5 ms·

I think it was here a few years ago that I read a comment saying that sick children will be the Trojan horse for normalizing gene editing of humans, because who

I think it was here a few years ago that I read a comment saying that sick children will be the Trojan horse for normalizing gene editing of humans, because who could say no to sick children, right? Well, guess it's here now, so how long utill the eugenics wars start?

ninetyninenine 1y ago
[flagged]
- psychoslave 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    A baby Hitler gaurantees a future with a grown up Hitler. Killing the baby eliminates that future. There could be other babies that can also grow up to be future Hitlers. So let's say 4 such babies exist. By killing one I eliminated 1/4 for futures with Grown up Hitlers that exist. This whole thread is getting flagged. Likely by an irrational parent who can't even compute natural selection, babe, and Hitler all in a single paragraph.
- mckn1ght 1y ago
  I think part of the problem is that “really good” and “really bad” are not universally accepted norms for any given ethical question. What you’re seeing is your own value system assumptions being checked. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that while a technology has the propensity to be used for evil, it also has positive applications and that the real benefit now outweighs the potential downside in a hypothetical future. Otherwise you will go down a rabbit hole at the bottom of which lies a future where we all just kinda dig in the dirt with our hands until we die because every technological innovation can be used in a variety of ways. Like, it’s silly to me that I can’t bring a 1.5” blade keychain utility knife on a flight, and then they hand me a metal butter knife in first class. I could do way more damage with that. But they allow the butter knife because the utility has shown to far outweigh the potential downside that hasn’t manifested. > I will slaughter a baby if I know for a fact that baby will grow up to be the next Hitler This is one of those things that is easy to say precisely due to the impossibility of it ever actually becoming a real decision you have to make.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    >This is one of those things that is easy to say precisely due to the impossibility of it ever actually becoming a real decision you have to make. It's true. But things like this should be easy to say right? Like we may not be able to act logically. But we should be able to think logically, communicate logically and show that we are aware of what is logical. My post got flagged meaning a lot of people can't separate the two things. So for example I may not be able to kill the baby in reality, but I can at least see how irrational I am. The person who flagged me likely not only can't kill the baby. He has to construct an artificial reality to justify why he can't kill the baby and why his decision must be rational.
    - mckn1ght 1y ago
      I think things like that should be easy to say, if by that you mean censorship. Sure. But talk is cheap. And there are gradations of reality. It would maybe be easier for a 15-25 y.o. to kill a baby they don't know and whose parents/family they don't know, and maybe even easier if they don't speak their language or look like them. Of course, the baby wouldn't be the only one you'd have to kill, most likely. I submit that it would be very very different if you found out that your 4 year old child was going to go on to be the next Hitler. For a "normal" person, I think they would go to the ends of the earth to try to shape them into the kind of person that wouldn't do it. I think very few people would coldly calculate "welp, guess I gotta execute this adorable little child I've grown so attached to" as it looks up at them saying "I love you so much forever, mommy/daddy" with their little doe eyes. (ETA: it also brings up side questions about nature vs nurture and free will) And then consider the lifelong repercussions of the emotional fallout. You can use all the logic in the world to justify the action, but your human brain will still torment you over it. And likely, most of the other human brains that learn about it would torment you as well. --- So, while I think you can say things like that, ie the ability and allowance, I think you should question whether you should. I think saying those kinds of things really doesn't add much to the discussion because I believe it's really just an uninformed platitude that only someone with a lack of life experience would believe. For me this all highlights the fact that meaty ethical questions don't have a simple reductive answer. Which ties back in to the original problem that OP outright states that this is simply and clearly the wrong path to go down. (PS the downvoting/flagging could be due to breaking the guidelines around discussing downvotes and flags, and not actually due to the topical content of the posts, and/or assuming bad faith on the part of other users as such: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
- cooper_ganglia 1y ago
  The anti-eugenics guy just said he would "absolutely" murder a baby...?
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    I would if I can foresee the future. But with eugenics you can't foresee the future. Self artificially selecting for genetic traits doesn't guarantee a good future. There's no gene for recreating Hitler either.
dekhn 1y ago
it's unclear the outcome of this will be eugenics wars. Answering the real question- it's unlikely these techniques will see widespread "recreational" usage any time soon, as they come with a wide range of risks. Further, the scientific community has learned a lot from previous eugenics programs; anything that happens in the future will happen with both social and political regulation. It's ultimately hard to predict- many science fiction writers have speculated about this for some time, and social opinion can change quickly when people see new developments.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  The problem won't be that there will be those who want to have babies with edited genomes, and those who oppose that. It will be that people just don't have children at all.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    I think one reason why people won't have children is the gene-editing and the IVF that is coming. Nothing is left to chance, or to god any more. Having children is now a clinical affair. It's spiritually void.
- morkalork 1y ago
  That's part of why the trojan horse works so well, what is an unacceptable risk for someone healthy can easily be acceptable for someone with an otherwise untreatable condition. Then by the experience and knowledge gained, it becomes less risky for everyone.
jjcob 1y ago
It's not a slippery slope. Fixing defects is rather straightforward, since it's usually a single gene that needs to be edited. If you want make your baby smarter, taller, or more handsome, it's not so easy because these traits involve 1000s of genes. For this reason I do not think that curying diseases will lead to designer babies.
- GenshoTikamura 1y ago
  You're certaily unfamiliar with the term "incrementalism" and its workings
  - tptacek 1y ago
    No, you're assuming that polygenic trait control "scales" like a sort or even a search algorithm, when there's some molecular genetic evidence that it may instead scale like a cipher key size.
- sfink 1y ago
  If you can affect germline cells, then I don't see how it's not a slippery slope. (I'm not arguing against doing it, just that it is a slope and the slope is slippery.) No designer babies necessary. I'll steelman "fixing defects" by sticking to serious hereditary diseases (and yes, only those that correspond to one or a few known genes). As more and more conditions become treatable, the population with access to resources will have lower healthcare costs by being less susceptible to problems. (Which is a good thing, note!) Insurance companies will have more and more proxies for differentiating that don't involve direct genetic information. Societally, "those people" [the poor and therefore untreated] cost more to support medically and are an increasing burden on the system. Eugenics gains a scientific basis. Do you want your daughter marrying someone genetically substandard, if you don't have the resources to correct any issues that might show up? Probably not, you're more likely to want to build a wall between you and them. Then throw over anyone who falls behind the bleeding edge of corrections. It'll be the latest form of redlining, but this time "red" refers literally to blood.
  - 1y ago
ysofunny 1y ago
I think i'm fighting on those wars right now, you can also call them 'darwin wars' i suppose... but bear in mind i'm crazy and online
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
protocolture 1y ago
Well a sick child has been healed so that necessarily means we will have a war about it?
danielodievich 1y ago
For a nice thoughtful imagination of said future, Nancy Kress's Beggars in Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain suggests one possible outcome. It has both gene editing to make better humans and unproductive masses. A short yet powerful read.
WorldPeas 1y ago
Not to argue semantics here but eugenics is arround selective breeding, this would allow for the opposite, even more breeding, especially in populations with hereditary ailments that would have refrained from the act in prior years. I do agree however that it is imperative greater common-sense regulations surrounding "aesthetic" or "performance" "modifications" (such callous words for young life) will need to be enacted.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

