this post was submitted on 30 May 2026
83 points (93.7% liked)

Mildly Interesting

26696 readers
630 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Miller@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The full genetic makeup of an individual is very complex, possibly infinitely so and to jiggle a small part is to potentially create more long-term defects that it fixes and possibly even bring the whole house of cards down. Not to mention on a species level if that individual survives to breeding age those crude modifications can enter the common gene pool.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

While I 100 % agree with the general sentiment that this is a terrible idea, I think your line of thought is a bit off. We have been made by evolution, a process built on the simple fact that any change that is too crappy will prevent itself from spreading, since the carriers of that change will be less likely to reproduce. Evolution is extremely efficient at preventing really crappy modifications from spreading. Thus, I don't think our primary concern should be about these modifications "entering the common gene pool". If they really are shitty modifications, their carriers will be less likely to survive/reproduce, and they'll be watered down/wiped out by evolution.

I think what we should be worried about is twofold: First, it's directly dystopic to imagine children born with defects that have been wilfully introduced, and which may not become apparent until in many years. Experimenting on unborn children this way is absolutely abhorrent. The second is the possibility that this actually works out in some ways, and is reserved for the super-rich, in which we can literally end up creating a human super-race that will inevitably suppress and exploit the rest of humanity.

Basically whether this works out or not, all outcomes look pretty bad. The only ethical way I could see this being done is using it to remove known defects such as hereditary diseases, and doing that through public programs aimed at eliminating those diseases at a population level. Doing something like that hinges on the program not being run by people like the one in the article.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Many genetic disorders persist in the human population because they can confer a genetic advantage.

Sickle cell anemia carriers are resistant to malaria.

Tay Sachs carriers are resistant to tuberculosis.

Huntington disease carriers have less cancer risk.

This is illegal to do in most countries because we don't want to fuck around and find out with the human genome, which is full of remnants of ancient viruses.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

As a starter, I'm extremely sceptical of modifying the genome of embryos (as I hope was clear from my comment). Like you said, there's plenty of defects that can have advantageous sides in addition to the negative sides. My point is that the only way this could even conceivably be ethical to do, is if it was used to remove diseases.

I believe there's already a procedure they do to remove a disease carried in the mother's mitochondria. I heard about a rare disease from my dentist the other day that causes people to never grow any teeth. I'm saying that if this is done, then the only ethical thing to do is use it for population-wide removal of severe diseases with no known positive sides, and even that can be dubious (as you point out).

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 28 minutes ago

The precision of gene editing has been vastly oversold.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We already genetically other species successfully. I don't expect humanity to be that much different.

It also depends on what the generic modification is. I expect that the current state of the art has less to do with adding novel genes and more to do with removing and replacing known genes which cause disabilities.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The technology to do this without unintended off targets does not exist.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but I'd suspect that a couple who want a child and has a high risk of having a child with a generic disorder might choose to go with generic manipulation over a natural birth.

[–] HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

No! Danger! The unknown! FEEEAAAR!!

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 minutes ago

It's not the unknown, off target editing is a known problem.

Thanks for the ignorant comment.