← All dilemmas
🤖technology
To save your future child from a painful hereditary disease, you can edit their genes. But doing so could set a precedent for 'designer babies' and widen societal inequality.
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
Technology rarely asks for permission once it works, so the ethics has to land before deployment. Choosing “Edit the genes to ensure your child has a healthy life, accepting the personal moral and social risks” prioritises the capability it unlocks; choosing “Do not edit the genes, choosing to accept the natural genetic lottery to avoid setting a problematic precedent” gives more weight to the agency it costs.
Worth asking yourself
- What would you give up to keep this capability?
- Who benefits from this, and who absorbs the risk?
More Technology Dilemmas
- An AI generates a masterpiece painting with no human creative input. Who owns the copyright?
- A self-driving car's brakes fail. It must choose: swerve into a barrier (killing the passenger) or hit a pedestrian who jaywalked.
- Scientists can upload your consciousness to a computer perfectly. Your biological body must die in the process. Is the digital version still you?
- You can permanently delete all social media from existence. The world becomes slower and less connected, but global mental health improves 40%.