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

171–180 of 189 posts

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

#171

Post by int_19h »

malka wrote: post #152
int_19h wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but society can prevent you from hogging too much for yourself (via taxes etc), so long as it's not 100% laissez-faire, and not just the rich have political rights.

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

#172

Post by grive »

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".

That's pretty much exactly my point. These can only exist as comparisons. They are meaningless on their own, e.g. they are not objective attributes.

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

#173

Post by drakonandor »

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.

What? If the baby was made naturally by these parents, it would literally be dead within the first few years of it's life. It's not hard to improve the situation from that.

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

#174

Post by BurningFrog »

grive wrote: post #172
BurningFrog wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

That's pretty much exactly my point. These can only exist as comparisons. They are meaningless on their own, e.g. they are not objective attributes.

No. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

That someone can lift 100 kg is an objective attribute of that person.

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

#175

Post by pyre »

hueving wrote: post #139
pyre wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying that we should disregard all science-fiction that has explored this topic when considering possible implications? I was referencing sci-fi as more of a "further reading" than as part of an argument.

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

#176

Post by pyre »

BurningFrog wrote: post #130
pyre wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think the need for a college degree to even get a job is (1) specific to American society and regulations, and (2) not really true even there. Since we're talking about general human morality, I wouldn't put much weight on the particulars of this region in 2016. On a healthy job market, you get paid about as much as you produce. Regardless of what others produce. You also get to benefit from whatever inventions any…

It's not a hard and fast requirement, but there is definitely a wage-gap between the have's and have-not's when it comes to college degrees.

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

#177

Post by pyre »

int_19h wrote: post #171
malka wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, but society can prevent you from hogging too much for yourself (via taxes etc), so long as it's not 100% laissez-faire, and not just the rich have political rights.

Do you have faith that these aspects of human society will be solved in parallel with increased "designer baby" technology?

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

#178

Post by int_19h »

pyre wrote: post #177
int_19h wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but society can prevent you from hogging too much for yourself (via taxes etc), so long as it's not 100% laissez-faire, and not just the rich have political rights.

Do you have faith that these aspects of human society will be solved in parallel with increased "designer baby" technology?

No, but I don't see the "designer baby" tech as something that radically changes the nature of the problem (which already exists, and has existed for a long time), either. Basically, insofar as status quo is tolerable, this doesn't move the needle enough to care.

The other thing is, coming from a "well, something must be done about it" perspective, fixing these aspects of human society strikes me as the least intrusive and harmful side-effect-free approach, compared to all the other alternatives (which are mostly about tightly regulating the tech and its use). Heavy handed regulation, in particular, will just produce a black market with no regulation at all, which is likely to result in more problems in the end.

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

#179

Post by lqdc13 »

Jtsummers wrote: post #149
lqdc13 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing. If he was the better athlete then they didn't do the generic engineering well at all. For me the message seemed to be "don't do generic engineering because it cannot beat motivation" which discounts the potential overlap between the two and also undersells the potential gains of genetic engineering. What if his competitors were 10x smarter and 10x faster swimmers than he was as well as being equally…

A better athlete than his brother. Not than everyone. Each valid was designed by the parents for something, or in the case of his brother just generally enhanced because they weren't filthy rich.

I guess my point is that the valids could have been 100x better athletes than all the invalids which wasn't the case in the movie. For example, they could have retractable fins and could breathe under water.

Something which would make them swim a lot faster and the point of the movie would be lost.

Post reply on HN