good analysis, but an important addendum: it should not be within anyone's power to deprive you of the ability to use technology to modify yourself or your progeny in whatever way you see fit, so long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else; directly being the key word, here.
---
RT @mechanical_monk
embryo selection discourse is a good opportunity to revisit the concept of relative vs absolute factors of wellbeing:
https://twitter.com/mechanical_monk/status/1439665477249273858
this q is identical to the "is speech violence" one, in that there are people who seek to restrict freedom of speech for reasons of how speech acts can, thru long chains of mediation, cause physical harm. and here too, the correct answer here is that responsibility is laundered.
this means that the more indirect the causal chain between your action and the purported harm, the less responsibility you personally bear for that outcome, as with each hop in the chain, the impact of your causal contribution shrinks; this effect is logarithmic.
we all have some moral responsibility to be good citizens in the world, to include society within our optimization window to some degree; but contrary to what some will tell you, it is not just perfectly ok, but actively necessary, to prioritize optimizing for your own benefit.
it's certainly possible to argue that allowing the rich to give their offspring advantages is unfair and exacerbates inequality, but the fact remains that these actions don't directly harm anyone else, and it is unfair to restrict one's freedom in the name of systemic effects.