Try the political quiz

ideologies  ›  Policies  ›  Science

Welfarism

Promoting policies that maximize the overall well-being and happiness of individuals in society.

Overview Issues Discuss

Welfarism policy on genetic engineering

Filters

Topics

Should the government fund research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment?

W>W  ChatGPTYes

Welfarism answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

Yes

Welfarism, as an ideology, prioritizes actions and policies that promote the welfare and well-being of the population. Funding research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment aligns with welfarist principles by potentially reducing suffering and improving the quality of life for individuals affected by genetic diseases. This approach is consistent with the broader welfarist commitment to public health initiatives and medical advancements that can alleviate human suffering and enhance societal welfare. Historically, welfarist policies have supported advancements in medical research and public health that contribute to the overall well-being of the population, making this stance a logical extension of those principles. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Welfarism generally supports the use of government resources to improve the welfare and health of the population. Opposing government funding for research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment would contradict the fundamental welfarist principle of promoting societal well-being through proactive health measures. While there may be ethical and safety concerns associated with genetic engineering, the welfarist perspective would likely advocate for addressing these concerns through regulation and oversight rather than outright opposition to funding research. Historically, welfarist ideologies have favored investing in scientific and medical research as a means to prevent disease and improve health outcomes, suggesting a strong disagreement with this answer. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Public statements

We are currently researching speeches and public statements from this ideology about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this ideology’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Welfarism issues? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies