4 ms·

>>That experiment [Chinese Crisper babies] on humans was widely decried as misguided. Misguided? No, it’s criminal! It was widely criticized as deeply unethic

>>That experiment [Chinese Crisper babies] on humans was widely decried as misguided. Misguided? No, it’s criminal! It was widely criticized as deeply unethical, unprofessional and irresponsible. The guy was considered a rogue scientist and he was put in jail for many years. So clearly it was not just ‘misguided’.

dyauspitr 1y ago
I think it’s fine. I’m ready for heavily genetically modified humans given they volunteer for it.
- lantry 1y ago
  I think your two statements are contradictory. Babies can't volunteer for anything
  - BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - anonym29 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - timewizard 1y ago
      > subjecting newborn boys It's an elective procedure. No one has made it mandatory. > by giving some disease prevention excuse that is minimally effective at best and bogus at worst. A reported 10x reduction in UTIs does not seem "minimal." > if it’s ethical to dock a dog’s tail or clip its ears because you think it looks better Usually it's done for working dogs to reduce their chance of injury. Even in countries where the practice is fully illegal exceptions are made for working dogs. > But for a newborn? Well, that’s just how we do things. We tend to respect peoples religions. Judaism, Islam and some branches of Christianity require it for males. We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.
      - BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
        Yes, it is not a mandatory procedure. However that misses the point. As an elective procedure made without an immediate and compelling reason, it should be left to the individual to make the decision and no one else. It should not be done routinely and the decision is not to be made casually. Most American parents simply elect to have the procedure done because they consider it “normal” and don’t investigate much further, if it all. As for UTI reduction, I should have framed this differently. There is a reduction, but is that reduction worth it? Tonsillectomies used to be routine, but now they aren’t and are only suggested if there is a chronic problem. Surveys have been conducted and found that an overwhelming number of intact men would not have the procedure done just to have fewer UTI’s. I for one, would rather treat such infections as they arise rather than amputate some tissue just so that I could deal with those uncommon infections less often. >”We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.” It is said that it is less traumatic to do this at birth, but I question this. I suspect people only believe this because babies cannot articulate what is happening to them and none of us are able to remember anything from our infancy. I have no idea what babies “think” but if we agree that this surgery is traumatic and risky, I simply don’t believe one can argue that it is less traumatic and less risky for a human who is only a few days old. A newborn cannot possibly understand and contextualize the intense pain that it is being subjected to, both during the procedure and during the recovery. Whereas an adolescent or an adult opting for this procedure would be informed beforehand, give explicit consent, and be given sufficient anesthesia.
        tsimionescu 1y ago
        > A newborn cannot possibly understand and contextualize the intense pain that it is being subjected to, both during the procedure and during the recovery. While I wouldn't defend infant circumcision in any way, I think the paragraph from you is exactly the point. Babies don't conceptualize pain in the same way children or adults do, it just isn't the same sort of thing. It doesn't necessarily scare them in the same way, and there is no evidence whatsoever that painful experiences are traumatic for infants. And biology seems to align with this, as all infants also naturally suffer quite intense pain for months as their teeth grow. So I don't think the case that inflicting necessary pain on infants rather than doing it later as children or adults is a bad one. Of course, the pain of circumcision is entirely unnecessary (for the vast majority of people, since of course phimosis is a thing that affects some people). But, in principle, for a necessary operation, having it done as an infant is sound medical practice.
  - voidfunc 1y ago
    Parents can volunteer the baby. And babies are easily renewable.
  - imtringued 1y ago
    Engineer them to consent retroactively.
  - dyauspitr 1y ago
    We will have total gene replacement at some point. Or atleast the vast majority of it.
  - JCharante 1y ago
    and yet people with genetic disorders continue to have kids everyday, why is 1 side okay but not the other? Or maybe both are not okay?

dyauspitr 1y ago

I think it’s fine. I’m ready for heavily genetically modified humans given they volunteer for it.

lantry 1y ago
I think your two statements are contradictory. Babies can't volunteer for anything
- BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - anonym29 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - timewizard 1y ago
    > subjecting newborn boys It's an elective procedure. No one has made it mandatory. > by giving some disease prevention excuse that is minimally effective at best and bogus at worst. A reported 10x reduction in UTIs does not seem "minimal." > if it’s ethical to dock a dog’s tail or clip its ears because you think it looks better Usually it's done for working dogs to reduce their chance of injury. Even in countries where the practice is fully illegal exceptions are made for working dogs. > But for a newborn? Well, that’s just how we do things. We tend to respect peoples religions. Judaism, Islam and some branches of Christianity require it for males. We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.
    - BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
      Yes, it is not a mandatory procedure. However that misses the point. As an elective procedure made without an immediate and compelling reason, it should be left to the individual to make the decision and no one else. It should not be done routinely and the decision is not to be made casually. Most American parents simply elect to have the procedure done because they consider it “normal” and don’t investigate much further, if it all. As for UTI reduction, I should have framed this differently. There is a reduction, but is that reduction worth it? Tonsillectomies used to be routine, but now they aren’t and are only suggested if there is a chronic problem. Surveys have been conducted and found that an overwhelming number of intact men would not have the procedure done just to have fewer UTI’s. I for one, would rather treat such infections as they arise rather than amputate some tissue just so that I could deal with those uncommon infections less often. >”We accept the practice for newborns under the logic that it will be less traumatic and less risky than doing it when they come of age later in life.” It is said that it is less traumatic to do this at birth, but I question this. I suspect people only believe this because babies cannot articulate what is happening to them and none of us are able to remember anything from our infancy. I have no idea what babies “think” but if we agree that this surgery is traumatic and risky, I simply don’t believe one can argue that it is less traumatic and less risky for a human who is only a few days old. A newborn cannot possibly understand and contextualize the intense pain that it is being subjected to, both during the procedure and during the recovery. Whereas an adolescent or an adult opting for this procedure would be informed beforehand, give explicit consent, and be given sufficient anesthesia.
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        > A newborn cannot possibly understand and contextualize the intense pain that it is being subjected to, both during the procedure and during the recovery. While I wouldn't defend infant circumcision in any way, I think the paragraph from you is exactly the point. Babies don't conceptualize pain in the same way children or adults do, it just isn't the same sort of thing. It doesn't necessarily scare them in the same way, and there is no evidence whatsoever that painful experiences are traumatic for infants. And biology seems to align with this, as all infants also naturally suffer quite intense pain for months as their teeth grow. So I don't think the case that inflicting necessary pain on infants rather than doing it later as children or adults is a bad one. Of course, the pain of circumcision is entirely unnecessary (for the vast majority of people, since of course phimosis is a thing that affects some people). But, in principle, for a necessary operation, having it done as an infant is sound medical practice.
- voidfunc 1y ago
  Parents can volunteer the baby. And babies are easily renewable.
- imtringued 1y ago
  Engineer them to consent retroactively.
- dyauspitr 1y ago
  We will have total gene replacement at some point. Or atleast the vast majority of it.
- JCharante 1y ago
  and yet people with genetic disorders continue to have kids everyday, why is 1 side okay but not the other? Or maybe both are not okay?