7 ms·

Huge win for science ...big loss for evolution. I am by no means a callous person, in fact, my therapist tells me I have a problem with too much empathy, and i

Huge win for science ...big loss for evolution. I am by no means a callous person, in fact, my therapist tells me I have a problem with too much empathy, and in no way do I wish parents to loose their children so young. But what I am also not is a eugenicist, which is what this is, eugenics. "Eugenics is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population." Now remember, first they are only preventing the chance of a baby being born with mitochondrial disease. But more importantly, these mitochondrial diseases are still evident in the human population because there is some survival advantage. This is what happens with sickle cell disease [1]. The sacrifices these babies make, dying so young, is a sacrifice for the survival of a genetic population. In the case of mitochondrial diseases, this favors the survival of female babies over male babies, or even the benefit of higher amounts of oxidative stess in the mother to fight off infection. So by this method, even the female baby will be born without the Mitochondrial mutation. What will this mean for her? https://www.vanderbilt.edu/evolution/mitochondrial-dna-evolution-new-study-reveals-how-selfish-mtdna-evolve-and-thrive/ https://www.vanderbilt.edu/evolution/mitochondrial-dna-evolu... "Accordingly, their model revealed that some mutations confer a net replicative advantage over unmutated (wildtype) mtDNA, causing the mutant mtDNA to proliferate within individual organisms." We know so little and we are acting like we know everything. Humanity needs to stop thinking we are gods and accept our fates. Eugenicists thought they knew what the best genes were to survive, and this is no different. [1] https://globalhealthnow.org/2024-06/how-sickle-cell-disease-and-malaria-defined-evolution https://globalhealthnow.org/2024-06/how-sickle-cell-disease-...

hobs 1y ago
Generally the reason we think of Eugenicists as "bad guys" is because they've been characterized by being happy to sterilize or kill people to prevent their "subhuman genes" from being passed down to the next generations. This is different, another step in the erasure of genes that harm humans. This is not a genocide. It seems like your argument boils down to we should continue to have horrible suffering and early death because diversity of DNA is good and we shouldn't edit out potentially helpful mutations (that also cause horrible suffering) - if we can beat malaria, why would we need sickle cell?
- MostlyStable 1y ago
  So I think this person is wrong, but the one little nugget in there that is partially right is that I do think it's important that, before we start modifying genomes on a wide scale, we should have a pretty comprehensive database (100's of thousands to millions) of whole-genome sequences (alongside mitochondrial DNA) stored.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    To my understanding that's still super expensive. We can do short SNPs (snippets? Not my field, I'm armchairing) for cheap like good ole 23andme but not full genome cheaply.
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      As of 2023, it was apparently <$1000/sequence [0], which means it would be a few hundred million to maybe a billion dollars. Which is a lot, but it really only needs to be done once, and is a global project. That seems pretty reasonable all things considered. But also, we can probably wait a little while since it's not super crucial until artificial genetic modification starts to get widespread, which is still probably a decade off or so. We could probably start just collecting samples now, and as long as they are appropriately preserved, the actual sequencing could be done later when it gets even cheaper. [0] https://3billion.io/blog/whole-genome-sequencing-cost-2023 https://3billion.io/blog/whole-genome-sequencing-cost-2023
      - MostlyStable 1y ago
        It occurs to me that the sequencing itself probably wouldn't be the main cost. Collecting the samples, and the manpower needed to do it, would be far, far more expensive. Probably at least 10x the cost, especially if you were really serious about getting the full range of diversity.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  [flagged]
perching_aix 1y ago
> we are acting like we know everything. Humanity needs to stop thinking we are god These activities are in no way evidence for people thinking (too?) highly of themselves or "as gods". Just a completely made up accusation. I also don't see why the scary labels are relevant necessarily. To be afraid of whether this qualifies as eugenics or if you qualify as an eugenicist is sitting backwards on the horse completely. But maybe I just misinterpreted your catious wording and there's no being afraid here - in other comments you outright state you consider this eugenics, for example. > [As] Humanity[, we need to] accept our fates. No, we really don't. Though if you and people of the same opinion just accept fate, you also accept this research and similar continuing on, so maybe this is not even a point of debate in practice.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  Unfortunately, the stupid state of public conversation is that you can't talk about these things without couching it in "I'm not a racist but..." type language. People will see the smallest hint of wrongthink and reactionarily conclude you're a Nazi in disguise. It doesn't matter if something or someone qualifies as eugenics or not. What matters is the outcomes of the actions. FollowingTheDao seems to be concerned about long term consequences on the overall population which may be best served by individuals accepting their babies will die. Or it may not - but it's worth discussing without going into pedantry about the meaning of words.
stefan_ 1y ago
By this logic all gene therapy is eugenics.
- hombre_fatal 1y ago
  Presumably all of medicine too since it keeps us from "accepting our fates" and lets us procreate worse genes instead of letting billions of people die sacrificially due to their genes which is a "huge loss for evolution". Kinda funny to attack TFA by associating it with a naughty word while tracking in such awful ideas as if we're unable to evaluate the ideas ourselves.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  No, it is only eugenics when it when gene therapy controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born. Gene therapy for cancer is not eugenics.
  - quesera 1y ago
    > controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born Selective breeding in livestock, mate selection in wild animals and humans... I do understand your point. I struggle with whether it is cause for (more than theoretical) concern. The ethical quandaries don't seem that important when it's isolated to expression of personal choice. State-driven decisions are ugly of course. And perhaps the insanity that we see in dog breeding is very bad. But we don't see the dog breeding problems in human parents (aside from the initial mate selection, which can be vicious!). So where does that leave us? Using blunt tools is OK but precise tools are bad?
  - stefan_ 1y ago
    But gene therapy can fix the genetic makeup of the living child, then enable it to pass on its defective material. That seems patently worse for evolution?
    - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
      If you take the case of sickle cell anemia, you’ll find this is not the case. You need to understand more about genetics and why these mutation survive over generations. They don’t survive by accident they survive because when they are heterogeneous, they are beneficial to the population. It’s only the unlucky child that ends homozygous that will suffer from illness. But that is the balance and sacrifice nature makes to keep a population alive. It’s indifferent and amoral, it’s utilitarian. And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge.
Waterluvian 1y ago
I think your argument is “we’re screwing with nature in big ways and we have a demonstrated history of being so confidently wrong. This is dangerous.” Which I think is a deeply important discussion to be able to comfortably have without the layers of disclaimers. I think a lot of these biotechs that raise alarms are pretty safe, and the problem is that we’re really bad at explaining in lay terms how it all works, and people naturally assume the worst. I think it’s also an issue of practicality (and this is where it flirts with being eugenics). What’s the alternative? To tell people not to reproduce if they have known disease prone genes? To make them not reproduce? To tell them they don’t get universal healthcare if they do? I think mucking about with our building blocks is the least bad option we have.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Thanks for not being reactionary. You are in the minority so I figured I would disclaim. > What’s the alternative? Acceptance. These parents can still reproduce. A female child will most likely be healthy, like the mother. And the male child will not always be born with a mitochondrial disease. People do not realize that father's can also pass mitochondrial genetics to their children. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/6639/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/6639/) In trying to remove all risk from our lives we are making it inherently risky in other, usually unknown, ways. All the spiritual practices talk about acceptance, so just pick one. But my bigger point is that it is still eugenics. And that is bad no matter what the goal is.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    > But my bigger point is that it is still eugenics. And that is bad no matter what the goal is. You're literally advocating for letting genetic diseases cull the afflicted populations, "selecting for the better genes" that way. Seemingly the exact opposite of your claimed position, I hope you appreciate. Or you have no problem with selection as long as "nature does it"? That's the best idea I have for reconciling this at least. Are we humans not part of nature though? Is you preferring what nature does not just a preference still? If we figure out that some specific genetic difference results in people eventually dying before they reproduce, what's the difference between editing that out vs. letting nature do its thing?
throw_m239339 1y ago
This is just the beginning of all that. "Designer babies" will obviously be a big business in the future, and one can take that logic VERY far, even for an entire nation where all babies will be mandated to have certain genes or characteristics... or worst, mandated specializations... Of course, science fictions authors,scientists and philosophers have written plenty of material on the matter and the danger of such societies... and it might blow up in our face one way or another, but nothing aside of our demise can stop scientific progress...
jl6 1y ago
Eugenics is any choice that influences the genetic makeup of your descendants in a way that you believe to be desirable. Choosing a tall partner because you want your kids to be tall is eugenics. Eugenics happens every day, in every country. The bad rap comes from historical attempts to apply it coercively. Parents choosing to eliminate their genetic diseases is not the same.
BurningFrog 1y ago
Improving the genetic quality of a human population seems like a good cause. What got"eugenics" in disrepute was the evil things done to people with "bad" traits: - Killing them - Forced sterilizing of them - Forced abortion of their fetuses That's awful, but because of the means, not because the goal of a healthier population.
imtringued 1y ago
Eugenics has always been a technological problem, not an ideological one. If there was a cheap and cost effective way to edit your genes as an adult in a 100% safe way, then everyone would be doing it. The reason why eugenics has a bad reputation is that there are incredibly low tech solutions that require an authoritarian surveillance state and such states have indeed existed and abused their powers in the past. I'm talking about forced sterilisation. The first problem with these low tech approaches is that their models suck and aren't founded by actual genetics research. E.g. fascists defining their own ethnic group as superior over other ethnic groups. The second problem is that they didn't just think that they were helping the people born through eugenics avoid diseases or become better people, they were thinking that people with the wrong genes shouldn't procreate or exist at all, because they are a waste of resources and therefore should be killed even if they somehow manage to deal with their complications. But if we take a step back and start off with a higher level of technology and scientific progress, these concerns turn out to be meaningless. If there is a gene that objectively causes a disease or harm and it can be identified reliably, then having children with that disease becomes morally questionable. This means some people are prevented from having children that they would otherwise want. However, if there is a technology that allows people to have children without the disease, then suddenly the opposite happens. It becomes a moral imperative to give them access to the treatment so that they can have children. In the extreme limit, no matter how bigoted an eugenicist is, he must always allow even the most "inferior" people (in his eyes) to have children and procreate. The discriminatory part of eugenics collapses into itself as if it never existed. This then leaves the actual problems with eugenics: lack of genetic diversity and unforeseen consequences of unrestricted gene editing. The solution to this problem would be to never implement precise genetic editing in the first place. Instead, whole chromosomes should be swapped out. This will increase genetic diversity by allowing a single child to have the combined genes of multiple fathers and mothers.

hobs 1y ago

Generally the reason we think of Eugenicists as "bad guys" is because they've been characterized by being happy to sterilize or kill people to prevent their "subhuman genes" from being passed down to the next generations. This is different, another step in the erasure of genes that harm humans. This is not a genocide. It seems like your argument boils down to we should continue to have horrible suffering and early death because diversity of DNA is good and we shouldn't edit out potentially helpful mutations (that also cause horrible suffering) - if we can beat malaria, why would we need sickle cell?

MostlyStable 1y ago
So I think this person is wrong, but the one little nugget in there that is partially right is that I do think it's important that, before we start modifying genomes on a wide scale, we should have a pretty comprehensive database (100's of thousands to millions) of whole-genome sequences (alongside mitochondrial DNA) stored.
- tomrod 1y ago
  To my understanding that's still super expensive. We can do short SNPs (snippets? Not my field, I'm armchairing) for cheap like good ole 23andme but not full genome cheaply.
  - MostlyStable 1y ago
    As of 2023, it was apparently <$1000/sequence [0], which means it would be a few hundred million to maybe a billion dollars. Which is a lot, but it really only needs to be done once, and is a global project. That seems pretty reasonable all things considered. But also, we can probably wait a little while since it's not super crucial until artificial genetic modification starts to get widespread, which is still probably a decade off or so. We could probably start just collecting samples now, and as long as they are appropriately preserved, the actual sequencing could be done later when it gets even cheaper. [0] https://3billion.io/blog/whole-genome-sequencing-cost-2023 https://3billion.io/blog/whole-genome-sequencing-cost-2023
    - MostlyStable 1y ago
      It occurs to me that the sequencing itself probably wouldn't be the main cost. Collecting the samples, and the manpower needed to do it, would be far, far more expensive. Probably at least 10x the cost, especially if you were really serious about getting the full range of diversity.
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
[flagged]

perching_aix 1y ago

> we are acting like we know everything. Humanity needs to stop thinking we are god These activities are in no way evidence for people thinking (too?) highly of themselves or "as gods". Just a completely made up accusation. I also don't see why the scary labels are relevant necessarily. To be afraid of whether this qualifies as eugenics or if you qualify as an eugenicist is sitting backwards on the horse completely. But maybe I just misinterpreted your catious wording and there's no being afraid here - in other comments you outright state you consider this eugenics, for example. > [As] Humanity[, we need to] accept our fates. No, we really don't. Though if you and people of the same opinion just accept fate, you also accept this research and similar continuing on, so maybe this is not even a point of debate in practice.

foxglacier 1y ago
Unfortunately, the stupid state of public conversation is that you can't talk about these things without couching it in "I'm not a racist but..." type language. People will see the smallest hint of wrongthink and reactionarily conclude you're a Nazi in disguise. It doesn't matter if something or someone qualifies as eugenics or not. What matters is the outcomes of the actions. FollowingTheDao seems to be concerned about long term consequences on the overall population which may be best served by individuals accepting their babies will die. Or it may not - but it's worth discussing without going into pedantry about the meaning of words.

stefan_ 1y ago

By this logic all gene therapy is eugenics.

hombre_fatal 1y ago
Presumably all of medicine too since it keeps us from "accepting our fates" and lets us procreate worse genes instead of letting billions of people die sacrificially due to their genes which is a "huge loss for evolution". Kinda funny to attack TFA by associating it with a naughty word while tracking in such awful ideas as if we're unable to evaluate the ideas ourselves.
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
No, it is only eugenics when it when gene therapy controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born. Gene therapy for cancer is not eugenics.
- quesera 1y ago
  > controls the genetic makeup of a child before it is born Selective breeding in livestock, mate selection in wild animals and humans... I do understand your point. I struggle with whether it is cause for (more than theoretical) concern. The ethical quandaries don't seem that important when it's isolated to expression of personal choice. State-driven decisions are ugly of course. And perhaps the insanity that we see in dog breeding is very bad. But we don't see the dog breeding problems in human parents (aside from the initial mate selection, which can be vicious!). So where does that leave us? Using blunt tools is OK but precise tools are bad?
- stefan_ 1y ago
  But gene therapy can fix the genetic makeup of the living child, then enable it to pass on its defective material. That seems patently worse for evolution?
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    If you take the case of sickle cell anemia, you’ll find this is not the case. You need to understand more about genetics and why these mutation survive over generations. They don’t survive by accident they survive because when they are heterogeneous, they are beneficial to the population. It’s only the unlucky child that ends homozygous that will suffer from illness. But that is the balance and sacrifice nature makes to keep a population alive. It’s indifferent and amoral, it’s utilitarian. And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge.

Waterluvian 1y ago

I think your argument is “we’re screwing with nature in big ways and we have a demonstrated history of being so confidently wrong. This is dangerous.” Which I think is a deeply important discussion to be able to comfortably have without the layers of disclaimers. I think a lot of these biotechs that raise alarms are pretty safe, and the problem is that we’re really bad at explaining in lay terms how it all works, and people naturally assume the worst. I think it’s also an issue of practicality (and this is where it flirts with being eugenics). What’s the alternative? To tell people not to reproduce if they have known disease prone genes? To make them not reproduce? To tell them they don’t get universal healthcare if they do? I think mucking about with our building blocks is the least bad option we have.

FollowingTheDao 1y ago
Thanks for not being reactionary. You are in the minority so I figured I would disclaim. > What’s the alternative? Acceptance. These parents can still reproduce. A female child will most likely be healthy, like the mother. And the male child will not always be born with a mitochondrial disease. People do not realize that father's can also pass mitochondrial genetics to their children. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/6639/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/6639/) In trying to remove all risk from our lives we are making it inherently risky in other, usually unknown, ways. All the spiritual practices talk about acceptance, so just pick one. But my bigger point is that it is still eugenics. And that is bad no matter what the goal is.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  > But my bigger point is that it is still eugenics. And that is bad no matter what the goal is. You're literally advocating for letting genetic diseases cull the afflicted populations, "selecting for the better genes" that way. Seemingly the exact opposite of your claimed position, I hope you appreciate. Or you have no problem with selection as long as "nature does it"? That's the best idea I have for reconciling this at least. Are we humans not part of nature though? Is you preferring what nature does not just a preference still? If we figure out that some specific genetic difference results in people eventually dying before they reproduce, what's the difference between editing that out vs. letting nature do its thing?

throw_m239339 1y ago

This is just the beginning of all that. "Designer babies" will obviously be a big business in the future, and one can take that logic VERY far, even for an entire nation where all babies will be mandated to have certain genes or characteristics... or worst, mandated specializations... Of course, science fictions authors,scientists and philosophers have written plenty of material on the matter and the danger of such societies... and it might blow up in our face one way or another, but nothing aside of our demise can stop scientific progress...

jl6 1y ago

Eugenics is any choice that influences the genetic makeup of your descendants in a way that you believe to be desirable. Choosing a tall partner because you want your kids to be tall is eugenics. Eugenics happens every day, in every country. The bad rap comes from historical attempts to apply it coercively. Parents choosing to eliminate their genetic diseases is not the same.

BurningFrog 1y ago

Improving the genetic quality of a human population seems like a good cause. What got"eugenics" in disrepute was the evil things done to people with "bad" traits: - Killing them - Forced sterilizing of them - Forced abortion of their fetuses That's awful, but because of the means, not because the goal of a healthier population.

imtringued 1y ago

Eugenics has always been a technological problem, not an ideological one. If there was a cheap and cost effective way to edit your genes as an adult in a 100% safe way, then everyone would be doing it. The reason why eugenics has a bad reputation is that there are incredibly low tech solutions that require an authoritarian surveillance state and such states have indeed existed and abused their powers in the past. I'm talking about forced sterilisation. The first problem with these low tech approaches is that their models suck and aren't founded by actual genetics research. E.g. fascists defining their own ethnic group as superior over other ethnic groups. The second problem is that they didn't just think that they were helping the people born through eugenics avoid diseases or become better people, they were thinking that people with the wrong genes shouldn't procreate or exist at all, because they are a waste of resources and therefore should be killed even if they somehow manage to deal with their complications. But if we take a step back and start off with a higher level of technology and scientific progress, these concerns turn out to be meaningless. If there is a gene that objectively causes a disease or harm and it can be identified reliably, then having children with that disease becomes morally questionable. This means some people are prevented from having children that they would otherwise want. However, if there is a technology that allows people to have children without the disease, then suddenly the opposite happens. It becomes a moral imperative to give them access to the treatment so that they can have children. In the extreme limit, no matter how bigoted an eugenicist is, he must always allow even the most "inferior" people (in his eyes) to have children and procreate. The discriminatory part of eugenics collapses into itself as if it never existed. This then leaves the actual problems with eugenics: lack of genetic diversity and unforeseen consequences of unrestricted gene editing. The solution to this problem would be to never implement precise genetic editing in the first place. Instead, whole chromosomes should be swapped out. This will increase genetic diversity by allowing a single child to have the combined genes of multiple fathers and mothers.