Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First 'three person baby' born using new method

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 189 posts

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#71

Post by nkrisc »

lqdc13 wrote: post #57
dethstar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca Sometimes here in HN you will hear about how things like name,age, etc are bias for who gets hired, and people being rejected based on those things. So just add "method of conception" to that.

I was very much annoyed by the movie when I saw it. Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA? In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the…

That's kind of the point of the movie, that his "genetic inferiority" was as much a cultural construct as anything real.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#72

Post by dexterdog »

dflock wrote: post #43
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...

But what the rich don't have is the raw numbers that the poor can output. The rich are already a selective group, but the poor can just throw armies of meat at the evolutionary battlefield.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#73

Post by Kalium »

dflock wrote: post #43
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...

In short, "designer babies" is approximately the same thing to us today as nutrition was to an earlier age.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#74

Post by digi_owl »

runeks wrote: post #53
dflock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies. This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...

So the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)? I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge). I mean, computers and internet access also costs money…

These days a homeless most cherished thing is a outdated mobile phone. This because job listing etc has moved online.

Damn it, in most parts of the world these days healthcare handled as a public utility.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#75

Post by sokoloff »

digi_owl wrote: post #74
runeks wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)? I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge). I mean, computers and internet access also costs money…

These days a homeless most cherished thing is a outdated mobile phone. This because job listing etc has moved online. Damn it, in most parts of the world these days healthcare handled as a public utility.

I can certainly imagine why you'd want a mobile phone, but at least in our area, internet access is readily available at all public library branches as well.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#76

Post by DashRattlesnake »

sp332 wrote: post #18
airesQ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is often thought that humanity will leave no trace of its existence for the next civilization that will come, say, 20 million years We have pretty good Trilobite fossils from 400+ million years ago. Why would they leave a trace and humanity not? (given all the stuff we produce: cities, cars, etc.)

There were a lot more trilobites than there are humans. And they lived in places more conducive to fossil formation.

Many human artifacts don't need to be fossilized and could be preserved for millions of years (e.g. a gold ring, a stone bracelet, concrete). Also humans deliberately bury their dead (and lots of other stuff), which in some cases might help with fossilization and preservation.

If humanity were wiped out tomorrow, I think it would leave plenty of traces that could be found and understood in millions of years by a later civilization with paleontologists are as active as ours. It's just that those traces would be relatively small and/or buried, like human fossils with jewelry and caissons (with geometric iron oxide deposits from the rebar!) from the foundations of large buildings. No monuments or cities, but enough to indicate that we were here and had technology.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#77

Post by sokoloff »

malnourish wrote: post #23
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

Those with resources are able to have healthy (perhaps, better) children and those without take their chances?

To some extent, that already happens. My wife and I had children in our late 30s and so got extra screening and ultrasounds to screen for possible devastating birth defects. Fortunately, both kids are healthy, but had they not been, we'd have been pretty far from "taking our chances".

In our case, the resources were a good health care package from my work, but it's not very far from there to designer-by-selection. I'm perfectly comfortable with our path, even though we didn't have to take any action, but would have been equally comfortable (though disappointed) had we had to intervene.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#78

Post by ThrustVectoring »

scarmig wrote: post #58
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the natural dividing line is "is the baby the unmodified result of combining sperm and egg?" People already have the right to do that without additional government interference -- anything past that should arguably be regulated.

Where would somehow selecting one of the billions of sperm and one of the millions(?) of eggs for ideal genetic material and then allowing them to combine "naturally" fall? That'd probably get you 60% of the way to full on designer babies anyway, unless you're going for a trait that's not at all in your gene pool.

That ship has basically sailed, since we already do sperm selection for in-vitro fertilization.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#79

Post by Symmetry »

misiti3780 wrote: post #52
Symmetry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In another of Nick Lane's books he mentions compatibility between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA as a possible reason for variation in fertility in different species. If that's true I'd expect the 3-parent process to produce fewer pregnancies per fertilized egg than the normal 2-parent method which runs at around 50%.

which book was that ? Life Ascending?

That's what I was thinking, so if you think so too then probably.

Re: First 'three person baby' born using new method

#80

Post by Jtsummers »

lqdc13 wrote: post #57
dethstar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca Sometimes here in HN you will hear about how things like name,age, etc are bias for who gets hired, and people being rejected based on those things. So just add "method of conception" to that.

I was very much annoyed by the movie when I saw it. Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA? In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the…

> Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones.

One thing he had over most of the "valids" was the opportunity to choose his path. The valids' parents made choices for them (Jerome was made to be a swimmer, the 12-fingered pianist, etc.). It's not wholly different than seeing a child prodigy fail as a functioning adult. They don't all, but many times when someone excels in youth in some activity and is pushed into it by the adults in their lives, a failure later leads to an inability to redirect their energy and lives (for extended periods, they become depressed). They existed for a singular purpose for so long and aren't capable (emotionally, mentally) of dealing with the freedom to choose what to do next.

Vincent's character possessed drive for several reasons: 1) he was better than his brother as a swimmer/athlete, and so knew that his in-valid status was nonsense; 2) he was resentful of being shunned by both his parents and society, and motivated by that; 3) as an in-valid, he had no purpose in life, so once he chose one, he put everything into it. The valids who still possessed their potential were similarly motivated with regard to their goals.

Post reply on HN