星的遗传特征，就像我当初想成为的那样，你怎么可以想要去学艺术，你在浪费你的生命！"
OP
Not really, if the technology exists to fix genetic breaks and conditions, then it is up to the individual if they want them when they are a legal adult.
“100%是，事实上，超人类主义的创始人是一个坚定的优生主义者。”
并非如此，如果存在修复遗传缺陷和条件的技术，那么可以等到当他们成为合法成年人时，再让他们决定他们是否想要这些遗传特征。
Why should a child be forced to suffer a genetic disease for 18 years? I don’t agree that curing diseases “takes away bodily autonomy” or morphological freedom for that matter. A person who is suffering less is more free.
为什么一个孩子要被迫忍受18年的遗传疾病？我不同意治愈疾病是"剥夺了身体的自主权"或形态自由的说法。一个不用受那么多苦的人更自由。
OP
I used to think the same way until I spoke with people in the disabled community. The view point you and I used to espouse erases the lived experiences of those people, experiences which can provide benefits of perspective to the collective.
Keep in mind that morphological freedom will also include individuals who may wish to become what is currently culturally considered to be "disabled" for their own reasons.
我在和残疾人社区里的人交谈过之前也是这么想的。你和我曾经拥护的观点都抹杀了这些人的生活经历，这些经历可以为社会提供一些有益的视角。
请记住，形态自由也将包括那些可能出于自身原因希望成为目前在文化上被认为是“残疾人”的人。
Bullshit lol. The only disabled people who genuinely don't want to be rid of their disability are mentally ill. If that weren't the case their wouldn't be multi-billion dollar industries to come up with replacement limbs, eyes, nerves, etc. There isn't an industry of devices and procedures to intentionally make people disabled, because the market for such a procedure would be so low that it isn't even worth doing.
Further more, this "morphological freedom" you keep espousing isn't something that applies to children when the alternative is obxtively inferior. We don't allow children the right to deny themselves shots and vaccines if their parents want them to get them. Hell, most public schools in the United States REQUIRE immunization shots to enroll.
胡说八道。唯一真正不想摆脱自己残疾的残疾人是精神病患者。如果不是这样的话，就不会有价值数十亿美元的替代四肢、眼睛、神经等的产业了。相反，不存在一个生产故意让人们致残的设备或程序的产业，因为这种产业的市场价值很低，根本不值得去做。
此外，当其他选择在客观上是更差的时候，这种你一直拥护的“形态自由”并不适用于儿童。我们不允许孩子们拒绝接种疫苗，如果他们的父母想让他们接种疫苗的话。更别说美国的大多数公立学校都需要免疫接种才能注册。
另一方面，我们可以有把握地认为，大多数人都想要他们可能能拥有的最好的身体。这种假设将赋予人们修改婴儿的DNA来改善它的权利。同样是这种假设，也让医生有义务（不仅仅是权利）为刚刚进入急诊室的无意识的病人做手术，因为如果不做手术，他们就会失去生命/四肢/生活质量，即使当时医生并不知道这个人的偏好是什么。我们可以假设一个有理智的人都希望有最好的生活质量，我们在为人做决定时一直都是以这个假设为前提的。假装为了自己的利益而改变婴儿的DNA是一些新奇的、从未见过的违法行为是天真的。这只是我们正在做的事情的自然演变。
Not every disability can be accommodated for by installing wheelchair ramps and other accommodations. Not all disabled people can have a sufficient quality of life while remaining disabled. Some disabilities are genuinely awful to live with, like Prader-Willi. Some are degenerative. There are even disabilities shorten a child’s lifespan so much that the child dies before they’re ever old enough consent to having their disability removed. Or, if someone has a severe cognitive disability, they may never be capable of truly consenting to a cure, but that doesn’t mean they consented to having the disability in the first place.
If you would make exceptions for any of those, the question becomes where do you draw the line? Do you only get rid of life threatening disabilities? Do you only get rid of ones that would ruin the child’s quality of life? How much would quality of life need to be effected to justify preventing the disability? How do you even predict what the quality of life would be? You don’t always know how severe the disability will be. You don’t know whether the person will have a good enough support network to cope with the disability. And what if the parents aren’t able to care for a disabled child, financially or emotionally? Do they just have to give up on having kids?
并不是所有的残疾都可以通过安装轮椅坡道和其他住宿设施来适应。并不是所有的残疾人在保持残疾的同时都能有足够的生活质量。有些残疾人的生活真的很可怕，比如普瑞德-威利。有些是退化性的。甚至有的残疾会大大缩短孩子的寿命，以至于孩子没能捱到可以同意消除残疾之前就去世了。或者，如果一个人有严重的认知障碍，他们可能永远无法真正同意治疗，但这并不意味着他们一开始就同意有残疾。
如果你对其中任何一个残疾设置例外，那么问题就变成了你在哪里划界线？你是对危及生命的残疾设置例外？还是只去除那些会破坏孩子生活质量的东西？需要在多大程度上影响了生活质量才能证明预防残疾是合理的？你甚至要如何去量化生活质量？你并不总是知道残疾会有多严重。你不知道此人是否有足够好的支持系统来应对残疾。如果父母无法在经济上或情感上照顾残疾儿童怎么办？他们就必须放弃生孩子吗？
I used to think the same way until I spoke with people in the disabled community. The view point you and I used to espouse erases the lived experiences of those people, experiences which can provide benefits of perspective to the collective.
Blindness was undoubtedly a part of Hellen Keller’s identity, but if she could have been born with perfect sight and kept it her whole life, that’s an undeniable moral good.
Keep in mind that morphological freedom will also include individuals who may wish to become what is currently culturally considered to be "disabled" for their own reasons.
Individuals who are already disabled have the bodily autonomy to reject treatment. They may be used to the status quo. There are two people alive today who still choose to use an iron lung. That is no reason to subject NEW human beings to polio. Curing a baby’s disease takes away nothing from them. They never had a status quo.
“在我与残疾人社区的人交谈之前，我曾经以同样的方式思考。你我曾经拥护的观点抹杀了那些人的生活经历，这些经历可以为社会提供一些有益的视角。”
失明无疑是海伦凯勒身份的一部分，但如果她生来就有完美的视力并终生保持视力，那无疑在道德上是对的。
“请记住，形态自由还包括可能出于自身原因希望成为目前在文化上被认为是“残疾人”的人。”
已经残疾的人有拒绝治疗的身体自主权。他们可能习惯于现状。时至今日仍有两个人选择使用铁肺。但这不是让新生儿感染小儿麻痹症的理由。治愈婴儿的疾病并不会从他们身上带走任何东西。因为他们从未有过“现状”。
Yes, this is historic fact. It is also (to my knowledge) not compatible with the modern values of Transhumanism and individual choice and free will.
“100%，事实上，超人类主义的创始人是一位坚定的优生主义者。”
是的，这是一个历史事实。（据我所知）这也与现代的超人类主义、个人选择和自由意志的价值观不相容。
Most Transhumanists agree that Morphological Freedom is important. But theoretically if we have the ability to give newborns optimal traits but they can’t change them later on, we would still be obligated to give them these traits because it’s much more likely to help them later on. It’s like how if you see a person dying, it’s moral to attempt to resuscitate them, even if they wanted to die.
Transhumanist ideas of Morphological Freedom are based on advancement of technology to grant people the ability to change their traits. In this framing, the Transhumanist answer would be to advance medical technology to allow people to change their traits later, but give them the best possible traits as default.
Why should we pick the best traits as default?What I am touching up on is an issue in Transhumanism; the societal technological arms race.
大多数超人类主义者都同意形态自由很重要。但从理论上讲，如果我们有能力给新生儿最佳的特征，但他们以后不能改变它们，那我们仍然有义务给他们这些特征，因为这更有可能在以后帮助他们。这就像如果你看到一个人快死了，试图救活他是符合道德的，即使他其实想死。
超人类主义的形态自由思想是基于技术的进步，以赋予人们改变自己特征的能力。在这个框架中，超人类主义的回答是推进医疗技术，让人们可以在以后改变他们的特征，但默认要给他们最好的特征。
Same applies to genetics. If everyone else adopts the best traits, people who don’t adopt those traits will become the new disabled as the societal baseline for disability shifts.
为什么我们应该默认选择最好的特征？我要谈的是超人类主义的一个问题；社会技术军备竞赛。
每当开发出一种新的改变社会的技术时，人们就会大量采用它，这使它成为了新的基准。人们可以拒绝这项技术，但这会使他们与其他人相比处于劣势，尽管他们本身没有改变。例如，与 30 年前没有这些技能的人相比，今天没有计算机技能的人会被视为严重削弱。
这同样适用于遗传学。如果其他人都采用了最好的特质，那么不具备这些特质的人将成为新的残疾人，因为残疾的社会基线正在发生变化。
OP
Exactly my point of why I am against designer babies. People will naturally homogenise their designed children in accordance with social morays and trends of the time. This will inevitably erode biodiversity and lead to a species that will stagnate.
这就是我为什么反对设计婴儿。人们会根据社会的困境和当时的趋势，自然地将他们设计的孩子同质化。这将不可避免地侵蚀生物多样性，并导致一个物种将停滞不前。
The designer baby debate is a major one in society as a whole, yet alone Transhumanism. But most Transhumanists default to supporting them.
-Designer babies being modified by social standards of the time aren’t as big of an issue as people believe. Very few people would actively choose their kid to be born a certain race for example. At worst, people in developing countries might opt for their children to have fairer skin.
-Most people are talking about eliminating disabilities and giving the best possible helpful traits like high IQ and athleticism. Aesthetic modifications are fringe cases.
