Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turning stem cells into human eggs

conception.bio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#81

Post by kfprt »

delecti wrote: post #59
NaNDude wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

science fiction reference for cells eugenics: gattaca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

I always felt like Gattaca was unrealistically pessimistic. I'm unconvinced that the "best possible person" (if you grant such a thing even exists) is that much different from an average person. It seems more likely that we would just eliminate some genetic diseases and cancers, and vain/rich parents would select for taller children. Most other differences seem to be too weakly correlated with genes we've identified…

> Most other differences seem to be too weakly correlated with genes we've identified to result in such a stark change to society.

These findings were always driven more by politics than science.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#82

Post by kfprt »

anonporridge wrote: post #66
smoyer wrote: post #10

My cousin is an Ob/Gyn who was chased to the Midwest by the high cost of malpractice insurance for those who deliver babies. I can't imagine what the liability would be for something like this but I'd imagine you'd need both insurance and an ironclad waiver.

This raises an interesting point in general in any area where consciousness is taking more control over things that have always been subject to unconscious nature. In this case, when natural conception results in deformity, genetic illness, or just generally unfit offspring, there's no one to blame. I suppose you can get mad at God, but we have yet to figure out how to sue them. But when human actors start making cho…

> I suppose you can get mad at God

Do you think God has sovereign immunity?

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#83

Post by anonporridge »

kfprt wrote: post #82
anonporridge wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This raises an interesting point in general in any area where consciousness is taking more control over things that have always been subject to unconscious nature. In this case, when natural conception results in deformity, genetic illness, or just generally unfit offspring, there's no one to blame. I suppose you can get mad at God, but we have yet to figure out how to sue them. But when human actors start making cho…

> I suppose you can get mad at God Do you think God has sovereign immunity?

No. It's just super hard to subpoena someone who doesn't exist.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#84

Post by heavyset_go »

Bender wrote: post #74
anonporridge wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm unconvinced that the "best possible person" (if you grant such a thing even exists) is that much different from an average person. This seems like an absurd thing to believe for anyone who has a solid grasp of how evolution by natural selection works. Or rather, it's absurd to believe that even a small improvement from the average isn't a HUGE advantage for a person's success in life and genetic legacy.

We bypass natural selection all the time. Some people are more vulnerable to certain pathogens. We give them medicine or vaccines to mitigate mortality. Natural selection would have us let nature take its course. Some people have religious beliefs that in fact route people towards nature or God determining mortality rather than medicine.

We're still subject to natural selection and that's all still technically natural selection. The selection pressures have just changed.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#85

Post by wyager »

k__ wrote: post #80
wyager wrote: post #57

The problem creating demand for later-in-life fertility services for women is that the current structure of our society heavily penalizes women who don’t career-optimize during the years in which child-rearing would be (physically and mentally) least taxing and difficult. Long-term, I suspect the best answer will involve changing this structure rather than relying on complex medical interventions. One scheme I think…

To be fair, I would rather have me at 40 instead of 20 raising my own kids, instead of relying on my parents.

Why’s that? NB You’d also have your spouse’s parents.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#86

Post by elil17 »

KorematsuFredt wrote: post #78
bradleyjg wrote: post #41

More realistically, because the technology could turn eggs into a manufactured resource, it could supercharge the path to designer children. If doctors can make a thousand eggs for a patient, they’ll also be able to fertilize all of them and test to find the best resulting embryos, scoring their genes for future health or intelligence. Better still you can do it iteratively. Take cells from one person and turn them i…

Yes. That would be the day. I would love to have many children but I hate the notion of pregnancy. Once we can also grow them in labs I think it would be really great day for humanity. You could ship only embroyos to Mars and then let them grow into babies. (You will still need people to take care of them but we can ship only few hundred people with few million embroyos to colonize a distant planet.

Totally agree. The current state of gestation is untenable. The child-bearer is sick for nine months and pretty much incapacitated for a good portion of that towards the end. Their lifestyle choices can cause harm to the fetus. At the end of it all, they face a significant risk of death.

In-vitro gestation is probably not that far off technologically - we’re already very close with sheep (there was a very successful artificial womb experiment there) and the age of viability keeps getting lower. I hope that regulators are willing to take the leap to human trials so we can finally do away with pregnancy for those who want to avoid it but still want children.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#87

Post by marcthe12 »

anonporridge wrote: post #66
smoyer wrote: post #10

My cousin is an Ob/Gyn who was chased to the Midwest by the high cost of malpractice insurance for those who deliver babies. I can't imagine what the liability would be for something like this but I'd imagine you'd need both insurance and an ironclad waiver.

This raises an interesting point in general in any area where consciousness is taking more control over things that have always been subject to unconscious nature. In this case, when natural conception results in deformity, genetic illness, or just generally unfit offspring, there's no one to blame. I suppose you can get mad at God, but we have yet to figure out how to sue them. But when human actors start making cho…

> I suppose you can get mad at God, but we have yet to figure out how to sue them.

That is actually a plot of a Bollywood film "OMG: Oh my God" where after an earthquake demolished the protagonist's shop and denied insurance payment due an "Act of God" clause, he sues God in court.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#88

Post by fakedang »

elil17 wrote: post #86
KorematsuFredt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That would be the day. I would love to have many children but I hate the notion of pregnancy. Once we can also grow them in labs I think it would be really great day for humanity. You could ship only embroyos to Mars and then let them grow into babies. (You will still need people to take care of them but we can ship only few hundred people with few million embroyos to colonize a distant planet.

Totally agree. The current state of gestation is untenable. The child-bearer is sick for nine months and pretty much incapacitated for a good portion of that towards the end. Their lifestyle choices can cause harm to the fetus. At the end of it all, they face a significant risk of death. In-vitro gestation is probably not that far off technologically - we’re already very close with sheep (there was a very successful…

The current state of gestation was the same state as of 10,000 years ago. I don't know how you can term it as untenable.

I wouldn't be so optimistic for lab-grown humans. If we are going to be selecting for the best physiological characteristics, we will inevitably end up with a far more homogeneous species. That, apart from all the genetic restrictions the powers that be will create in such an environment.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#89

Post by rowanG077 »

delecti wrote: post #59
NaNDude wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

science fiction reference for cells eugenics: gattaca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

I always felt like Gattaca was unrealistically pessimistic. I'm unconvinced that the "best possible person" (if you grant such a thing even exists) is that much different from an average person. It seems more likely that we would just eliminate some genetic diseases and cancers, and vain/rich parents would select for taller children. Most other differences seem to be too weakly correlated with genes we've identified…

Considering that the gap between currently existing "best people" and the average is already really really immense I have the opposite opinion as you.

Re: Turning stem cells into human eggs

#90

Post by [deleted] »

marcthe12 wrote: post #87
anonporridge wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This raises an interesting point in general in any area where consciousness is taking more control over things that have always been subject to unconscious nature. In this case, when natural conception results in deformity, genetic illness, or just generally unfit offspring, there's no one to blame. I suppose you can get mad at God, but we have yet to figure out how to sue them. But when human actors start making cho…

> I suppose you can get mad at God, but we have yet to figure out how to sue them. That is actually a plot of a Bollywood film "OMG: Oh my God" where after an earthquake demolished the protagonist's shop and denied insurance payment due an "Act of God" clause, he sues God in court.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN