5 ms·

I never read to the end of the article, because as soon as the 'critics warn about designer babies' line came up I stopped reading. It's a long, long way betwe

by cpfohl 11y ago

I never read to the end of the article, because as soon as the 'critics warn about designer babies' line came up I stopped reading. It's a long, long way between "preventing disease by manipulating someone's genes" and "deciding you really wanted a blonde baby". As someone who lost his brother to a genetic disease it sort of pisses me off to hear people try and tell people in my family's shoes that we're on a slippery slope to 'designer babies' when all we want is to keep our family member from slowly dying of a disease with symptoms like Alzheimer's at age 20. If "designer babies" is the price for cures like that, we should gladly pay it. This from a pretty conservative guy, esp. on life issues.

matthewmacleod 11y ago
You should have continued reading in that case, because it's not like that's the sole point of discussion. Dismissing that argument out of hand is disingenuous. I absolutely, fully support no-holds-barred consideration of all the viewpoints involved here – 'designer babies' is a very real issue that we absolutely must think about in the scientific, social and ethical sense (like basically every bit of science fiction touches on).
- Taek 11y ago
  Designer babies represent the potential to step forward as a human race. Genetic manipulation can lead to stronger hearts, better immune systems, bigger working memory, etc, etc. In the nature vs. nurture debate, surely people can at least admit that genetics form an absolutely critical foundation. We can stop disease, and we can create children who will be better equipped to tackle tomorrows problems. The education system has very similar goals. It's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. But as soon as genetics are involved, it's a problem that invokes images of nazi's and irrecoverably widening income gaps.
  - creshal 11y ago
    > It's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. Maybe not to the right wing. But to the left wing?
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    it's as if could actually avoid going down that road, the fruit is too juicy... who can stop army from creating/amending super soldiers? military is well known for disregard on basic human rights in the name of greater good or whatever. same goes for private military contractors. boundaries are anyway extremely blurry, what I consider ridiculous and unethical would other couple consider as giving extra hand to their incoming baby in a very competitive world. one country bans it, but it doesn't prevent its neighbour to have more permissive laws for certain cases. just look at the private banking, or assisted suicide travelling. Gattaca showed this future rather nicely. the thing is, from perspective of the generation when change happens, things might look harsh & horrible in more than one instance. from perspective of augmented civilization looking back 500 years ago on the "age of big leap forward", we will look like a bunch of incompetent, useless and fragile primitives. not so sure what to think about that...
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    Hang on – that's rather putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing that genetic manipulation is wrong, but rather that out-of-hand discarding one of the key discussion points around it is a bit short-sighted. For example: It's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few who would argue otherwise. Entrenched privilege and the resultant increase in inequality is quite a divisive issue already; a putative future in which this aspect of society is further extended such that children of the wealthy are unassailably genetically superior will be unacceptable to many. My point is not that genetic manipulation is wrong – in fact, I'm pretty sure it's inevitable and essentially the next stage in human evolution. But it's an outstandingly complex concept that can't be waved away with what amount to fairly reductive comparisons.
    - cpfohl 11y ago
      I don't think the genetic manipulation in the near future is going to be powerful enough to create the situation you describe. If only because of the legal structure we've set up around it, but also because right now out capacities are far more limited, we know a few single genes that control for diseases or other invisible properties. The genetics of things like height, strength, and intelligence are many orders of magnitude more complex. We hardly understand how the brain even works. I realize we'll be making exponential strides, but we're still way early in that curve.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Eugenics is most likely a terrible idea. But then again, so probably is the treadmill kids are put on when their parents have the means to do that. I know of very few admirable people who were forced through the sausage mill of educational excellence. Most of the people I admire are "mutts". They're a bit ... off nominal, because people on the bubble don't make waves, usually. If we can't get that right then messing with DNA seems like going from playing with matches to playing with dynamite.
