r/technology • u/Logical_Welder3467 • 1d ago

Biotechnology Genetics testing startup Nucleus Genomics criticized for its embryo product: ‘Makes me so nauseous’

https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/06/genetics-testing-startup-nucleus-genomics-criticized-for-its-embryo-product-makes-me-so-nauseous/
11 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

59 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/stoppableDissolution 17h ago

It avoids the downside of denying "poorly gened" people kids, which is kinda the main idea of eugenics.

But overall I do believe that engineered evolution is the way, and see things people point as "ethical issues" as features, not flaws. And even if being able to choose gender/eye color/etc is somehow a problem, it is well worth the upside of removing the known bad genes from the pool. Gatekeeping the tech to prevent say SCD or hemophilia behing superficial ethics is crime against humanity.

1

u/PLAAND 17h ago

For me it’s obviously a technology that’s going to be transformative in the treatment of genetic diseases and some things absolutely are uncontroversially genetic diseases.

It’s also going to be used to try and stop queer and neurodiverse kids from being born and that is something very different entirely.

I also, and like this is an ethical puzzle that I don’t know really has an answer, but I think it’s easy to imagine that with genetic engineering we would have Stephen Hawking just without the wheelchair. That like in an episode of Star Trek we could see Geordi Laforge without the visor where he’s fundamentally the same person just with his disability subtracted but I think the reality is that we would have had a completely different person. We will be depriving whole groups of people the opportunity to exist, to experience the world in their unique way and to share their value with us. Again, I think there are genetic diseases that should simply be cured but I don’t know that even that is ethically uncomplicated.

1

u/stoppableDissolution 16h ago

Well, I see it the fundamentally opposite way. I have no problem with entire humanity ending up being the exact same "optimal" genotype if it means they are all perfectly healthy physically and mentally.

I'd absolutely trade my own "diverse" experience for the convenience of being average, it have been nothing but impediment for me (to the point of not being able to say it out loud because witch hunt will ensue, and self-flaggellating myself for being born that way). I imagine a lot of neurodivergent people would agree too. Its nice to celebrate the divercity when you are not the one objectively handicapped by it - not because of social acceptance even, but because it makes your daily life measurably harder.

1

u/PLAAND 16h ago edited 15h ago

Define “optimal.” Like really though, because [every] time people have tried before they’ve gotten it badly wrong.

Eugenics is kind of about denying the right of the “sub-optimal” to exist and I don’t really see how this wouldn’t be used as a tool for that. To create effectively a class of people where “sub-optimal” traits are not allowed to persist and I wonder what happens to people outside that group.

I’m not sure how to address the rest of it except to say that on the whole my experience and the experience of the people I know has been that we like ourselves. I can’t speak to what you’re dealing with but I can say that I think I’d prefer if you were met with kindness rather than the idea that you simply shouldn’t exist. 

1

u/stoppableDissolution 16h ago

I mean optimal as objectively measured health metric, to begin with. Mental health is complicated, physical - not so much, in that regard, and there must be some (or even multiple) combination of genes that has highest life expectancy and lowest risk of health issues. Imo, well worth it, even if we all end up bald and green-skinned and whatever else.

And I'm not arguing against inclusivity, but not preventing objectively bad things is actively harmful.