Hacker News Reader

Comment by scurvy | Hacker News Reader

I'm always torn on the amount of money and resources that goes toward fertility and reproductive sciences. Money and resources that should be going towards cancer research, vaccinations in the third world, etc. I'm not trying to be overly harsh, but nature is telling you not to have kids. We shouldn't fight that.

On the other hand, as a parent, I know how wonderful kids are.

View on HN

I'm thoroughly confused by your comment.

Let's start with the conclusion that individuals who cannot have children without this technology are being told by 'nature' not to have children.

In what way is this different from a cancer patient being told by 'nature' that s/he should die? Or an unvaccinated newborn being told by 'nature' that s/he should succumb to horrible illnesses? We could go on and on.

I'm not sure why you draw the line at giving potential parents the opportunity to have a child, something you clearly enjoy yourself.

Not the OP, though I have been involved in fertility treatments. And I do feel conflicted knowing my family's genetic history will be passed on, both good and bad. Long term a reliance on these things could be a net negative for society as a whole.

People with cancer should likewise die and not pass on their genes.

Also, anything else undesirable: mental illness, homosexuality, Judiasm.

Obviously genetic issues are deeply personal. I'm not advocating denying people fundamental rights.

Something that baffles me is that if you take the position that we should select for healthy genes and not put resources into persisting unhealthy ones, it's "bad" because that's "eugenics". But at the same time, the people who spend $200K to get therapy like this are doing it for the sole purpose of persisting their own genome. If that wasn't true, they'd just adopt or raise foster children.

I think it's the systemic approach that's the problem.

"If that wasn't true, they'd just adopt or raise foster children"

Adoption has negative connotations for some families and cultures. So it's possible there are other motives involved.

That's exactly my point. They're basically being locally racist. And somehow that's not just OK, but we treat it like an inalienable right.

Why assume racism?

Some people hope their children will be in their elder years, and adopting means the children may be more likely to bond with biological parents. Media that romanticize finding one's 'real' parents can indirectly contribute to those kinds of concerns.

Eugenics is applying your idea of genetic fitness to other people.

Reproductive treatments are applying your idea of genetic fitness to yourself.

Seems clear to me why the former is "bad" and the latter is not.

I am always torn on the amount of money put into antibiotic research [1]. A bacterial infection is nature's way of telling you that you need to die from a stubbed toe. Medical research is not a zero sum game.

1. Actually we put far to little into antibiotic research, but that is another rant.

We have billions of people already but antibiotic resistance is increasing.

I can sympathize with the idea we need to be more pragmatic with the amount of money and scientists we have.

This isn't a fertility treatment.

The hope is that it mitigates mitochondrial disorders. It will likely work, and will carry on to any children the child has.

So think of it as curing a family of debilitating conditions and it stands up pretty well to treating old people for cancer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com