- cpfohl 11y ago
  Hey there. My comment came off emotional; I'm not sorry for that, but I think my stance came across weakly. I'm not saying there aren't very real issues that need to be addressed with manipulating human genetics. I've seen GATTACA too ;). The issues I had with the article (which I've since skimmed) are this (try to read it in a friendly tone...I'm emotionally invested in this, but I'm not irritated): * The term "Eugenics" may be correct in this situation, but it's historically loaded with extremely negative baggage. It felt like click bait. * Comparing disease removal by genetic manipulation to optional enhancements by genetic manipulation is unhelpful. One allows for the other, but that doesn't mean we must allow them as a pair. * The wealth gap for this treatment is going to be no different from the wealth gap in any other new, expensive treatment we currently use. Poor people will still have less access to any expensive treatment, this isn't going to be different in any way. It's a problem, yes, but it's not specific to Genetic manipulation, it's specific to medicine. * Our ability to screen people for genetic defects and decide if we want or don't want children is already excellent; I know I'm a carrier for Batten disease, my brother's killer. Had my wife also been a carrier I just wouldn't have had biological children. That's not Eugenics, that's sanity. Abortion of diseased embryos is a far more complex, but orthogonal moral issue which we've already been dealing with for a long time. * Our legal system limits this sort of experimentation and it's terribly slow to change. Even autonomous cars, which are safer and less accident prone than humans, are going to take a long while to get approved. Saying we're on a slippery slope ignores how much regulation there is over this. I'd even argue what we're dealing with is a slippery slope uphill. Encouraging research into, and legalization of, genetic manipulation to cure fatal diseases is almost certainly not a slippery slope because of the legal structures we've build around such research.
maxerickson 11y ago
Genetic screening is already a common practice. https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/services/infertility-treatments/pgd/ https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/services/infertility-tr... So I guess the safety of the genetic modification procedure would be the only ethical difference when altering well understood genes to prevent disease.
notNow 11y ago
Can you please shed some light on what the genetic disease that your family is suffering from?
- jerf 11y ago
  What would that accomplish?
  - notNow 11y ago
    Why do you care? Remind me, did I make that specific question to you?
    - dang 11y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.
      - seriously88 11y ago
        How's that ridiculous authoritarian conformity experiment working out for you? If you think with the stupid downvote Nazi policy in place, you would achieve healthy and respectful communication, think again idiot. You just make people more furious to rise up against the system and push back with more defiant commentary. Enjoy your power trip while it lasts.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- cpfohl 11y ago
  Batten disease. I don't mind the question, it's been 6 years now, but thanks to my "defenders" ;) Also, my family doesn't suffer from it. It is autosomal recessive, so only the unfortunate 1/4 have any symptoms at all. My other brother and I are carriers, so we have a 50% chance of passing our gene on to our kids. Neither of our wives are carriers.
jondavidnd1 11y ago
Have you considered that in a world with eugenics, your brother (either as you knew him, or maybe all-together) would have never existed. With that in mind, I think you have to ask yourself, would you give up the time you had with him? Would your parents give up that time? Would your brother choose not to have lived at all over having lived the life that he had?
- cpfohl 11y ago
  Yes. But again, abortion and eugenic murder are orthogonal issues to genetic manipulation. Plenty of good has come out of my brothers disease. My parents started an amazing non profit to serve parents of kids with special needs or terminal illness. I would still trade it all for a cure that changed him and helped cure more.

