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

151–160 of 189 posts

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

#151

Post by jlebrech »

EliRivers wrote: post #34
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

(Some) people will design the new human for the benefit of themselves (i.e. the designer) rather than the benefit of the new human. A few ideas that come to mind are having children with ridiculously amped loyalty, so I can condition them during their early years and then put them to work making money and simply use them as my retirement fund. I could also ensure they're suitable organ donors, and make use of their o…

people create non-designed babies their own benefit now.

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

#152

Post by malka »

int_19h wrote: post #124
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).

Participate in what, though? This outlook basically presupposes that society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? If it does, what does "losing" mean, and can we reduce its impact to the point where it stops mattering?

> society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be?

Not society. The universe. Ressource ownership is exclusive. If I own something, no one else can own the very same thing at the same time.

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

#153

Post by jlebrech »

oldmanjay wrote: post #27
gremlinsinc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babies that can run, jump, faster and higher, and live longer, and are generally smarter and just more advanced evolved.. It's like some breeds of dogs/monkeys are smarter than others. So will the 'smart' ones think they are better than all the rest of us.

I have a silly question - if, as observation allows, some existing people are objectively better than others at things we can measure reliably, what is the ethical problem?

there's probably a social justice reason it's a "bad" thing,

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

#154

Post by johncolanduoni »

BurningFrog wrote: post #105
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...

Since it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier, this mostly sounds like an argument based in envy.

Not really. Do you imagine social and economic classes and their relationship/attitudes toward another wouldn't be affected by this? Even if all it does is increase envy of the people who can't afford the treatments for their children, making that existing envy so much more concrete could have some pretty wide-reaching social consequences. No matter how strict your principle of harm.

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

#155

Post by grive »

BurningFrog wrote: post #105
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...

Since it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier, this mostly sounds like an argument based in envy.

It makes people dumber, weaker and uglier, relatively to those that can afford it.

There is no "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" in Nature. These are not objective measurements. They are all judgements passed comparatively to the rest of humanity.

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

#156

Post by johncolanduoni »

int_19h wrote: post #127
maxerickson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, no quandary at all created by the possibility that mistakes and misunderstandings might lead to children with severe medical problems. Short, miserable lifetimes of suffering are a high cost for "improving the species", and they are a real possibility if the approach taken is to just try things that seem worth trying.

Let me give one particularly chilling example. Suppose that it is possible to make genetic alterations that cause 1) rapid aging, and 2) unavoidable self-induced death at some specific age well before the organism becomes old. Now you can make clones of yourself, add these alterations, and harvest them for organs when they die. Since they die naturally by themselves, no murder is committed.

I'm curious if this would be ruled as murder in any jurisdictions. Reading the U.S. federal definition[1], I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply as long as intent could be proved, but IANAL.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

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

#157

Post by DanBC »

int_19h wrote: post #127
maxerickson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, no quandary at all created by the possibility that mistakes and misunderstandings might lead to children with severe medical problems. Short, miserable lifetimes of suffering are a high cost for "improving the species", and they are a real possibility if the approach taken is to just try things that seem worth trying.

Let me give one particularly chilling example. Suppose that it is possible to make genetic alterations that cause 1) rapid aging, and 2) unavoidable self-induced death at some specific age well before the organism becomes old. Now you can make clones of yourself, add these alterations, and harvest them for organs when they die. Since they die naturally by themselves, no murder is committed.

Why would I want to transplant rapidly ageing already old organs into me?

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

#158

Post by rando444 »

maxerickson wrote: post #31
rando444 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar risks are taken when two native people from different parts of the world have a baby together.

That's not true. Most genetic disorders are caused by receiving one or more defective copies of a gene. In the case of a single defective gene causing the disorder, it doesn't make a difference what gene the other parent has. In the case where multiple defective copies cause the disorder, the further apart two lineages are, the less likely it becomes that they will each have defective copies of the same gene. There's…

My comment was more along the lines of the differences in things like gut microbiomes.

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

#159

Post by talideon »

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...

Not to mention the fact that the same processes could be used to create a permanent underclass though genetic manipulation of the masses.

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

#160

Post by tomrod »

int_19h wrote: post #123
tomrod wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, 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? Actually, yes, there are inherent ethical problems here. In this case (computers/internet), the divide it causes is not so large that it cannot be overcome by training, sa…

It may result in more stratification, but I don't see how that translates to feudalism.

I view feudalism as the result of prolonged, accepted stratification. David Brin talks a bit to this in his essay The Dogma of Otherness[0]

[0] http://www.davidbrin.com/dogmaofotherness.html

Post reply on HN