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

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
175
Sam Altman and husband reportedly working to genetically engineer babies from having hereditary disease (www.the-independent.com)
submitted 23 hours ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] mech@feddit.org 2 points 13 hours ago

wrong

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago

this sounds more interesting ☞ https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2025/may/22/the-extraordinary-promise-of-gene-editing-podcast

Doctors in the US have become the first to treat a baby with a customised gene-editing therapy after diagnosing the child with a severe genetic disorder that kills about half of those affected in early infancy. Ian Sample explains to Madeleine Finlay how this new therapy works and how it paves the way for even more complex gene editing techniques. David Liu, a professor at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the inventor of these therapies, also describes the barriers that could prevent them reaching patients, and how he thinks they can be overcome.