Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ancalagon | Hacker News Reader

I know this article is more about the political dance than actual gene-edited babies, but modified human embryos is a whole can-of-worms and is such a game changer I feel the need to worry about it. We don't even fully understand the consequences of much of the technology we use today. Altering gene lines is such a huge power, we'd literally be playing god, and probably rolling the dice on so many aspects of the future for generations to come. If ever there were a technology humanity needed to think conservatively about, this is it.

View on HN

Something that has been niggling at me for a while:

• C-Sections now account for 30% of all births, compared to 5% in 1970.

• Preliminary evidence suggests that babies born via C-Section are themselves more likely to have children that require C-Sections.

Source: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/7/13855350/c-...

Assuming this applies to other traits as well—as evolutionary theory suggests it should—what are the long term consequences for humanity? This line of thinking has led past leaders down some very dark paths, which I am fully uninterested in traveling.

But, what is the ethical alternative? The only one I can think of is to take control of our evolution directly, rather than allowing natural selection—or lack thereof—to run its course. And thank god, it actually looks like modern science will make this possible!

90% of bulldogs require c-section to deliver successfully.

It can become a problem in humans, but as our evolution may be self-directed, we might also decide that larger cranium-to-pelvis ratios make it easier to educate those babies to become obstetric surgeons.

And eventually, it might be prudent to gene-hack the plumbing, to reroute the birth canal so that it does not pass through the pelvic opening. Then enormous-head mutations could more easily survive without intervention.

> reroute the birth canal so that it does not pass through the pelvic opening.

Go on.

This type of radical body-plan modification is typically accomplished by illuminating a handwavium target with a strong flimflammon source, such that the genetic material to be modified is coated with crispy frionized handwavium.

You know... the same way we're going to genetically modify humans to be smarter, faster, and more attractive?

C section rates above ~20% aren't correlated with better health outcomes. They will probably decline as federal heartbeat detection improves, as a major driver for them right now is losing track of the heartbeat and performing a c section as risk mitigation

I hope not, c-sections are much harder on the mother, far more painful, and more disabling.

I really hope we do not end up in a world where c-sections are the only way.

I even more prematurity the solution instead?

> but modified human embryos is a whole can-of-worms and is such a game changer I feel the need to worry about it.

Playing random lottery and hoping not to draw the gene-defect ticket while only evolve on a scale of 1,000s of generations is better? We might not even have 1,000 generations left on this planet.

Well notice I said conservatively. I do think gene-editing for very specific diseases should be permissible, given societal approval and control. Allowing enhancements for things in more ethically gray areas (height, intelligence, good-looks, etc.) will in the short run quickly make you and me obsolete. In the long run edits like those will make the current wealth stratification of society look cute in comparison.

I believe it is more about who get to have access to this and the social consequences of that. It could conceivably create a permanent class structure where those who can afford to have “perfect” healthy, smarter, longer living, and so on offspring will inevitably exploit that position. It could make me the wealth and class divides with better care and better schools the rich can afford we see today seem quaint in comparison.

Why are genetic medical technologies going to remain exclusive to the rich any more than prior revolutionary medical technologies like vaccines, hormonal birth control, or antibiotics? Genetic technologies in general have undergone prolonged cost decreases that don't look to be anywhere near exhausted. Patents restrict access for a couple of decades at most. If the enabling technology is affordable and patents are expired, I see no reason that genetic technology use cannot become widespread.

"Not dying of infectious diseases in childhood" used to be a luxury of the rich too, but it didn't ossify into a permanent class marker.

Why are financial instruments going to remain exclusive to the elite any more than prior revolutionary economic technologies like agriculture, refrigeration, or pasteurization? Financial instruments in general have undergone prolonged cost decreases that don't look to be anywhere near exhausted. Patents restrict access for a couple of decades at most. If the enabling technology is affordable and patents are expired, I see no reason that financial instrument use cannot become widespread.

"Not dying of poverty in childhood" was never a luxury of the elite, and it always ossified into a permanent class marker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com