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

Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#21

Post by otaconjh »

fragmede wrote: post #7
newqer wrote: post #3

This is just one step away from eugenics. When the data is in the machine, you just know it will be used for malicious activities.

Is it malicious to abort a baby before it has a heartbeat at six weeks because it will have Downs syndrome?

A few stats I just looked up on people with downs syndrome:

- Over 90% of children are enrolled in public school.

  - 79% of those are in general education classrooms.
- Approx. 50% of adults are employed.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#22

Post by nedruod »

trollbridge wrote: post #9
eru wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like applying that label automatically makes it a bad thing. See https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/galton-ehrlich-buck for an elaboration.

So far, the gathering of great deals of data on people has not been used for purposes that benefit such people. For example, one of the biggest uses of mass surveillance and data collection is to improve the targeting of marketing, which generally does not benefit the people being marketed to, and indeed often is done to their detriment. And then a side effect of all of this is that this huge mass of data is just sit…

Sure, you can imagine it, but you should be able to imagine better solutions too. Far easier to ask for a government ID, or better yet, have a third party, which is trusted, use a cross-check, so that the raw data is never shared, just a binary, yes/no to the age check.

If we only imagine the bad outcomes, we'll miss on many good ones. And part of those misses will be worse bad outcomes. For example, if you object to the creation of a third party that could validate your age, what you get is a direct ask for your ID, which is the current reality and far worse.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#23

Post by Muromec »

mikeodds wrote: post #19
nullorempty wrote: post #16

It could lead to amazing advances in the distant future but in the near future it just means finding unwilling donors fast! Our society once again is not mature for such technology

your class C adolescent has been identified as being an eligible kidney donor for a Class B worker, congratulations! please book into your nearest hospital within 2 days

At the end of the day what will win is not the society that will supress such technologies harder but one that is able to walk this fine line with benefiting from it without day descending into this

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#24

Post by arghwhat »

Avicebron wrote: post #18
cm2187 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is "eugenics" has two meanings which is unhelpful for this discussion. 1) criminal practices of forced sterilisations, ethnic cleansing and mass assassinations to phase out undesired genes 2) the more generic practice of trying to improve the genetic characteristics of your children. I don't think there is much point in debating 1). But we would be naive to think we are not already doing 2). What else is…

The issue is where do you draw the line with 2)? What does "improve the genetic characteristics of your children" mean in practice? Everyone starts with 2) and then it creeps into 1).

There is no path that turns "I would like to terminate my pregnancy if the outcome is unfavorable" into "I would like to commit genocide on everyone whose genetics I do not like".

Granted, someone who already wishes for or aligns with the idea of ethnic cleansing might start by only publicly sharing their wish for the former to begin with, but I don't see a sensible argument for it being a natural extension of the former.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#27

Post by ralfd »

mikeodds wrote: post #19
nullorempty wrote: post #16

It could lead to amazing advances in the distant future but in the near future it just means finding unwilling donors fast! Our society once again is not mature for such technology

your class C adolescent has been identified as being an eligible kidney donor for a Class B worker, congratulations! please book into your nearest hospital within 2 days

This dystopian thought is wrong learning from dystopian fiction.

I know it felt clever writing it, surely many found it clever cynicism, but in no way does it reflect real life kidney donations.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#28

Post by nedruod »

N_Lens wrote: post #6

I believe this drive to record all the data and control everything (through science or surveillance) is misguided (And perhaps a bit paranoid) and will lead to poor outcomes for everyone.

Can I mention the irony that this seems a "bit" paranoid? "bit" because, yes, you do have some good examples of failures to call to, but still, consider how much good would have to be chucked to have avoided those by a general aversion to not record any data at all. You're fear that it will lead to poor outcomes didn't ask what's given up.. whether there might be good outcomes. A rational, bounded set of fears (not paranoid), would have to consider those possibilities too. When I do that I come to the belief that the responses to those fears live at a higher level.. being careful about how we store data, being careful about how we interpret data, being careful about how we communicate data. The answer is not being afraid to gather data.

https://substack.norabble.com/p/more-data-please

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#30

Post by cm2187 »

arghwhat wrote: post #24
Avicebron wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is where do you draw the line with 2)? What does "improve the genetic characteristics of your children" mean in practice? Everyone starts with 2) and then it creeps into 1).

There is no path that turns "I would like to terminate my pregnancy if the outcome is unfavorable" into "I would like to commit genocide on everyone whose genetics I do not like". Granted, someone who already wishes for or aligns with the idea of ethnic cleansing might start by only publicly sharing their wish for the former to begin with, but I don't see a sensible argument for it being a natural extension of the fo…

I agree, though one could make the argument that our modern nanny states have been pretty brutal at enforcing health policies during covid, and if they convince themselves that they can eradicate certain diseases by mandating DNA patching or pregnancy terminations, them doing so "for our own good" is in the realm of the possible.

But we are in coercion territory. What I am saying that we already practice eugenics without coercion, we just don't call it that.

Post reply on HN