-Biodiversity isn’t as much of an issue either; we aren’t plants. The genetic diversity is still very much there, we are just making minor tweaks to the genetic code to encourage the expression of optimal traits. If we need genetic diversity; we can also edit the genes of future embryos to fix the problem.
关于“设计婴儿”的辩论是需要整个社会一起讨论的问题，而不仅仅是在超人类主义范围内。但大多数超人类主义者是默认支持的。
-根据当时的社会标准来改变设计婴儿并不像人们认为的那么大问题。例如，很少有人会积极地选择他们的孩子出生在一个特定的种族。在最坏的情况下，发展中国家的人们可能会选择让他们的孩子的皮肤更白。
-大多数人都在谈论消除残疾，并给予最好的有帮助的特征，比如高智商和运动能力。审美上的改变是很边缘的案例。
-生物多样性也不是一个大问题；我们不是植物。遗传多样性仍然很大，我们只是对遗传密码做了微小的调整，以鼓励最佳性状的表现。如果我们需要遗传多样性；我们还可以编辑未来胚胎的基因来解决这个问题。
OP
I don't agree it is the default position of most Transhumanists, quite the opposite I believe but this is the reason for the poll. To settle that notion with evidence.
我不同意这是大多数超人类主义者的默认立场，我相信恰恰相反，但这就是我进行这次民意调查的原因。证据来解决这个问题。
Well as of right now, 68% of Transhumanists say yes to some degree. Not all Transhumanists believe in designer babies, but it really does come with the territory.
目前，68%的超人类主义者在某种程度上投了赞成票。并不是所有的超人类主义者都相信设计师设计的婴儿，但它确实伴随着这个（超人类主义）领域。
doing your best to ensure kids aren't born with disabilities is good. only making kids with certain features (e.g: blond hair blue eyes) is really bad.
尽最大努力确保孩子不是天生残疾是件好事。只让孩子具有某些特征（例如：金发蓝眼睛）真的很糟糕。
I think it should be regulated but not banned. If we let gen mod go unregulated then we will have a sort of ‘Brave New World’ society but if we ban them then you end up with the same problem as drugs: black market. IMHO, it should be used to destroy aging, diseases and, in the future, muscular and bone degeneration from space travel.
Cognitive and intelligence enhancements (both genetically and cybernetically) should be available for everyone in order to avoid some folks from dominating over others.
我认为它应该受到监管而不是被禁止。如果我们让基因模块不受监管，那么我们将拥有一种“美丽新世界”里的社会，但如果我们禁止它们，那么你最终会遇到与毒品相同的问题：黑市。依我之见，它应该用于消除衰老、疾病，以及未来太空旅行引起的肌肉和骨骼退化。
每个人都应该获得认知和智力增强，以避免某些人支配他人。
I would actually more closely compare it to abortions. Everyone will try it, only the rich will have access to the safe and effective stuff though.
实际上，我更愿意将其与堕胎进行比较。每个人都会尝试，但只有富人才能获得安全有效的东西。
I would say only to prevent sickness that prevents the new human from functioning(heavy autism. Down syndrome) and to prevent sickness later in life(anti-cancer. Anti-aging)
From the moment you start changing personality. Skin color. Eye color you get into realy dangerous areas
我想说的只将其用于防止阻止新人功能正常运转的疾病(严重的自闭症。唐氏综合症)，并防止以后的疾病(抗癌。抗衰老）
从你开始改变个性、皮肤颜色、眼睛的颜色的那一刻起，你会进入真正危险的区域
I was born with autism, wish I hadn't
我生来就患有自闭症，真希望我没有
Other than fixing genetic diseases, no. They should wait until they are adults
除了修复遗传性疾病外，不支持。应该等到他们成年后再进行。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The answer is (like nearly always) a product of the circumstances. Should Transhumanists support the genetical (and therefore biological) enhancement of humans (longer lifespan, fewer illnesses, higher muscle power, higher cognitive abilities, etc) in general? In my opinion: Yes. But only if it would be accessible for all humans equally. If the enhancement is dependant on wealth, region of birth or ethnicity then the answer should be 'No'. Because in that case the only real possible outcome for this would be a genetically fixated quasi aristocracy, that would create an unclimbable border between them and the rest of humanity, with them on top of all humans.
答案（几乎总是如此）是环境的产物。超人类主义者是否应该总体上支持人类的遗传（以及生物学）上的增强（更长的寿命、更少的疾病、更强的肌肉力量、更高的认知能力等）？在我看来：是的。但前提是所有人都能平等地使用它。如果增强取决于财富、出生地区或种族，那么答案应该是“否”。因为在那种情况下，唯一真正可能的结果将是产生一个基因固定的准贵族，这将在他们和其他人类之间创造一个不可逾越的边界，他们凌驾于所有人类之上。