[flagged]

psychoslave 1y ago
[flagged]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  [flagged]
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  A baby Hitler gaurantees a future with a grown up Hitler. Killing the baby eliminates that future. There could be other babies that can also grow up to be future Hitlers. So let's say 4 such babies exist. By killing one I eliminated 1/4 for futures with Grown up Hitlers that exist. This whole thread is getting flagged. Likely by an irrational parent who can't even compute natural selection, babe, and Hitler all in a single paragraph.
mckn1ght 1y ago
I think part of the problem is that “really good” and “really bad” are not universally accepted norms for any given ethical question. What you’re seeing is your own value system assumptions being checked. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that while a technology has the propensity to be used for evil, it also has positive applications and that the real benefit now outweighs the potential downside in a hypothetical future. Otherwise you will go down a rabbit hole at the bottom of which lies a future where we all just kinda dig in the dirt with our hands until we die because every technological innovation can be used in a variety of ways. Like, it’s silly to me that I can’t bring a 1.5” blade keychain utility knife on a flight, and then they hand me a metal butter knife in first class. I could do way more damage with that. But they allow the butter knife because the utility has shown to far outweigh the potential downside that hasn’t manifested. > I will slaughter a baby if I know for a fact that baby will grow up to be the next Hitler This is one of those things that is easy to say precisely due to the impossibility of it ever actually becoming a real decision you have to make.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  >This is one of those things that is easy to say precisely due to the impossibility of it ever actually becoming a real decision you have to make. It's true. But things like this should be easy to say right? Like we may not be able to act logically. But we should be able to think logically, communicate logically and show that we are aware of what is logical. My post got flagged meaning a lot of people can't separate the two things. So for example I may not be able to kill the baby in reality, but I can at least see how irrational I am. The person who flagged me likely not only can't kill the baby. He has to construct an artificial reality to justify why he can't kill the baby and why his decision must be rational.
  - mckn1ght 1y ago
    I think things like that should be easy to say, if by that you mean censorship. Sure. But talk is cheap. And there are gradations of reality. It would maybe be easier for a 15-25 y.o. to kill a baby they don't know and whose parents/family they don't know, and maybe even easier if they don't speak their language or look like them. Of course, the baby wouldn't be the only one you'd have to kill, most likely. I submit that it would be very very different if you found out that your 4 year old child was going to go on to be the next Hitler. For a "normal" person, I think they would go to the ends of the earth to try to shape them into the kind of person that wouldn't do it. I think very few people would coldly calculate "welp, guess I gotta execute this adorable little child I've grown so attached to" as it looks up at them saying "I love you so much forever, mommy/daddy" with their little doe eyes. (ETA: it also brings up side questions about nature vs nurture and free will) And then consider the lifelong repercussions of the emotional fallout. You can use all the logic in the world to justify the action, but your human brain will still torment you over it. And likely, most of the other human brains that learn about it would torment you as well. --- So, while I think you can say things like that, ie the ability and allowance, I think you should question whether you should. I think saying those kinds of things really doesn't add much to the discussion because I believe it's really just an uninformed platitude that only someone with a lack of life experience would believe. For me this all highlights the fact that meaty ethical questions don't have a simple reductive answer. Which ties back in to the original problem that OP outright states that this is simply and clearly the wrong path to go down. (PS the downvoting/flagging could be due to breaking the guidelines around discussing downvotes and flags, and not actually due to the topical content of the posts, and/or assuming bad faith on the part of other users as such: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
cooper_ganglia 1y ago
The anti-eugenics guy just said he would "absolutely" murder a baby...?
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  I would if I can foresee the future. But with eugenics you can't foresee the future. Self artificially selecting for genetic traits doesn't guarantee a good future. There's no gene for recreating Hitler either.

