3 ms·

If I had the financial resources, and the science was well understood, I'd definitely consider it. I hold no sentimental attachment to the "natural" way of doi

If I had the financial resources, and the science was well understood, I'd definitely consider it. I hold no sentimental attachment to the "natural" way of doing things -- cancer is natural, but that doesn't preclude me from seeking chemotherapy. Similarly, why wouldn't you use new medical science to make your baby as healthy as possible? And, if you've accepted "screening for genetic defects" as an acceptable use of the technology, why would "selecting for the most desirable traits" not be? Nature and nurture are just two factors that contribute to a child's wellbeing and success in life. If you'd be willing to send your child to a private school in the hopes of giving them a better education and a leg-up on the competition, why not give them better looks and higher intelligence (were it possible), as well? I've yet to see any convincing ethical arguments as to why this would be wrong. So far, every argument made in opposition to designer babies seems to boil down to "it's not natural". Well, neither is agriculture, medicine, the Internet... as a species, we've gotten to where we are by changing nature to suit us. Why should procreation be any different?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
blowski 13y ago
I think this is a very big conversation for me to fire off a quick HN comment. I'm mostly ignorant about this, and my Christian faith probably clouds my judgement, so it's difficult to say whether I'm being objective and rational. However, I'm not convinced that medical science is there yet, so my child is just an iteration for big pharma. Perhaps we produce a whole generation of intelligent children who develop Alzheimer's when they're 25. I realise that argument is made against every new technology (especially medical), but making an active choice somehow makes me culpable and it would be harder to live with it. Also, there's the idea of what happens if this becomes universal. Since some traits seem universally desirable, all parents will choose to grant them. So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? Then there's the quality of life argument, which makes me deeply uncomfortable. Essentially, choosing a fully-sighted embryo over a partially-sighted one implicitly says "partially-sighted people are likely to have lower quality of life than fully-sighted ones", and that sounds wrong both ethically and practically. This is a really difficult debate, though. Put in the hypothetical situation of having to choose, I guess I would end up choosing the best possible embryo, but I'd rather not have to make the choice to begin with.
- redthrowaway 13y ago
  > I'm not convinced that medical science is there yet Agreed, but I think it's a matter of if, not when. As our knowledge of gene expression, epigenetics, protein folding, and the like increases, the set of things we can't do will shrink. >Perhaps we produce a whole generation of intelligent children who develop Alzheimer's when they're 25 It's certainly possible that we'll leap before we look, but I'd hope not. We've had examples of that in the past, but the result of those tragedies is that research processes have improved. They're far from perfect, but they've certainly gotten better. >So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? I'd say so, yes. >choosing a fully-sighted embryo over a partially-sighted one implicitly says "partially-sighted people are likely to have lower quality of life than fully-sighted ones", and that sounds wrong both ethically and practically. I think, on average, it's simply an objective fact that "full-sighted people have a better quality of life than partially-sighted people". I can't think of any way that astigmatism has improved my life, and it's something I plan on rectifying permanently once my finances allow it. As for being ethically wrong, I don't see it. Just because someone is perfectly capable of living a happy and fulfilled life with a birth defect doesn't mean the lack thereof wouldn't be preferable. >I'd rather not have to make the choice to begin with. Keep in mind, not choosing is itself a choice. Just as you'd feel guilty if the procedure caused a birth defect, I think you'd also feel guilty if your child was born with a birth defect that you chose not to screen for or take steps to select against. That said, there we finally find an ethical quandary: the nature of the procedure would mean choosing to select against that defect would mean choosing not to have your child, and that's not something most parents would care to think about when looking at their kid. There's a big difference between choosing which fertilized egg to implant and looking at your kid and wishing you had chose not to have them. I think most people would be okay with the former, but would likely (and rightly) recoil in horror at the latter.
  - blowski 13y ago
    > So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? > I'd say so, yes. My thoughts on this are overshadowed by Brave New World. I realise how enormously snobbish and arrogant this sounds, but there are some jobs where having an enormous intellect would definitely be a burden. So either we have to automate those jobs (not necessarily possible), accept that some people are going to be very unhappy, or breed a specific group of people with lower intellects. I guess this is a variation on the 'tragedy of the commons' - something that's wonderful for your child and my child would probably be a disaster if it were given to everybody's child. > Just because someone is perfectly capable of living a happy and fulfilled life with a birth defect doesn't mean the lack thereof wouldn't be preferable. I think sometimes disabilities are part of what make them amazing people. Would Beethoven have written such wonderful music if he had full hearing? From what I've read of Dame Evelyn Glennie, she seems to say that her deafness taught her to hear the music in a different way. So I'm worried that removing everything we perceive to be a defect results in a rather bland human race. It would be better to work on improving society so that being blind didn't cause many people to become depressed, for example. Adding lifts and ramps to buildings as well. > Keep in mind, not choosing is itself a choice. I'd like that the choice is not even possible. If the choice can be made confidently by a large proportion of the population, then it would inevitably go this way. Yes you're right, a lot of this does depend on what we're considering a defect and at what stage. We have obviously done the whole Down's Syndrome scan, and we had no idea what we would have done if it had come back positive. If I could have done this pre-conception, then it would be a more comfortable decision. But if the question was about being short-sighted (which both my wife and I are), or whether we'd prefer a more athletic child, then the question gets much harder.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

