2 ms·
I see that sentence as a preempt defense against the ultra conservatives that would otherwise attack it. If we where to discuss those alternatives, then it beco
by calgoo 3y ago
I see that sentence as a preempt defense against the ultra conservatives that would otherwise attack it. If we where to discuss those alternatives, then it becomes an enormous political battle. By stating it as a "save the children" they are making it harder for anyone to object, which to me as a parent of twins who where born premature (not this early, but where still in incubators for 1 week) this could be fantastic news for some if it works.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoI think it's fantastic news too. I'm at an age where know 20 or 30 women who've been through horrendous, mentally and physically injurious experiences chasing fertility. Obviously natural birth is the gold-standard, but this research looks like good medicine that, in limited contexts, will save lives (of babies and mothers). Yet I am dismayed to read so many negative, borderline paranoid comments. And to hear the glib remarks of researchers and their PR spokespeople caught in the corporate power dance. We have such a deep problem with ethics in technology. I think it is bound to the epoch, and arises mainly in the era of massive power inequality, monopoly, poor education and massively distorted communications. As a result, there's general scientific hubris in the air, and the descent of the West into corporate crypto-fascism is making wonderful scientific advances only look threatening (robots, AI, genetics...). These are Frankensteinian times. Now the first thing we think about when a brilliant new technology emerges is "how will the rich, powerful and malevolent misuse this to further enslave people?" That can't be healthy, but unfortunately it's become a necessary scepticism. Scientists need to (wo)man up and learn to talk about this stuff.