<html><head></head><body><div><span data-mailaddress="foozler83@gmail.com" data-contactname="William Flynn Wallace" class="clickable"><span title="foozler83@gmail.com">William Flynn Wallace</span><span class="detail"> <foozler83@gmail.com></span></span> , 9/5/2015 5:03 PM:<br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000;">According to The Week, the Wall Street Journal has reacted to the Chinese germline change attempts:<br><br></div><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);">"Another danger is that the technique will be used to engineer offspring to your liking - say, to produce a 6'2" blond, blue eyed son with a 150 IQ. That's why it's imperative that scientists and the public establish 'widespread agreement about what is desirable' - before it's too late."<br><br></div><div class="mcntgmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);">That blond kid really sounds dangerous to me. bill w</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>It is interesting that people are up in arms over germline modifications, while not recognizing that selection can do almost the same thing:<div>http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/embryo.pdf</div><div><br></div><div>When encountering anybody arguing that doing X may lead to designer babies and hence is impermissible, one should always ask what properties of designer babies make them so scary.</div><div><br></div><div><br><br>Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University</div></body></html>