blowski 13y ago

I think this is a very big conversation for me to fire off a quick HN comment. I'm mostly ignorant about this, and my Christian faith probably clouds my judgement, so it's difficult to say whether I'm being objective and rational. However, I'm not convinced that medical science is there yet, so my child is just an iteration for big pharma. Perhaps we produce a whole generation of intelligent children who develop Alzheimer's when they're 25. I realise that argument is made against every new technology (especially medical), but making an active choice somehow makes me culpable and it would be harder to live with it. Also, there's the idea of what happens if this becomes universal. Since some traits seem universally desirable, all parents will choose to grant them. So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? Then there's the quality of life argument, which makes me deeply uncomfortable. Essentially, choosing a fully-sighted embryo over a partially-sighted one implicitly says "partially-sighted people are likely to have lower quality of life than fully-sighted ones", and that sounds wrong both ethically and practically. This is a really difficult debate, though. Put in the hypothetical situation of having to choose, I guess I would end up choosing the best possible embryo, but I'd rather not have to make the choice to begin with.

redthrowaway 13y ago
> I'm not convinced that medical science is there yet Agreed, but I think it's a matter of if, not when. As our knowledge of gene expression, epigenetics, protein folding, and the like increases, the set of things we can't do will shrink. >Perhaps we produce a whole generation of intelligent children who develop Alzheimer's when they're 25 It's certainly possible that we'll leap before we look, but I'd hope not. We've had examples of that in the past, but the result of those tragedies is that research processes have improved. They're far from perfect, but they've certainly gotten better. >So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? I'd say so, yes. >choosing a fully-sighted embryo over a partially-sighted one implicitly says "partially-sighted people are likely to have lower quality of life than fully-sighted ones", and that sounds wrong both ethically and practically. I think, on average, it's simply an objective fact that "full-sighted people have a better quality of life than partially-sighted people". I can't think of any way that astigmatism has improved my life, and it's something I plan on rectifying permanently once my finances allow it. As for being ethically wrong, I don't see it. Just because someone is perfectly capable of living a happy and fulfilled life with a birth defect doesn't mean the lack thereof wouldn't be preferable. >I'd rather not have to make the choice to begin with. Keep in mind, not choosing is itself a choice. Just as you'd feel guilty if the procedure caused a birth defect, I think you'd also feel guilty if your child was born with a birth defect that you chose not to screen for or take steps to select against. That said, there we finally find an ethical quandary: the nature of the procedure would mean choosing to select against that defect would mean choosing not to have your child, and that's not something most parents would care to think about when looking at their kid. There's a big difference between choosing which fertilized egg to implant and looking at your kid and wishing you had chose not to have them. I think most people would be okay with the former, but would likely (and rightly) recoil in horror at the latter.
- blowski 13y ago
  > So if everyone is given the genes to be massively intelligent, is that a good thing? > I'd say so, yes. My thoughts on this are overshadowed by Brave New World. I realise how enormously snobbish and arrogant this sounds, but there are some jobs where having an enormous intellect would definitely be a burden. So either we have to automate those jobs (not necessarily possible), accept that some people are going to be very unhappy, or breed a specific group of people with lower intellects. I guess this is a variation on the 'tragedy of the commons' - something that's wonderful for your child and my child would probably be a disaster if it were given to everybody's child. > Just because someone is perfectly capable of living a happy and fulfilled life with a birth defect doesn't mean the lack thereof wouldn't be preferable. I think sometimes disabilities are part of what make them amazing people. Would Beethoven have written such wonderful music if he had full hearing? From what I've read of Dame Evelyn Glennie, she seems to say that her deafness taught her to hear the music in a different way. So I'm worried that removing everything we perceive to be a defect results in a rather bland human race. It would be better to work on improving society so that being blind didn't cause many people to become depressed, for example. Adding lifts and ramps to buildings as well. > Keep in mind, not choosing is itself a choice. I'd like that the choice is not even possible. If the choice can be made confidently by a large proportion of the population, then it would inevitably go this way. Yes you're right, a lot of this does depend on what we're considering a defect and at what stage. We have obviously done the whole Down's Syndrome scan, and we had no idea what we would have done if it had come back positive. If I could have done this pre-conception, then it would be a more comfortable decision. But if the question was about being short-sighted (which both my wife and I are), or whether we'd prefer a more athletic child, then the question gets much harder.