Should every baby's DNA be sequenced? • Hacker News Board

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#51

Post by mschuster91 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:30 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #30

arghwhat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Vaccine mandates are an entirely different game than "this kind of life has no right to existence".

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#52

Post by nedruod » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:30 PM UTC

laszlokorte wrote: post #37

arghwhat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would like my child to not be deaf" -> "Many (most?) people would prefer their child to not be deaf" -> (3) "Deaf community shrinks" -> "Social support for deaf people is reduced/seen as not necessary" -> "Parents of deaf children are blamed for carrying out the child" -> "Parents are nudged (forced) to terminate the pregnancy" -> goto (3) In a some way this is already happening (eg Judges forcing cochlea implants…

In terms of slippery slopes, this argument is climbing atop one. Where does that end? Should we ban doctors from performing surgeries that would save someone's hearing? Should we ban protective gear that might diminish the size of the deaf community?

It's simply a horrible argument to suggest that you have to protect a disadvantaged community by making sure they don't shrink. There's much better ways to be respectful of the great human beings these people are.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#53

Post by cm2187 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:36 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #51

cm2187 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Vaccine mandates are an entirely different game than "this kind of life has no right to existence".

Well if you mandate DNA patching, how do you enforce it?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#54

Post by jvanderbot » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:37 PM UTC

nedruod wrote: post #17

moooo99 wrote: post #12

Generic screening is where I draw a line where the risk of substantial damage is just too high to justify it. I am nowhere near an expert on this matter, but probably more informed than the average Joe. What always strikes me in these kinds of debates among non experts is - as outlined in the article - how people equate genetics to certainty. This assertion does not hold up at all once you start taking an even superf…

You cannot undo anything that's history, including not testing. If you missed a chance to get other tests or treatment early in life, you don't get the chance to fix that later either. It would be easier to be cautious on penetrance, and reevaluate later, than to never collect the data and hope something changes. The number of these calls to limit our access to data are piling up, and they shouldn't be taken one at a…

You're confusing mandatory public health level screening with opt-in personalized screening. The former is questionable at best - genetic diseases have very little external consequences, just the family / individual might suffer. Any argument about external consequences to neighbors/taxpayers slides us right into the dystopian future you'd like to avoid.

OTOH, we should have off the shelf genetic testing that sends you an SD Card / email and then deletes /anonymizes the results thereafter. You could bring that to a doc when you wanted to, and read the full results yourself. Very little harm in that aside from a de-anonymization campaign.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#55

Post by Citizen_Lame » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:41 PM UTC

nedruod wrote: post #28

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 p…

Perhaps you can tell us what you really think, without spitting out generic AI soup?

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#56

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#57

Post by arghwhat » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:58 PM UTC

laszlokorte wrote: post #37

arghwhat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would like my child to not be deaf" -> "Many (most?) people would prefer their child to not be deaf" -> (3) "Deaf community shrinks" -> "Social support for deaf people is reduced/seen as not necessary" -> "Parents of deaf children are blamed for carrying out the child" -> "Parents are nudged (forced) to terminate the pregnancy" -> goto (3) In a some way this is already happening (eg Judges forcing cochlea implants…

A shrinking deaf community has nothing at all to do with ethnic cleansing, and social support does not shrink for less common diseases - it's usually the opposite, with support proportional to how rare and inconvenient the disability is.

Let's try a small thought experiment: Some birth defects stem from dietary issues in the mother during pregnancy, like folic acid deficiency or alcohol consumption.

Let's imagine that we discover that deaf children are primarily caused by a particular vitamin deficiency during pregnancy. We can then either spread the information so parents can supplement, or even fortify foods and cause the community to massively decline or even disappear - or we could withold the information on the vitamins to artificially maintain the population of the deaf community.

You could even extend it to a scenario where we end up relying more and more on artificial insemination or other early processing - the impact of many dietary deficiencies happen extremely early, so to maintain the community we would then have to artificially cause said deficiency to maintain the population of the deaf community.

Heck, we can always just make people deaf later if you wanted to maintain their community. We could also make more people get into "accidents" so that the quadriplegic community is maintained. Sounds absolutely insane when you start to discuss maintaining the population of disabled communities, doesn't it?

Back to the topic, cleansing of the deaf in this context implies a hatred for deaf people in general and wanting to remove all deaf people, which is an emotion entirely unrelated to sympethesizing with the disability of being deaf and wanting to avoid causing more such disability.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#58

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 1:02 PM UTC

laszlokorte wrote: post #37

arghwhat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would like my child to not be deaf" -> "Many (most?) people would prefer their child to not be deaf" -> (3) "Deaf community shrinks" -> "Social support for deaf people is reduced/seen as not necessary" -> "Parents of deaf children are blamed for carrying out the child" -> "Parents are nudged (forced) to terminate the pregnancy" -> goto (3) In a some way this is already happening (eg Judges forcing cochlea implants…

Many people see the deaf community as something that should ideally disappear by curing them.

I wonder if 100 years ago, the same activists would fight for survival of the leprosy community and its specific culture.

I can understand glorifying pathology if nothing can be done about it. It is a form of coping, similar to the coping that we usually engage in with regard to death. But once the underlying condition starts being curable and the glorifiers attempt to block treatment of children in the name of maintaining the pathology for future generations, they IMHO cross the line to outright evil.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#59

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 1:07 PM UTC

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.

We shouldn't let biology and genetics be forever kept hostage by the fact that 100 years ago some racists (who did not even know what DNA was) used crude mechanisms like castration to push their specific forms of social engineering.

There is a lot of potential problems written into your exome, and some of them can be prevented. Treating a condition which has already taken hold is much more complicated and often less successful. Personalized medicine is pretty much the only way forward nowadays.

Re: Should every baby's DNA be sequenced?

#60

Post by arghwhat » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 1:08 PM UTC

boxed wrote: post #44

laszlokorte wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I would like my child to not be deaf" -> "Many (most?) people would prefer their child to not be deaf" -> (3) "Deaf community shrinks" -> "Social support for deaf people is reduced/seen as not necessary" -> "Parents of deaf children are blamed for carrying out the child" -> "Parents are nudged (forced) to terminate the pregnancy" -> goto (3) In a some way this is already happening (eg Judges forcing cochlea implants…

Deafness is a huge handicap, in many ways significantly worse than blindness. That the victims of this horrible ailment start to self identify with it isn't a reason to subject new humans to it.

I have previously had to install simple things like doorbells for deaf people, which is done through a very strobe light that can be seen from almost the entire apartment... if you're not behind a closed door at least.

The idea of it being genuinely difficult for a person to be warned or notified is terrifying. Put your phone in your bag and you might as well have left it at home. Honking, people yelling or screaming for you to move out of harms way, even air sirens... You'll have no idea.