Interesting. I was wondering how they'd "shuffle the cards" to get a three-parent baby, but this is more of a "grabbing healthy mitochondria from another person" to avoid a genetic disease that is...
Interesting. I was wondering how they'd "shuffle the cards" to get a three-parent baby, but this is more of a "grabbing healthy mitochondria from another person" to avoid a genetic disease that is passed down matrilinearly. I understand that people get squeamish when you talk about modifying human reproductive cells, but I have a hard time reading this as anything other than a medical procedure.
[EDIT: Purely because I recognize you from DaystromInstitute, I'd like to add that I'm much more on the side of Iain M. Banks' Culture series' treatment of genetic modification than Star Trek's. Transhumanism isn't evil, dammit, it's progress]
Yeah, the title is a tad clickbait-y, but I thought the article itself was interesting. However, even reputable science publications refer to this situation as a "three-parent baby". Same here....
I was wondering how they'd "shuffle the cards" to get a three-parent baby
Yeah, the title is a tad clickbait-y, but I thought the article itself was interesting. However, even reputable science publications refer to this situation as a "three-parent baby".
I have a hard time reading this as anything other than a medical procedure.
Same here. But it does blur a line between getting genetic material from two parents and getting genetic material from three parents. It sets a precedent. Having agreed to this, it's hard to argue against actually "shuffling the cards" to mix up genetic material from three parents in its primary DNA.
Transhumanism isn't evil, dammit, it's progress
I find it difficult to agree with this. While, in theory, I accept that some people will want to tamper with their own genes (I've read and watched too much science fiction to believe otherwise), I don't want it done to me. Nor would I do it to any (hypothetical) child of mine - except for strict medical purposes. I wouldn't mix & match genes to create a designer child. That's a level of control that I don't think one person should exert over another. We already worry about parents who smother their children - imagine if those parents got to decide before the child was conceived what their child was going to be like!
Well thankfully Transhumanism is to promote the ultimate in bodily autonomy, so nobody should force it on anyone else. There's certainly a debate to be had in regards to designer babies, but...
Well thankfully Transhumanism is to promote the ultimate in bodily autonomy, so nobody should force it on anyone else. There's certainly a debate to be had in regards to designer babies, but they're just going to happen.
'good luck getting all nations to legislate against it' - kind of thing.
I'm really excited for the hopeful eradication of genetic diseases however, that will be a real treat.
How would that play out in practice, though? If you engineer your genes to alter your own body, those engineered genes can and will be inherited by your children. How is that not forcing...
Transhumanism is to promote the ultimate in bodily autonomy, so nobody should force it on anyone else.
How would that play out in practice, though? If you engineer your genes to alter your own body, those engineered genes can and will be inherited by your children. How is that not forcing transhumanism on someone else?
Well, that's a philosophical question, and I'm not sure it has an answer. Not an objective one, anyway. I guess at the end of the day it boils down to consent, in some form. I've chosen not to...
Well, that's a philosophical question, and I'm not sure it has an answer. Not an objective one, anyway. I guess at the end of the day it boils down to consent, in some form.
I've chosen not to have children, and folks have told me that's unfair to the child who won't exist; is it? I didn't choose to be born, was it really fair to bring me into the world without my consent? For those who do procreate, our choices in sexual partners is huge factor in the resulting genetics. If you know your partner is a carrier for say, poor eyesight, you're forcing the child to have poor eyesight. Is that fair? Is that different from pre-selecting genes, really?
These are hypotheticals, and I don't expect answers, just hoping to provoke some thought.
I don't have an answer for you, except that were I to modify mine own body it doesn't necessary mean those genes would express themselves in the DNA within my sperm cells.
In practice, I expect the Transhuman-era to be filled with much lively debates with no end.
Yes, it is different. There are multiple genes for eyesight in the human genome, and there's no guarantee your child will inherit your partner's genes rather than your own. Imagine a simple case,...
If you know your partner is a carrier for say, poor eyesight, you're forcing the child to have poor eyesight. Is that fair? Is that different from pre-selecting genes, really?
Yes, it is different. There are multiple genes for eyesight in the human genome, and there's no guarantee your child will inherit your partner's genes rather than your own. Imagine a simple case, where there are two genes: one for "good eyesight" and one for "bad eyesight". All genes come in pairs: one from your mother and one from your father. You have a pair of eyesight genes, and your partner has a pair of eyesight genes. We'll assume that the gene for bad eyesight is recessive (if it was dominant, then everyone would need glasses): to have bad eyesight, you must have two genes for bad eyesight. Your eyesight is good; let's assume that you have one "good eyesight" gene and one "bad eyesight" gene. Your partner's eyesight is bad; let's assume they have two "bad eyesight" genes. Even in this scenario, there's still only a 50/50 chance your child will have bad eyesight.
You're not pre-selecting genes in a deliberate and focussed way. You're still leaving the end product up to natural processes and random chance.
I expect the Transhuman-era to be filled with much lively debates with no end.
Hold on to your hat - that transhuman era is starting now. We need to have these debates yesterday.
Well, hereditary genetics is often much more complex than that. But I understand where you're coming from, and I still don't see much a fundamental difference. I was attempting (poorly perhaps),...
Well, hereditary genetics is often much more complex than that. But I understand where you're coming from, and I still don't see much a fundamental difference. I was attempting (poorly perhaps), to illustrate that our genetics aren't entirely chance. The majority of right-handed peoples aren't that way through chance, but because it's a massively dominant gene that determines dominant hand. Maybe I should have used that as my example.
I wrote quite a lot after the first paragraph and before the start of this sentence, but I've omitted it as it wasn't really going anywhere. I'm working through this is a stream-of-consciousness manner.
It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that your hangup is the intent, or the deliberate action, rather than what is genetically being done. If so, I'm reminded very much of the Trolley Problem, which examines the ethics of action/inaction.
We can agree that utilizing CRISPR/Cas9-based technology is most certainly different from letting nature do its thing. However I fail to see a meaningful difference. I'm an excited and impatient Transhumanist (Singularitarian), so these sorts of things don't really bother me. The future is going to be weird, and I think most people won't be prepared to handle the moral and ethical qualms that will arise.
I can see how such a child would technically have three parents, due to mitochondrial DNA. My initial take was that they were combining DNA in ways other than sperm-meets-egg, but the...
I can see how such a child would technically have three parents, due to mitochondrial DNA. My initial take was that they were combining DNA in ways other than sperm-meets-egg, but the mitochondrial swap is actually still pretty cool.
Designer children are probably a bad idea, I agree with you. But while I do see your point about setting precedent for "card shuffling," there may be room to draw the line before "stacking the deck" to extend the metaphor. I don't see an issue with taking an arbitrary number of parents, applying some biochemistry to their gametes, and seeing what comes out. Trying to min-max the results, though, seems like a bad idea.
That said, genetic modification to remove congenital illness is research I believe in wholeheartedly. If I could have been born sans the predisposition towards the rare form of lymphoma that killed my dad, that'd be great.
But there's no objective way to define where that line is drawn. That's a big problem. I'm reminded of the character Minerva, from Robert Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'. She was a sentient...
But while I do see your point about setting precedent for "card shuffling," there may be room to draw the line before "stacking the deck" to extend the metaphor.
But there's no objective way to define where that line is drawn. That's a big problem.
I don't see an issue with taking an arbitrary number of parents
I'm reminded of the character Minerva, from Robert Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'. She was a sentient computer who wanted to live as a human. She "stole" genetic material from a genetic database, and created her own body using cloning facilities. In choosing what genetic material to use, she deliberately chose to get each pair of genes from a different person, meaning she effectively had 23 parents. :)
Interesting. I was wondering how they'd "shuffle the cards" to get a three-parent baby, but this is more of a "grabbing healthy mitochondria from another person" to avoid a genetic disease that is passed down matrilinearly. I understand that people get squeamish when you talk about modifying human reproductive cells, but I have a hard time reading this as anything other than a medical procedure.
[EDIT: Purely because I recognize you from DaystromInstitute, I'd like to add that I'm much more on the side of Iain M. Banks' Culture series' treatment of genetic modification than Star Trek's. Transhumanism isn't evil, dammit, it's progress]
Yeah, the title is a tad clickbait-y, but I thought the article itself was interesting. However, even reputable science publications refer to this situation as a "three-parent baby".
Same here. But it does blur a line between getting genetic material from two parents and getting genetic material from three parents. It sets a precedent. Having agreed to this, it's hard to argue against actually "shuffling the cards" to mix up genetic material from three parents in its primary DNA.
I find it difficult to agree with this. While, in theory, I accept that some people will want to tamper with their own genes (I've read and watched too much science fiction to believe otherwise), I don't want it done to me. Nor would I do it to any (hypothetical) child of mine - except for strict medical purposes. I wouldn't mix & match genes to create a designer child. That's a level of control that I don't think one person should exert over another. We already worry about parents who smother their children - imagine if those parents got to decide before the child was conceived what their child was going to be like!
