this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
318 points (98.2% liked)
memes
20314 readers
1594 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
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 don’t mind designer babies, personally. Hot people with fewer genetic disorders? Sounds alright to me. Though I’m worried our eugenic future might lead to diminishing gains in science.
With all due respect to scientists everywhere, the fact that people look the way that they do certainly pushes some away from special interests like sports and interpersonal skills and instead toward producing nanosheets under specific constraints.
I think the knock-on effect of making some innate, human characteristics undesirable is probably a net bad. That's very close to labeling persons with those characteristics as sub-human--specifically due fewer "human" rights.
That said, if I were choosing between gametes or embryos and had genetic information on them available, I do not think it is a moral stance to ignore/discard that information when making the choice. We should be careful to understand our genetic knowledge is still quite limited and, even if our knowledge was perfect, (most) genotypes are not destiny.
It will be used to separate the wealthy from the poor even further. The wealthy people will afford it and make their families healthier and better looking.
I support the idea of eliminating genetic disabilities via gene editing, but the second you add in the option of picking eye or hair color, height, or skin color, you're going down a path of eugenics that only works to put down those unable to pay for it.
Genetic engineering every little detail could become dirty cheap, but it will still be terrible for humanity because it will remove diversity, we'd be messing with forces we don't understand that could lead to diseases or greater population-wide susceptibilities and the government would also like to have its say on how your baby is made so that they will be a good little order follower
I mean, until costs fall, sure. Unless you project human society to fall within 40 years, it will eventually reach common use in modern countries. Workers with fewer sick days are a government’s wet dream. Though I’m also worried about us becoming the next walnut tree, if we accidentally open a vulnerability.
I’m not going to weigh in on its use as a style decision. Hopefully a country with the ability to create a code of ethics takes the lead on the technology.
Crispr gene editing doesn't work like a Santa Claus wishlist, dunce.
Damn, man. I didn’t realize that designer babies, a developing field with only a few present applications, had already been set in stone. Evidently you got the dr Manhattan gene, given your foreknowledge.