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

131–140 of 189 posts

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

#131

Post by azazqadir »

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...

Gattaca was pretty much based on this as well.

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

#132

Post by bitJericho »

int_19h wrote: post #122
Esau wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people can't afford public utilities either.

Then perhaps that is a problem that we should tackle, instead of going all Luddite about fairly basic tech because someone cannot afford it? I even wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in a net economic benefit, because the reduced overhead of new tech is less than amount of money you need to spend to make sure that everyone has access to it.

Libraries already tackle this. As well as other organizations. For example, when I was a kid my main internet pc was at the state extension office.

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by lostlogin »

sokoloff wrote: post #77
malnourish wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

This happens in some countries even if you don't have flash insurance. Obstetric care like the above is on the state here in New Zealand. Not that complex parenting situations like 3x biological parents occur here.

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

#136

Post by peteretep »

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…

    > the poorer part of the
    > population may not be able
    > to afford it, thus 
    > increasing inequality?
I am currently in Bangkok, Thailand. I walked past several people sweeping streets today who all had smartphones. I can't imagine they're getting paid above the $9/day minimum wage. Notably one was packing an iPhone 4. If 3rd-world street sweepers can get online, I believe someone in America can too, without breaking the bank.

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

#137

Post by RhodaLs »

joesb wrote: post #112
jlgaddis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's much too harsh. If someone is poor enough they can't afford internet access, then they're probably under some stress from all sorts of factors. Working two jobs, trying to keep their head above water, possibly a single parent, etc.

Having the kid bring the paper home can be a good reminder. Even my own quite devoted mother would occasionally forget it was grade time until I'd show her the report card.

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

#138

Post by hueving »

peteretep wrote: post #136
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…

> the poorer part of the > population may not be able > to afford it, thus > increasing inequality? I am currently in Bangkok, Thailand. I walked past several people sweeping streets today who all had smartphones. I can't imagine they're getting paid above the $9/day minimum wage. Notably one was packing an iPhone 4. If 3rd-world street sweepers can get online, I believe someone in America can too, without breaking t…

But we wouldn't be in a smartphone world if people applied this 'ethical' argument to the relatively higher cost of getting online 10-20 years ago.

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

#139

Post by hueving »

pyre wrote: post #121
BurningFrog wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you see life as a competition against your fellow humans.

It's not always about whether or not you see everything as a competition. Consider the "requirement" nowadays of a college degree. I could say that you "need a college degree to compete in the work-force," but that doesn't mean you just need a college degree only if you want to be the "best of the best." Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca).

>Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca).

Don't use this as part of an argument. Some stories made up based on assumptions of writers not backed by any evidence have little to do with the ethical implications of actual technology.

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

#140

Post by hueving »

pyre wrote: post #120
joesb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Immunizations are performance enhancing drugs. Shall we ban them?
Post reply on HN