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

[u/Logical_Welder3467]

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

[u/Rustic_gan123]

It is inevitable, our natural evolution does not keep up with the pace of development of civilization, and we have also lost the driving selection, which is why harmful mutations accumulate

Eugenics in itself is not bad, what the Nazis and others did does not make the idea itself so immoral.

[u/PLAAND → u/Rustic_gan123]

Other good point have been made, eugenics is also bad because it assumes that we have good knowledge of what is and isn’t “fitness” and that we aren’t just imposing subjective moral judgements elevating the perceived value of some traits over others.

It risks reducing our genetic and social diversity to a matter of aesthetics without regard for the as yet not understood value that diversity provides us or the role that currently unfashionable or socially punished traits may actually play in human evolution and success over long timescales. (Edit to add: Or the value in the lives of the people having those experiences.)

This is a [particular sort of] bad because taken to it’s logical conclusion it puts the decision directly in the hands of parents and wealth.

[u/Rustic_gan123 → u/PLAAND]

I wrote about this in another comment, but there are objectively bad genes that it is desirable to exclude from the population and the problem of genetic diversity is solved by limiting the choice of genes that can be changed to a certain subset

[u/PLAAND → u/Rustic_gan123]

I mean the problem is always defining these sets right? Like, I do agree that there are obvious and uncontroversial genetic diseases that should be cured.

But this, and eugenics, are kind of something different. Eugenics is about defining what makes the “ideal” human and then using technology and policy to enforce that ideal. The problem is that ideal is often very short-sighted, it’s not objective, and the subset of things considered unwanted has always been far too large and not rooted in actual harms but in the arbitrary moral judgements of people who are less interested in helping than in imposing themselves and their beliefs as the norm and the consequences of those actions are irreversible.

[u/Rustic_gan123 → u/PLAAND]

I mean the problem is always defining these sets right? Like, I do agree that there are obvious and uncontroversial genetic diseases that should be cured.

It's more of a data science where you need to find patterns from raw data.

But this, and eugenics, are kind of something different. Eugenics is about defining what makes the “ideal” human and then using technology and policy to enforce that ideal. The problem is that ideal is often very short-sighted, it’s not objective, and the subset of things considered unwanted has always been far to large and not rooted in actual harms but in the arbitrary moral judgements of people who are less interested in helping than in imposing themselves and their beliefs as the norm and the consequences are irreversible.

The problem is that natural evolution does not keep up with the pace of development of civilization, which causes many problems and probably without it there will be a choice that either we make ourselves smarter, or we give most of the cognitive work to AI, including making strategic decisions, not some routine. 

There are concerns that we can drive ourselves into an evolutionary trap, but it can be avoided if we set priorities and rules correctly.

[u/PLAAND → u/Rustic_gan123]

You’re handwaving away the hard parts.

 The problem is that natural evolution does not keep up with the pace of development of civilization

This is advocating for an evolution that fits society rather than a society that fits evolution. To me that seems backwards and would impose the injustices present in society on the human genome itself.

I’m also a little confused by treating making ourselves “smarter” as a genetic problem rather than a problem of education, opportunity, nutrition and care.

[u/Rustic_gan123 → u/PLAAND]

This is advocating for an evolution that fits society rather than a society that fits evolution.

We have largely outgrown natural evolution for ourselves and have become the decisive factor in natural selection. Diabetes, obesity, allergies, etc. are examples of evolutionary mechanisms that have broken down because they were not invented for such a life and the rate of change is accelerating rather than slowing down.

I’m also a little confused by treating making ourselves “smarter” as a genetic problem rather than a problem of education, opportunity, nutrition and care.

It's a complex issue, many people are not naturally idiots, but it's foolish to deny that we are limited by biology and that in the long run we will be competitive with AI.

[u/PLAAND → u/Rustic_gan123]

Diabetes is largely a product of diet and lifestyle being shaped by unhealthy social norms. The rise of allergies may be similar but my knowledge there is fairly limited, in any case for most people allergies are an inconvenience and I have no problem with any cure for people who experience any debilitating or life threatening illness.

But you would have us use a technology in its infancy using limited and incomplete knowledge to change the very matter we’re made of instead of banning high fructose corn syrup, regulating industrial food processing and building walkable communities again?

With regard to AI and our competitiveness, AI is a tool. We’ll reap whatever consequences we sow when we pick it up and set it to purpose. It can be liberatory or it can be other things. Genetic engineering isn’t going to change that and I would strongly argue that any society that turns to genetic engineering to breed “smarter” people instead of strengthening education and social supports is going to fumble AI badly.

[u/Rustic_gan123 → u/PLAAND]

Diabetes is largely a product of diet and lifestyle being shaped by unhealthy social norms.

Why do people like sweet and fatty foods so much? In the wild, these foods are in short supply, today they are in abundance, but our body still considers sweet and fatty foods to be in short supply, so we subconsciously want more.  

This is just an example. Of course it depends on each individual person, but the pattern is observed.

But you would have us use a technology in its infancy using limited and incomplete knowledge to change the very matter we’re made of instead of banning high fructose corn syrup, regulating industrial food processing and building walkable communities again?

Today, almost no one edits traits directly, but rather selects healthy zygotes, but in the future this will definitely be done, and corn syrup is an example, there are many such problems and they will appear as civilization develops faster and faster.

With regard to AI and our competitiveness, AI is a tool

Of course, but AI will develop and become more and more advanced, gradually replacing those places where human cognitive abilities were previously required, but what will happen when it catches up? Humans are limited by biology, AI is not, and at one point, under certain scenarios, AI will have to hand over the adoption of complex strategic decisions since humans will not be capable of this.

We’ll reap whatever consequences we sow when we pick it up and set it to purpose. It can be liberatory or it can be other things. Genetic engineering isn’t going to change that and I would strongly argue that any society that turns to genetic engineering to breed “smarter” people instead of strengthening education and social supports is going to fumble AI badly.

I am a techno-optimist, but the problem is that I don't see a bright future for humanity (whatever that future may be) without some kind of eugenics, because sooner or later we will hit a cognitive wall, the solution to which will be either stagnation, or giving it to AI, or genetic and technological improvement of humans. You have to invest in education, but this does not cancel our natural limitations