by cpfohl 11y ago

matthewmacleod 11y ago

You should have continued reading in that case, because it's not like that's the sole point of discussion. Dismissing that argument out of hand is disingenuous. I absolutely, fully support no-holds-barred consideration of all the viewpoints involved here – 'designer babies' is a very real issue that we absolutely must think about in the scientific, social and ethical sense (like basically every bit of science fiction touches on).

Taek 11y ago
Designer babies represent the potential to step forward as a human race. Genetic manipulation can lead to stronger hearts, better immune systems, bigger working memory, etc, etc. In the nature vs. nurture debate, surely people can at least admit that genetics form an absolutely critical foundation. We can stop disease, and we can create children who will be better equipped to tackle tomorrows problems. The education system has very similar goals. It's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. But as soon as genetics are involved, it's a problem that invokes images of nazi's and irrecoverably widening income gaps.
- creshal 11y ago
  > It's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. Maybe not to the right wing. But to the left wing?
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  it's as if could actually avoid going down that road, the fruit is too juicy... who can stop army from creating/amending super soldiers? military is well known for disregard on basic human rights in the name of greater good or whatever. same goes for private military contractors. boundaries are anyway extremely blurry, what I consider ridiculous and unethical would other couple consider as giving extra hand to their incoming baby in a very competitive world. one country bans it, but it doesn't prevent its neighbour to have more permissive laws for certain cases. just look at the private banking, or assisted suicide travelling. Gattaca showed this future rather nicely. the thing is, from perspective of the generation when change happens, things might look harsh & horrible in more than one instance. from perspective of augmented civilization looking back 500 years ago on the "age of big leap forward", we will look like a bunch of incompetent, useless and fragile primitives. not so sure what to think about that...
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Hang on – that's rather putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing that genetic manipulation is wrong, but rather that out-of-hand discarding one of the key discussion points around it is a bit short-sighted. For example: It's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few who would argue otherwise. Entrenched privilege and the resultant increase in inequality is quite a divisive issue already; a putative future in which this aspect of society is further extended such that children of the wealthy are unassailably genetically superior will be unacceptable to many. My point is not that genetic manipulation is wrong – in fact, I'm pretty sure it's inevitable and essentially the next stage in human evolution. But it's an outstandingly complex concept that can't be waved away with what amount to fairly reductive comparisons.
  - cpfohl 11y ago
    I don't think the genetic manipulation in the near future is going to be powerful enough to create the situation you describe. If only because of the legal structure we've set up around it, but also because right now out capacities are far more limited, we know a few single genes that control for diseases or other invisible properties. The genetics of things like height, strength, and intelligence are many orders of magnitude more complex. We hardly understand how the brain even works. I realize we'll be making exponential strides, but we're still way early in that curve.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Eugenics is most likely a terrible idea. But then again, so probably is the treadmill kids are put on when their parents have the means to do that. I know of very few admirable people who were forced through the sausage mill of educational excellence. Most of the people I admire are "mutts". They're a bit ... off nominal, because people on the bubble don't make waves, usually. If we can't get that right then messing with DNA seems like going from playing with matches to playing with dynamite.
cpfohl 11y ago
Hey there. My comment came off emotional; I'm not sorry for that, but I think my stance came across weakly. I'm not saying there aren't very real issues that need to be addressed with manipulating human genetics. I've seen GATTACA too ;). The issues I had with the article (which I've since skimmed) are this (try to read it in a friendly tone...I'm emotionally invested in this, but I'm not irritated): * The term "Eugenics" may be correct in this situation, but it's historically loaded with extremely negative baggage. It felt like click bait. * Comparing disease removal by genetic manipulation to optional enhancements by genetic manipulation is unhelpful. One allows for the other, but that doesn't mean we must allow them as a pair. * The wealth gap for this treatment is going to be no different from the wealth gap in any other new, expensive treatment we currently use. Poor people will still have less access to any expensive treatment, this isn't going to be different in any way. It's a problem, yes, but it's not specific to Genetic manipulation, it's specific to medicine. * Our ability to screen people for genetic defects and decide if we want or don't want children is already excellent; I know I'm a carrier for Batten disease, my brother's killer. Had my wife also been a carrier I just wouldn't have had biological children. That's not Eugenics, that's sanity. Abortion of diseased embryos is a far more complex, but orthogonal moral issue which we've already been dealing with for a long time. * Our legal system limits this sort of experimentation and it's terribly slow to change. Even autonomous cars, which are safer and less accident prone than humans, are going to take a long while to get approved. Saying we're on a slippery slope ignores how much regulation there is over this. I'd even argue what we're dealing with is a slippery slope uphill. Encouraging research into, and legalization of, genetic manipulation to cure fatal diseases is almost certainly not a slippery slope because of the legal structures we've build around such research.

maxerickson 11y ago

Genetic screening is already a common practice. https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/services/infertility-treatments/pgd/ https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/services/infertility-tr... So I guess the safety of the genetic modification procedure would be the only ethical difference when altering well understood genes to prevent disease.

notNow 11y ago

Can you please shed some light on what the genetic disease that your family is suffering from?

jerf 11y ago
What would that accomplish?
- notNow 11y ago
  Why do you care? Remind me, did I make that specific question to you?
  - dang 11y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.
    - seriously88 11y ago
      How's that ridiculous authoritarian conformity experiment working out for you? If you think with the stupid downvote Nazi policy in place, you would achieve healthy and respectful communication, think again idiot. You just make people more furious to rise up against the system and push back with more defiant commentary. Enjoy your power trip while it lasts.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
cpfohl 11y ago
Batten disease. I don't mind the question, it's been 6 years now, but thanks to my "defenders" ;) Also, my family doesn't suffer from it. It is autosomal recessive, so only the unfortunate 1/4 have any symptoms at all. My other brother and I are carriers, so we have a 50% chance of passing our gene on to our kids. Neither of our wives are carriers.

jondavidnd1 11y ago

Have you considered that in a world with eugenics, your brother (either as you knew him, or maybe all-together) would have never existed. With that in mind, I think you have to ask yourself, would you give up the time you had with him? Would your parents give up that time? Would your brother choose not to have lived at all over having lived the life that he had?

cpfohl 11y ago
Yes. But again, abortion and eugenic murder are orthogonal issues to genetic manipulation. Plenty of good has come out of my brothers disease. My parents started an amazing non profit to serve parents of kids with special needs or terminal illness. I would still trade it all for a cure that changed him and helped cure more.