First 'three person baby' born using new method • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by tjbiddle » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 1:33 AM UTC

jlgaddis wrote: post #61

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…

Just today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.) My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ram…

I'm sure it wouldn't be four times a year - but rather, when beginning the school year (Or possibly entering the school system even the first time) it's an option to choose. And then on the bottom of the paper report cards, have a statement saying "Like to go paperless?" for if/when they do have the option to switch.

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

#112

Post by joesb » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:00 AM UTC

jlgaddis wrote: post #61

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…

Just today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.) My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ram…

If you need a piece of paper to remind you to be a parent, you are not a good parent to begin with. And a piece of paper is not going to save child from such parent.

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

#113

Post by joesb » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:02 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #104

oxide wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality? some folks argue yes, that internet access should be a basic human right.

Poor wretched souls of the previous millennia...they all were denied their basic human rights.

Poor slaves of the previous century .... they all were denied their basic human rights.

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

#114

Post by joesb » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:04 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #84

Kalium wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).

What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right?

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

#115

Post by joesb » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC

JauntTrooper wrote: post #51

afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What if you mess up? It's new technology. There are bound to be mistakes. There is so much we don't know about how genes work. Those mistakes will affect a human being's life permanently.

Did science and medicine get to this state without any mistake?

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

#116

Post by jack9 » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

> But the science does raise ethical questions, including how any child from the technique might feel about having DNA from three people.

That's not an ethical problem. Also, not a problem since, it's not any kind of problem to consider how kids might like PB&J sandwiches either.

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

#117

Post by paulddraper » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

joesb wrote: post #113

paulddraper wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor wretched souls of the previous millennia...they all were denied their basic human rights.

Poor slaves of the previous century .... they all were denied their basic human rights.

Yes, they were.

And this is insensitive to say, but at least it was just the enslaved minority denied basic rights, rather than every single human on the face of the earth.

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

#118

Post by paulddraper » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:18 AM UTC

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…

Access to computers and the internet is not quite as permanent as genetics.

Were they bestowed at birth by your parents and could be acquired no other way, then you may have a case.

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

#119

Post by brian-armstrong » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

jack9 wrote: post #116

> But the science does raise ethical questions, including how any child from the technique might feel about having DNA from three people. That's not an ethical problem. Also, not a problem since, it's not any kind of problem to consider how kids might like PB&J sandwiches either.

You can't just brush it off and say it isn't a problem. Having 3 biological parents is incredibly rare and could have weird social effects for the child. It is an ethical concern if it affects how they relate to other people.

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

#120

Post by pyre » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 3:03 AM UTC

joesb wrote: post #114

pyre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).

What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right?

> What about drugs in general, not just performance enhancing drugs? I meant, everyone want to participate in modern medical treatment, right?

What? I'm talking about performance-enhancing drugs here because they enhance performance. So everyone else operating in the same space as you will need to also use performance-enhancing drugs if they want to compete. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept to grasp.

If there were a pill you could take to turn you into the mythical "10x programmer," the implication of industry-wide usage would be that you would have to start taking that pill to participate in the industry or else you wouldn't be able to keep up.