this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
350 points (98.3% liked)

memes

20314 readers
1534 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I dunno, man. You can have only so much of a sense of humor about child mortality. Up to a certain point, gene editing is all gravy.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 33 minutes ago

I agree that gene editing to reduce suffering is good. I'm not sure "designer babies" is a label that includes those gene edits. Or, if it does, it groups the with too many other gene edits so the good ones are no longer exemplary of the label.