Well thankfully Transhumanism is to promote the ultimate in bodily autonomy, so nobody should force it on anyone else. There's certainly a debate to be had in regards to designer babies, but they're just going to happen.
'good luck getting all nations to legislate against it' - kind of thing.
I'm really excited for the hopeful eradication of genetic diseases however, that will be a real treat.
How would that play out in practice, though? If you engineer your genes to alter your own body, those engineered genes can and will be inherited by your children. How is that not forcing transhumanism on someone else?
Well, that's a philosophical question, and I'm not sure it has an answer. Not an objective one, anyway. I guess at the end of the day it boils down to consent, in some form.
I've chosen not to have children, and folks have told me that's unfair to the child who won't exist; is it? I didn't choose to be born, was it really fair to bring me into the world without my consent? For those who do procreate, our choices in sexual partners is huge factor in the resulting genetics. If you know your partner is a carrier for say, poor eyesight, you're forcing the child to have poor eyesight. Is that fair? Is that different from pre-selecting genes, really?
These are hypotheticals, and I don't expect answers, just hoping to provoke some thought.
I don't have an answer for you, except that were I to modify mine own body it doesn't necessary mean those genes would express themselves in the DNA within my sperm cells.
In practice, I expect the Transhuman-era to be filled with much lively debates with no end.
Yes, it is different. There are multiple genes for eyesight in the human genome, and there's no guarantee your child will inherit your partner's genes rather than your own. Imagine a simple case, where there are two genes: one for "good eyesight" and one for "bad eyesight". All genes come in pairs: one from your mother and one from your father. You have a pair of eyesight genes, and your partner has a pair of eyesight genes. We'll assume that the gene for bad eyesight is recessive (if it was dominant, then everyone would need glasses): to have bad eyesight, you must have two genes for bad eyesight. Your eyesight is good; let's assume that you have one "good eyesight" gene and one "bad eyesight" gene. Your partner's eyesight is bad; let's assume they have two "bad eyesight" genes. Even in this scenario, there's still only a 50/50 chance your child will have bad eyesight.
You're not pre-selecting genes in a deliberate and focussed way. You're still leaving the end product up to natural processes and random chance.
Hold on to your hat - that transhuman era is starting now. We need to have these debates yesterday.
Well, hereditary genetics is often much more complex than that. But I understand where you're coming from, and I still don't see much a fundamental difference. I was attempting (poorly perhaps), to illustrate that our genetics aren't entirely chance. The majority of right-handed peoples aren't that way through chance, but because it's a massively dominant gene that determines dominant hand. Maybe I should have used that as my example.
I wrote quite a lot after the first paragraph and before the start of this sentence, but I've omitted it as it wasn't really going anywhere. I'm working through this is a stream-of-consciousness manner.
It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that your hangup is the intent, or the deliberate action, rather than what is genetically being done. If so, I'm reminded very much of the Trolley Problem, which examines the ethics of action/inaction.
We can agree that utilizing CRISPR/Cas9-based technology is most certainly different from letting nature do its thing. However I fail to see a meaningful difference. I'm an excited and impatient Transhumanist (Singularitarian), so these sorts of things don't really bother me. The future is going to be weird, and I think most people won't be prepared to handle the moral and ethical qualms that will arise.
I can see how such a child would technically have three parents, due to mitochondrial DNA. My initial take was that they were combining DNA in ways other than sperm-meets-egg, but the mitochondrial swap is actually still pretty cool.
Designer children are probably a bad idea, I agree with you. But while I do see your point about setting precedent for "card shuffling," there may be room to draw the line before "stacking the deck" to extend the metaphor. I don't see an issue with taking an arbitrary number of parents, applying some biochemistry to their gametes, and seeing what comes out. Trying to min-max the results, though, seems like a bad idea.
That said, genetic modification to remove congenital illness is research I believe in wholeheartedly. If I could have been born sans the predisposition towards the rare form of lymphoma that killed my dad, that'd be great.
But there's no objective way to define where that line is drawn. That's a big problem.
I'm reminded of the character Minerva, from Robert Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'. She was a sentient computer who wanted to live as a human. She "stole" genetic material from a genetic database, and created her own body using cloning facilities. In choosing what genetic material to use, she deliberately chose to get each pair of genes from a different person, meaning she effectively had 23 parents. :)