So if you have this, at a cost of $850k, is it then unethical to have children, knowing that there's a high chance that they'll subsequently have to pay $850k in order to be able to see?
I suppose, more generally, even in the absence of an $850k fix, if you have genetic blindness, is it unethical to have children?
This is what I came to believe too, and it's yet another reason why I believe the highest priority for the society is to stabilize what we have now - as opposed to constantly try to tear everything down in order to win something for one's group.
Looking at the last decades, it's no longer unreasonable to think we might cure things like blindness or deafness, or paralysis, in the next 100 years. But that can only happen if our technological civilization survives uninterrupted. If it spirals out of control and self-destructs, we'll be stuck in a pre-industrial age for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of years, until the Earth replenishes some of the easily accessible high-density energy sources we pretty much entirely mined out.
I suppose, more generally, even in the absence of an $850k fix, if you have genetic blindness, is it unethical to have children?