4 ms·
Honestly it's probably a better idea to ban this before it becomes a problem. You're talking about experimenting on non consenting subjects. Why stop at 3 pare
by 999900000999 1y ago
Honestly it's probably a better idea to ban this before it becomes a problem.
You're talking about experimenting on non consenting subjects. Why stop at 3 parents. Why not 300. Splice in all the DNA you want.
Then 20 years later when the test subject has horrific side effects due to processes we don't understand, ohh well that's the cost of progress.
- inglor_cz 1y agoThis is too much safetyism for me. Very young kids cannot consent to any treatment, and if we said "no treatments without personal consent of the patient", we wouldn't be able to treat sick newborns at all. "ohh well that's the cost of progress" Yes, it is. We can be a bit more careful, but progress is ultimately risky, because you are entering an unknown terrain. A lot of modern products that you now safely use, including electricity, air travel and banal over-the-counter medications, has a nontrivial body count. If your attitudes prevailed, we would have none of those.
- 999900000999 1y agoExperimental procedures to save those already here != Experimental reproductive technology. Before trying to play God and manipulating the very fabric of life itself you can be a foster parent or have a very frank conversation with your partner on your options. No one’s going to know the long term effects of this until 20 or 30 years later. “Sorry Billy , you have painful incurable diseases because we created you with experimental procedures that required merging multiple embryos together, good luck.” What if this creates completely new genetic illnesses? Might not happen this generation, might happen 2 or 3 generations down to the line.