My family is featured at the bottom of the article. If you're curious about the process I wrote most of it down here as it occurred and some after from memory: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/IVF
If we have the ability to screen embryos to determine which ones are likely to have the least health problems, and to live as fulfilling and successful a life of possible, do we not then have a moral imperative to do this?
Supposing it were free: to choose NOT to do it, would be to say, "I don't care if I bring avoidable pain and suffering into the world."
Every time I talk to my gf about this we get to the “where do we draw the line” question. You can keep expanding the list of filters until you have people with money taking off not only in opportunity but now also genetically.
Also, lets not forget the key concept of counter-party risk.
What assurances and real resolutions do you have that what they market is actually true; and the baby your gf is carrying isn't in fact a mini-musk with no related DNA from you. Like a cuckoo bird.
Interestingly the term cuckold, referring to a man whose wife was unfaithful, originates from the Cuckoo bird, where the bird is tricked into raising children biologically not their own; as happens with brood parasitism.
These advances bring into question long-term fitness and survivability. We know mono-cultures die out quite easily.
Before long we might have a "Surface" event, like what happened in that TV show. There are things that cannot be undone, and there are blind people more than willing to ensure those things are full steam ahead.
Even absent ethical or practical risks, it seems presumptuous to assume that we know what direction our evolution should take. The inferior beings that need improvement are the same beings that will do the improving? That would imply an implausible level of knowledge about the future and what characteristics will be desirable.
I posted a youtube link to the Gattaca prologue in a similar post on here. It got flagged. Pretty sure it's virtually identical to the movie's premise.
I mean, curing genetic diseases is good. And it doesn't hurt to make sure your kid is attractive and charismatic. On the other hand, this will absolutely and unequivocally be used for babies with... specific phenotypes associated with wealth or class.
And, worse yet, it inherently encodes a poor tax into the very fiber of a human being that will exacerbate inequality. Something that will only grow as the designer genes become even more effective.
I guess, in the end, the rich will claim to be justified when they call the poor "less human".
I get the few single-mutation-equals-fatal-disease screens, but I think with what little we currently know about most other genes and more complex effects, and how long it takes to see any outcome of your decisions based on this (and you’ll never be able to know what exactly to attribute to the selection vs. chance or other factors) this might just end up a very expensive pseudoscience/scam for a while.
Also I am surprised you can take five cells from an embryo with no effect! I guess at this point that’s probably well-proven through more basic screens.
My family is featured at the bottom of the article. If you're curious about the process I wrote most of it down here as it occurred and some after from memory: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/IVF
The actual process of our pregnancy is written here: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Pregnancy
And a quick primer on our gene mutations is here: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Gene_Mutations
Feel free to ask me any questions.
Wild times. The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge. Are we really ready for designer genetics at scale?
If there are two things SV tends not to care about, they are ethics and long-term risks.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
If we have the ability to screen embryos to determine which ones are likely to have the least health problems, and to live as fulfilling and successful a life of possible, do we not then have a moral imperative to do this?
Supposing it were free: to choose NOT to do it, would be to say, "I don't care if I bring avoidable pain and suffering into the world."
Every time I talk to my gf about this we get to the “where do we draw the line” question. You can keep expanding the list of filters until you have people with money taking off not only in opportunity but now also genetically.
Also, lets not forget the key concept of counter-party risk.
What assurances and real resolutions do you have that what they market is actually true; and the baby your gf is carrying isn't in fact a mini-musk with no related DNA from you. Like a cuckoo bird.
Interestingly the term cuckold, referring to a man whose wife was unfaithful, originates from the Cuckoo bird, where the bird is tricked into raising children biologically not their own; as happens with brood parasitism.
These advances bring into question long-term fitness and survivability. We know mono-cultures die out quite easily.
Before long we might have a "Surface" event, like what happened in that TV show. There are things that cannot be undone, and there are blind people more than willing to ensure those things are full steam ahead.
Even absent ethical or practical risks, it seems presumptuous to assume that we know what direction our evolution should take. The inferior beings that need improvement are the same beings that will do the improving? That would imply an implausible level of knowledge about the future and what characteristics will be desirable.
The soviets had been thinking about this at least since their socialist revolution with the idea of the new soviet man[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man
> The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge.
They [0] will do it anyway. Ethics, risks and morals be damned.
Dystopia capitalism is highly profitable.
[0] https://mynucleus.com/
Pretty sure this was the prologue to Gattaca.
I posted a youtube link to the Gattaca prologue in a similar post on here. It got flagged. Pretty sure it's virtually identical to the movie's premise.
Am I missing something… why does this sound like eugenics with extra steps?
I mean, curing genetic diseases is good. And it doesn't hurt to make sure your kid is attractive and charismatic. On the other hand, this will absolutely and unequivocally be used for babies with... specific phenotypes associated with wealth or class.
And, worse yet, it inherently encodes a poor tax into the very fiber of a human being that will exacerbate inequality. Something that will only grow as the designer genes become even more effective.
I guess, in the end, the rich will claim to be justified when they call the poor "less human".
I only know seven sci-fi films and shows that have warned about how this will go badly.
Next headline: AI Is Replacing Babies
I get the few single-mutation-equals-fatal-disease screens, but I think with what little we currently know about most other genes and more complex effects, and how long it takes to see any outcome of your decisions based on this (and you’ll never be able to know what exactly to attribute to the selection vs. chance or other factors) this might just end up a very expensive pseudoscience/scam for a while.
Also I am surprised you can take five cells from an embryo with no effect! I guess at this point that’s probably well-proven through more basic screens.
What's the point of these superbabies if their brains are going to be full of plastic anyway?
non-paywalled link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/science/genetics/inside-the-silico...