175
Sam Altman and husband reportedly working to genetically engineer babies from having hereditary disease
(www.the-independent.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
175 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
76871 readers
3136 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure I get the universal negativity to this. Like sure, Altman sucks as a person, and an individual having enough money to significantly bankroll research like this is a sign of an economic failure, but surely curing or preventing genetic disease is just about the most uncontroversial use human genetic modification could have?
"What's bad with eugenics for the rich?"
He's a bad person and he's always lying.
It'll only be available for the super rich, will expand to other augmentations/engineering, and will result in further reinforcing social mobility boundaries.
The response to something beneficial being only available to the rich shouldn't be to avoid developing that thing, it should be to make it available to everyone. The failures of the US healthcare and economic systems don't suddenly make developing new medical techniques a bad thing. Human augmentation is another issue from curing genetic disease, though I'd personally argue that wouldn't be a bad cause either, with the same caveat about it availability. It at least has more potential to improve somebody's life somewhere down the line than just buying a yacht with his ill gotten gains or some other useless rich person toy would.
If you can't share basic healthcare with everyone, you're not going to share genetic healthcare, either.
The government shouldn't subsidize the development of super-healthcare (or pass conveniently targeted policies that enable its development at the expense of citizens) when all the non-billionaires get nothing but promises of I'll-totally-share-it-you-guys from the same guy who says we're-almost-at-AGI-we-just-need-another-trillion-dollars-I-swear.
The solution to billionaires having "ill-gotten gains" isn't "well, let's make sure he spends it responsibly". It's give the damn money back.
You misunderstand, I am not saying "make sure he spends it responsibly". Nobody has has "made" him do this at all, and I didn't advocate for a policy of doing so. What I'm saying is that I don't think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I'm not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it's statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn't saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman's name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.
I don't know about what other people see, but I see negatives because it's associated with a billionaire.
If Taylor Swift put her name on it, my opinion would not change.
Billionaires don't build, they finance machines that extract value from human beings.
Actual scientists have been working on using CRISPR to fight hereditary disease in the US and around the world.
This money should have gone to them instead of into yet another billionaire’s pet designer baby startup.
Generally speaking (by theory subscription), moral evaluations of an action consider the state of the agent.
"Is this a good technology?" And "Is Sam Altman doing good?" Are two radically different questions with radically different answers.
Right. Currently the ways we avoid genetic disease are screening partners, screening IVF embryos, and in utero testing + abortion.
Because the US health care system already serves the wealthy and abandons the poor, any expensive treatments are seen as just further steps into a Gattaca future of even more dystopian disparity, especially when driven by a rich asshole personally.
Universal negativity is also kind of the norm around here. A lot of folks on Lemmy believe we are slaves sucking Satan’s cock for breakfast, and anything that isn’t a complete burn down of our system and way of life is a negative.
Bruh. I wish I was sucking Satan’s cock for breakfast. That at least implies some kind of reward coming down the line.
Is that his motivation though? Wanna make a bet that this does or doesn't end as he says at face value?
There's nothing uncontroversial about human genetic modification.
It's a pandora's box that just shouldn't be opened.
writes the person who isn't suffering because of a genetic disorder or met anybody suffering from a genetic disorder
wrong
That's kind of a bold claim to make about someone you don't know.
I can believe that there are good motivations for this kind of thing, and possibly even good applications, but you have to ask who gets to make the decisions on what to remove and what to leave, and what impact will it have?
Could we solve lots of problems? Absolutely. But is it the right tool for the problem? That's a bit more nuanced. Sure, if we could edit out Alzheimers, or hereditary cancers, I'm sure most anyone would be on board with that idea, in a vacuum at least. But what about when the goals shift? Should we edit out autism? What about homosexuality? Hell, if we homogenise humanity and edit out racial differences, we could solve racism as well.
That's obviously a bit extreme, but take blindness for example. I'm sure most sighted people would prefer to not be blind, and even among people born blind you'll find supporters, but there's also entire cultures and languages that have come about because of people being blind. Who gets to decide if that's worth keeping or not?
That's just one example, but you could replace blindness with deafness, or dwarfism, or any number of things.
Then there's the question of what it'd mean for people who can't access that kind of technology. What kind of future would this sort of thing create?
this sounds more interesting ☞ https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2025/may/22/the-extraordinary-promise-of-gene-editing-podcast
This isn't really an answer to the 'universal negativity', but for a somewhat reasonable analysis of the pros and (surprisingly high number of) cons as well as some interesting grey areas, there's an old LWT episode on this topic: https://youtu.be/AJm8PeWkiEU
Please review the glimpse into our future titled "Gattaca" to see why people might be concerned.
It's fiction.
You can find actual discrimination based on genetics or wealth or class into the present and past of the real world.
You entirely missed the point of the movie if you think it's only about genetic discrimination. It's about creating a permanent underclass of people who weren't wealthy enough to have had their parents make them genetically perfect. Exactly like what will happen once the rich have the ability to make themselves into the 'ubermensch' that they've been telling themselves they are for centuries.
Well it's science fiction. Being 'genetically perfect' (rofl) will impart less of an advantage than actually existing, mundane factors such as wealth and which country you were born in. Hell, the biggest advantage they could get is making sure their children is of the 'right' color.
I do not even think the biggest assholes like say Musk would genetically modify their children. He already thinks he is perfect.
I can also think of a few factors that would disadvantage poor people more than lack of eugenics.
Lack of healthcare. Climate change leading to people having to abandon their homeland and also exacerbating another factor. Bad nutrition. Bad education in combination with disinformation by wealth controlled media.
Genetic modification is not really a problem. It could also help some people if we fix our politics and make sure people get access to healthcare based on needs rather than means.
Seriously, fiction is not necessarily a good guide for politics.