Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the paywall click: archive.is/8WWq2
This Woman Will Decide Which Babies Are Born
Submitted 10 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.wired.com/story/this-woman-will-decide-which-babies-are-born-noor-siddiqui-orchid/
Comments
JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Link didn’t work for me but suck a nice wording
JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Weird, just checked and it still works for me.
Phlogistol@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m having trouble trusting anyone with no scientific background (i.e. no PhD), no published journal articles, and no ethical committee oversight to proceed with a complex problem such as this one.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Theranos : Evolution
chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Theranos: Genetic Boogaloo.
jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I would not blindly trust those people either, if they are human they are corruptible as well.
Looking at certain ‘scientific background’ people they act just like politicians, if you take the time to look into them and their activities.
I am just saying to be criticial and do not treat them like celebrity worship status, because I have done that mistake with politicians as well.
We must stay criticial of people in power and with money/influence.
slumberlust@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Science IS political, at all levels. You can’t compete without funding and your institutions will pressure you to perform a certain way.
Taohumor@lemmy.world 10 months ago
As long as you don’t use the word eugenics explicitly apparently you can sell anyone on anything.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No they acknowledge that the technology could be used that way. But there’s a lot of actual medical problems we can catch this way. Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?
scutiger@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s still eugenics, you just used more words to describe it.
Patches@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
They literally say “Word beginning with ‘eu’ and ends with ‘genics’” inside the article pimping them out.
With a side ‘Orchid doesn’t like us to use that word’ as if ‘Nazis do not like to be called Nazis’ is a valid complaint.
user1234@lemmynsfw.com 10 months ago
GATTACA IRL
sharon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Ironically, this would enable those with “bad genes” to safely have kids without being chastised for being “irresponsible”. I’d argue yhe problem with Gattaca was that the one man who wasn’t genetically perfect was discriminated against, not that
snooggums@midwest.social 10 months ago
I’d argue the problem with Gattaca was that the one man who wasn’t genetically perfect was discriminated against, not that everyone else was genetically perfect.
The premise of the movie was that people would discriminate against the perfect whan the tech becomes available. Seems like a very realistic take on how society would act in the real world based on all of human historym
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
(Sorry for the edits, accidentally pressed post before I was done.)
A thousand edits is better than none at all; especially if the bit above needs a colon.
elrik@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It wasn’t just one man who was discriminated against. Your genetics determined which opportunities were available to you, even for those who were selected for at conception. There were still varying degrees of “genetically perfect.”
The problem presented by gattaca and with the thought process behind this company is the suggestion that your “value” to "be selected’ (for conception, for employment, etc.) should be determined by your genetics.
bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 10 months ago
I agree with your statement, but I feel the intersection of this technology and capitalism is GATTACA. It simply makes sense to begin selecting the “good” genes, not only select against the bad ones. And what’s another $500 for blue eyes at that point?
Icalasari@fedia.io 10 months ago
Wasn't there a movie about this? Called Gattaca?
dexa_scantron@lemmy.world 10 months ago
These people are saying “we finally created the utopia of Neuromancer.” And I look at them and I go, “I don’t think you read Neuromancer." –Cory Doctorow
jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
How much does an Orchid screening cost?
It’s $2,500 per embryo.
And presumably you’d be screening several embryos. What about for families that can’t afford that?
We have a philanthropic program, so people can apply to that, and we’re excited to accept as many cases as we can.
I must now ask a question I’ve been dreading. I’m sorry in advance. Here goes. It’s the inevitable question about Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes.
No, this is the worst question. This is so mean.
Tell me why it’s so mean.
I find it sad. It’s a sad state of affairs where—my friends who aren’t even in health, they say they get it too. It’s like, any female CEO with any tech-adjacent thing is constantly being questioned—by the way, are you like this other fraud? Do you want to comment on this other random fraud that occurred that has absolutely nothing to do with you besides the person being the same gender as you?
If you’re trying to charitably understand where this question is coming from, how do you do that?
What would be the charitable interpretation—besides that our society is incredibly misogynistic and men’s frauds and failings are passed aside and when one female does it she stands for every other female CEO ever?
So there’s no charitable interpretation.
I don’t think there is. Society treats men as, like, default credible. For a woman, the default is skeptical.
snooggums@midwest.social 10 months ago
It’s like, any female CEO with any tech-adjacent thing is constantly being questioned—by the way, are you like this other fraud?
