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

161–170 of 189 posts

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

#161

Post by delecti »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #91
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.

>and just more advanced evolved // Except not evolved at all, just genetically engineered by humans. Unless evolved now means semi-intelligently designed by someone with half the necessary information?

Natural Selection is normally the only means by which evolution occurs, but evolution itself is merely "descent with modification", which this would qualify as. We're really just jump-starting the mutation process, and once that part is done, whether those designer babies go on to have children of their own will come down to natural selection.

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_0...

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

#162

Post by maxerickson »

DanBC wrote: post #157
int_19h wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the idea is rapid maturing (so you can harvest adult organs) and then a variety of specific failures (so you can harvest any type of organ).

I also think it isn't a very likely scenario, engineered organs would probably be enabled by the level of knowledge required to accelerate maturation and death and have the advantage of being faster and cheaper. Doctor's have already figured out how to make simple organs like bladders (that group is close to testing engineered livers in animals http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Projects/Human-Live... ).

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by geofft »

int_19h wrote: post #126
geofft wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty close to eugenics, whose ethical problems are I think well-acknowledged now. (And it's worth noting that these ethical problems were not acknowledged in the US in the early 20th century, and a very large number of reasonable people were excited about eugenics.)

Eugenics is different in that it was an attempt to make these decisions in a centralized fashion, and imposed at the entire population. Basically, "we know better" with respect to reproductive freedom. In that sense, laws regulating how parents may or may not change the genome of their kids are closer to the concept of eugenics than laissez-faire. Note, I'm not saying that laissez-faire here is the right approach, ne…

Once the option for designer babies exists, wouldn't the invisible hand of the market start trying to impose this in a centralized fashion? Medical insurance (legitimately, IMO) tries to encourage you towards preventive care over reactive care. Once this technology is freely available, wouldn't insurance companies be more inclined to pay to make your baby a designer baby instead of paying for certain types of pediatric care that designer babies don't need?

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

#165

Post by FungalRaincloud »

shostack wrote: post #148
c3534l wrote: post #128

Yeah, because fuck adoption. It only counts if it has your DNA, right?

OK, I'll bite... Having a child is a very personal decision. There are many factors, and for some, they may not feel adoption is right for them. It doesn't mean "fuck adoption," and it certainly doesn't give you the moral high ground to judge those who decide that having their own child is the right decision for them. And I'd add that three people having one child is a better ratio than two people having one for purp…

Not only that, but this is important research, whether we have too many people in the adoption system or not. The success of the human species relies on pushing our boundaries, every bit as much as it relies on taking care of one another.

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

#166

Post by BurningFrog »

grive wrote: post #155
BurningFrog wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Weak" and "dumb" are absolutely objectively and absolutely measurable.

- Someone who can lift 100 kg is stronger than someone who can only lift 80 kg.

- Someone who understand that is smarter than someone who doesn't.

You could possibly have an argument about "ugly".

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

#167

Post by tkxxx7 »

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…

It's better if you think of "designer babies" as a separate, er, product, than the biotech being discussed.

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

#168

Post by tkxxx7 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #166
grive wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Weak" and "dumb" are absolutely objectively and absolutely measurable. - Someone who can lift 100 kg is stronger than someone who can only lift 80 kg. - Someone who understand that is smarter than someone who doesn't. You could possibly have an argument about "ugly".

Both of those are comparative, relative measurements which I think was GP's point.

If I can lift 10 kg this week, and 20 kg next week, am I strong, or ("just") stronger than before?

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

#169

Post by Goronmon »

hueving wrote: post #140
pyre wrote: post #120

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? 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?

You are using an incorrect definition of "performance enhancing". Your question is easy to answer if you don't start off from an incorrect context.

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

#170

Post by int_19h »

geofft wrote: post #164
int_19h wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eugenics is different in that it was an attempt to make these decisions in a centralized fashion, and imposed at the entire population. Basically, "we know better" with respect to reproductive freedom. In that sense, laws regulating how parents may or may not change the genome of their kids are closer to the concept of eugenics than laissez-faire. Note, I'm not saying that laissez-faire here is the right approach, ne…

Once the option for designer babies exists, wouldn't the invisible hand of the market start trying to impose this in a centralized fashion? Medical insurance (legitimately, IMO) tries to encourage you towards preventive care over reactive care. Once this technology is freely available, wouldn't insurance companies be more inclined to pay to make your baby a designer baby instead of paying for certain types of pediatr…

It might be. Although if it targets genuine medical conditions, which I'd imagine what they would actually care about in terms of insurance payouts, I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing.

Either way, this is yet another reason as to why healthcare should be publicly funded (or at least have a public insurance option)...

Post reply on HN