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

61–70 of 189 posts

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

#61

Post by jlgaddis »

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…

Just today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.)

My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ramifications of that.

Will those parents have to request a paper copy every time a report card is issued (four times per school year)? Will they eventually stop doing so? Will they stop paying attention to their child's academic progress and will the child's academic performance then suffer? Will the child slowly begin to perform worse and worse (academically) over time?

Will this "digital divide" simply continue to worsen?

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

#62

Post by rcthompson »

nkrumm wrote: post #56
rcthompson wrote: post #2

Sounds like mother & father's nuclear DNA, injected into the nucleus of a 3rd party's donor's egg cell, which contains its own mitochondrial DNA. Since mtDNA is normally inherited 100% from the mother (since the mother's egg cell supplies the mitochondria to the embryo), if the mother has a mitochondrial genetic disease, 100% of her children would normally inherit it.

Yes-- the inheritance of mtDNA is maternal, but interestingly not 100% of her children will inherit the disease. This is because the mother will have a mix of mutated (diseased) mtDNA and wild-type (healthy) mtDNA in each of her cells, including her eggs. Some of the eggs will have close to all mtDNA mutated, but many will have a relatively low mutational burden. (This variation amongst the mother's cells and eggs is…

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this, but it seems obvious in retrospect. Thanks for the info!

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

#63

Post by exclusiv »

sp332 wrote: post #18
airesQ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is often thought that humanity will leave no trace of its existence for the next civilization that will come, say, 20 million years We have pretty good Trilobite fossils from 400+ million years ago. Why would they leave a trace and humanity not? (given all the stuff we produce: cities, cars, etc.)

There were a lot more trilobites than there are humans. And they lived in places more conducive to fossil formation.

Perhaps but humans document everything - even the stupid stuff.

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

#64

Post by throwwit »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #25
afarrell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me: What are the ethical problems with designer babies?

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.

The running example reminds me of https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/20...

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by undersuit »

rubber_duck wrote: post #54
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...

That happens anyway - traits that help you succeed (IQ, health, appearance, impulse control, etc.) are heritable.

Yes and when you are successful and you keep the heritable traits close to the family... you end up with royal inbreds.

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

#68

Post by dsr_ »

rando444 wrote: post #26
maxerickson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, no quandary at all created by the possibility that mistakes and misunderstandings might lead to children with severe medical problems. Short, miserable lifetimes of suffering are a high cost for "improving the species", and they are a real possibility if the approach taken is to just try things that seem worth trying.

Similar risks are taken when two native people from different parts of the world have a baby together.

That's pretty much the best case scenario for having a kid, actually. Hybrid vigor works in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

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

#69

Post by YorickPeterse »

scarmig wrote: post #48
vasco wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you use state sponsored designs and everyone has access to it.

Just like state sponsored designs have guaranteed access to health care and education.

They have in many modern first-world countries.

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

#70

Post by Jtsummers »

dethstar wrote: post #60
lqdc13 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was very much annoyed by the movie when I saw it. Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. So perhaps they were not so much genetically superior? Maybe motivation can be passed through DNA? In reality, what I think might happen is some people would choose the genes they want, but others won't. At the end, people will mix, so the…

>Primarily because the "genetically inferior" person somehow had more motivation and drive than the genetically engineered ones. But this has nothing to do with the moral issue. Maybe it was the fact that "in-valids" had to struggle and deal with discrimination which caused the character to give his most, given that he knew where he standed while the 'valids' are in a place of comfort.

In many ways reflecting the notion of privilege. The "valids" gained much of their quality of life benefits due to the nature of their conception rather than the nature of their person. Similarly, the "in-valids" were denied those things for the same reason.

It wasn't meritocratic except within its two communities, and the one (in-valids) were denied access to the upper levels as a matter of policy.

Post reply on HN