This really sounds like she is admitting that this is fraud, and that she doesn’t like being compared to other fraud.
flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Yeah, she didn’t really addressed fraud comparisons. Went straight to sexism. Both can be true, and if you are a CEO of a medical company you should be ready to prove your shit works.
dirthawker0@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That “other” is the possible Freudian slip.
But she does have somewhat of a point. Though it’s female and tech and medical - a closer comparison - women in tech leadership roles do get more questioned on their competence than do men.
Fal@yiffit.net 10 months ago
Wtf? No. What relevance does theranos have to this company? Does the interviewer ask the same thing to any other bio tech CEO?
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I think it’s that in the questioner’s mind, they have decided she is a fraud, and want to know if she’s like the other one.
jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
Do you want Khan Noonien Singh? Because that’s how you get Khan Noonien Singh.
SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Eugenics is overblown, they can’t even tell the difference between a pre ganglionic fiber and a post ganglionic nerve
Murdoc@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
They can be great at darts though.
ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Do you want Khan Noonien Singh?
YES!
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 months ago
She can have my babies, wow
FenrirIII@lemmy.world 10 months ago
bonk Off to horny jail
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Never say that again.
cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
How to invoke tldr bot?
Inductor@feddit.de 10 months ago
It automatically replies when it can read/summarize a site, but that isn’t always possible (maybe it has problems with some paywalls).
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is so terribly inhuman. Makes me want to vomit.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
People already do similar thing when they decide to not have babies with some bad conditions. The bar is lower now, that’s all.
ricdeh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Voluntarily preventing the birth of children that would suffer from horrible disorders due to genetic defects is not a “bar” that is “lower now”, it is the most ethical thing to do.
impudentmortal@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Is there a nonpaywall link?
jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Check comments, it has been posted.
You can also visit an archive website and paste url on search bar.
rusticus@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Elysium IRL
brightandshinyobject@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Another tick box on the Star Trek timeline! There is still hope!
GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
Uhhh…what? There are a handful of countries with recent population decline, but most of the world is still growing even if growth rates are slowing. I’ve never seen any credible projections of catastrophic population decline.
kakes@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Sure, but what if those countries are the only places I love tho?
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
This is sounding close to replacement theory.
Syn_Attck@lemmy.today 10 months ago
In essence, when the growth rate slows to a certain point, people are dying faster than they’re being replaced, and the trend can only continue unless everyone starts having 10 kids.
It’s a matter of job replacement. Maybe AI will partly help, or maybe we’ll open our borders so immigrants can come end masse and do all the jobs we don’t have enough people for, but unless extreme measures are taken once it gets to that point, civilization as we know it will collapse.
I’m by no means pro-forced birth. But birth rate decline is a serious issue.
www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/…/629392/
Red_October@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Growth is growth. It’s not tracking only births, it’s tracking births against deaths. Population decline is people dying faster than they’re being replaced, but even “very slow growth” would still mean the population is increasing.
chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Yeah, it matters to capitalists who need an inexhaustible supply of exploitable workers.
For regular folk, it’s not a problem.
Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
If only there were people desperate for a better life here, alive now, perhaps in a neighboring country or even entire other continent bordering the states.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Population decline is a good thing. Raising a child requires more resources than caring for elderly. When the elderly die, that frees up even more land and resources for the next generation.
The Black Plague caused the Renaissance. WW2 killed almost exclusively all the healthiest and most productive workers at the prime of their working lives. The result was the survivors experienced unprecedented wealth for a generation.
When the population declines such that a person with a high school diploma can once again own a home and support a family of 4, the population will increase again.
GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, and there are about 100 countries under that rate. Yes, their populations are still growing, but much of that is through extension of life expectancy and immigration (which requires a higher birth rate somewhere else, lest that other places start seeing shrinking population).
It’s not an immediate crisis, but it is turning into a problem that should be addressed soon.
wahming@monyet.cc 10 months ago
Yeah it’s a bit of a hyperbole, but the rate is what’s important. By the time we hit worldwide negative growth rates (which is projected to happen this century), it’s going to be way too late to have a discussion about whether or not that’s a good thing.
nyan@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
A good thing for some, a bad thing for others. Good for the environment, most likely. But we’re going to have to extensively reorganize the workforce.