You must log in or register to comment.

Proteasome1 OP t1_jc6ys7c wrote

The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing has concluded that current gene editing techniques are not safe enough to be used in human embryos for reproductive purposes


Strazdas1 t1_jcads1r wrote

Meanwhile countries without ethic comitees cockblocking science: Look at this baby we cured from AIDS his mother contracted.


CountingDownTheDays- t1_jc7c91p wrote

Pretty sure this is textbook Eugenics. Picking and choosing the traits you want.


KickBassColonyDrop t1_jc7y8kg wrote

The thing is. One way or another, selective genetic engineering and eugenics wars will be a thing in the future. If not on this planet, then in space or on the moon or beyond. If the civilization is to ever advance beyond the boundary of this planet, genetic engineering is inevitable.


Strazdas1 t1_jcadvsk wrote

Yes. Eugenics is a good thing. It being misused in the pasts does not make it bad any more than hitler being vegan makes vegetables bad for you.


CountingDownTheDays- t1_jcay3vk wrote

I'm not saying it's bad just calling it out for what it is. For years I've heard people talk about eugenics, and now I see them calling it "CRISPR babies". Almost like their trying to rebrand it lol. If used for the right reasons eugenics can be a good thing. But I think we both know that rich people will end up getting the best of this technology and using it for themselves and their offspring, making the class divide even bigger. They will be able to pick and choose the traits they want like being more intelligent, physically stronger, etc. It's a very slippery slope.


Strazdas1 t1_jcedkvb wrote

Of course they are going to rebrand it. Eugenics as a word has so much negative baggage this may be the first time i didnt get downvoted to hell when i said its not a bad thing.

And thats why we have to push for this technology to be available to everyone, so the class divide wouldnt get so wide. The rich is going to use it whether we like it or not, the only way we can equalize the field is if we use it ourselves.


jonhasglasses t1_jc70rwx wrote

Ummmmmm, are we just blowing right past “should we” to see if “could we” might work? I’m sure we will revisit “should we” once we figured out it’s possible I’m sure. Right?


HildemarTendler t1_jc71hs7 wrote

We've had that conversation and its a resounding yes. Giving people a better life from their first moments is a no brainer.

You're probably more focus on the weird things like making kids taller or whatever. Rich people are going to do rich people things. We'll see how that works out.


Cutecumber_Roll t1_jc9pu93 wrote

We've been having the should we discussion for thousands of years. Why would we not choose to self select desirable traits for our species?


Deranged40 t1_jc7bzbv wrote

Why shouldn't we?

If given the chance to "Play god", I'm going to. Easy choice.

e: Can you not make a well formed answer to "Why shouldn't we?"


Strazdas1 t1_jcadz0o wrote

No, we already answered "Should we" with "yes" long ago.


MastodonVegetable302 t1_jc7v07v wrote

Need to do whole-genome sequencing afterwards to determine the off-target cleavage locations. It's expensive to do so a lot of studies don't do it.


Competitive-Cow-4177 t1_jc9gmog wrote

Soon we’ll see people with wings .. oh, they are already here; they’re called insects (ao).