7 ms·
It occurs to me there aren't any; it's just a postmodern habit to treat every new technological possibility as an ethical problem first.
by return0 10y ago
It occurs to me there aren't any; it's just a postmodern habit to treat every new technological possibility as an ethical problem first.
- maxerickson 10y agoRight, no quandary at all created by the possibility that mistakes and misunderstandings might lead to children with severe medical problems. Short, miserable lifetimes of suffering are a high cost for "improving the species", and they are a real possibility if the approach taken is to just try things that seem worth trying.
- rando444 10y agoSimilar risks are taken when two native people from different parts of the world have a baby together.
- maxerickson 10y agoThat's not true. Most genetic disorders are caused by receiving one or more defective copies of a gene. In the case of a single defective gene causing the disorder, it doesn't make a difference what gene the other parent has. In the case where multiple defective copies cause the disorder, the further apart two lineages are, the less likely it becomes that they will each have defective copies of the same gene. There's probably a higher chance of blood type incompatibilities, but that isn't a lifetime genetic disorder for the child, it just needs to be accounted for during the pregnancy.
- rando444 10y agoMy comment was more along the lines of the differences in things like gut microbiomes.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dsr_ 10y agoThat's pretty much the best case scenario for having a kid, actually. Hybrid vigor works in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
- sp332 10y agoBut in this case, that was already the alternative. The parents had four miscarriages and two children die as infants. They probably weren't going to be worse off if the procedure failed.
- int_19h 10y agoLet me give one particularly chilling example. Suppose that it is possible to make genetic alterations that cause 1) rapid aging, and 2) unavoidable self-induced death at some specific age well before the organism becomes old. Now you can make clones of yourself, add these alterations, and harvest them for organs when they die. Since they die naturally by themselves, no murder is committed.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoI'm curious if this would be ruled as murder in any jurisdictions. Reading the U.S. federal definition[1], I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply as long as intent could be proved, but IANAL. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
- DanBC 10y agoWhy would I want to transplant rapidly ageing already old organs into me?
- maxerickson 10y agoI think the idea is rapid maturing (so you can harvest adult organs) and then a variety of specific failures (so you can harvest any type of organ). I also think it isn't a very likely scenario, engineered organs would probably be enabled by the level of knowledge required to accelerate maturation and death and have the advantage of being faster and cheaper. Doctor's have already figured out how to make simple organs like bladders (that group is close to testing engineered livers in animals http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Projects/Human-Liver.htm http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Projects/Human-Live... ).
- ghostly_s 10y agoGuess you're not a big sci-fi reader, huh. The ethical ramifications of designer babies is deeply-mined territory.
- protomyth 10y agoHeck, Sci-Fi in general. Star Trek being the most well know. The Honor Harrington books probably have the page count won in book form with the main baddy being designer babies for conquest and profit. Cauldron of Ghosts has the longest section with the explanation of the Final War.