dekhn 1y ago

it's unclear the outcome of this will be eugenics wars. Answering the real question- it's unlikely these techniques will see widespread "recreational" usage any time soon, as they come with a wide range of risks. Further, the scientific community has learned a lot from previous eugenics programs; anything that happens in the future will happen with both social and political regulation. It's ultimately hard to predict- many science fiction writers have speculated about this for some time, and social opinion can change quickly when people see new developments.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
The problem won't be that there will be those who want to have babies with edited genomes, and those who oppose that. It will be that people just don't have children at all.
- beeflet 1y ago
  I think one reason why people won't have children is the gene-editing and the IVF that is coming. Nothing is left to chance, or to god any more. Having children is now a clinical affair. It's spiritually void.
morkalork 1y ago
That's part of why the trojan horse works so well, what is an unacceptable risk for someone healthy can easily be acceptable for someone with an otherwise untreatable condition. Then by the experience and knowledge gained, it becomes less risky for everyone.

jjcob 1y ago

It's not a slippery slope. Fixing defects is rather straightforward, since it's usually a single gene that needs to be edited. If you want make your baby smarter, taller, or more handsome, it's not so easy because these traits involve 1000s of genes. For this reason I do not think that curying diseases will lead to designer babies.

GenshoTikamura 1y ago
You're certaily unfamiliar with the term "incrementalism" and its workings
- tptacek 1y ago
  No, you're assuming that polygenic trait control "scales" like a sort or even a search algorithm, when there's some molecular genetic evidence that it may instead scale like a cipher key size.
sfink 1y ago
If you can affect germline cells, then I don't see how it's not a slippery slope. (I'm not arguing against doing it, just that it is a slope and the slope is slippery.) No designer babies necessary. I'll steelman "fixing defects" by sticking to serious hereditary diseases (and yes, only those that correspond to one or a few known genes). As more and more conditions become treatable, the population with access to resources will have lower healthcare costs by being less susceptible to problems. (Which is a good thing, note!) Insurance companies will have more and more proxies for differentiating that don't involve direct genetic information. Societally, "those people" [the poor and therefore untreated] cost more to support medically and are an increasing burden on the system. Eugenics gains a scientific basis. Do you want your daughter marrying someone genetically substandard, if you don't have the resources to correct any issues that might show up? Probably not, you're more likely to want to build a wall between you and them. Then throw over anyone who falls behind the bleeding edge of corrections. It'll be the latest form of redlining, but this time "red" refers literally to blood.
- 1y ago

ysofunny 1y ago

I think i'm fighting on those wars right now, you can also call them 'darwin wars' i suppose... but bear in mind i'm crazy and online

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

protocolture 1y ago

Well a sick child has been healed so that necessarily means we will have a war about it?

danielodievich 1y ago

For a nice thoughtful imagination of said future, Nancy Kress's Beggars in Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain suggests one possible outcome. It has both gene editing to make better humans and unproductive masses. A short yet powerful read.

WorldPeas 1y ago

Not to argue semantics here but eugenics is arround selective breeding, this would allow for the opposite, even more breeding, especially in populations with hereditary ailments that would have refrained from the act in prior years. I do agree however that it is imperative greater common-sense regulations surrounding "aesthetic" or "performance" "modifications" (such callous words for young life) will need to be enacted.