Startups are pushing the boundaries of reproductive genetics

Pets and Non-Human Testbeds

• Several commenters suggest using pets (especially rats and dogs) as an intermediate step before human germline edits, to fix severe inbreeding and disease predispositions.
• Pet rat owners in particular describe extreme rates of tumors and respiratory illness and say they would eagerly pay for longer-lived, healthier GMO rats.
• Others joke darkly about “super rats” escaping control, hinting at ecological risks.

Billionaires, Regulation, and “Red Tape”

• One camp argues only tech billionaires are bold and rich enough to push human germline editing past regulatory obstacles and that, historically, medical tech eventually diffuses to everyone.
• Opponents question billionaire incentives and fear profit-driven abuse more than government paralysis.
• Some call for deregulated zones to allow high-risk experimentation; others insist guardrails and national bans exist for good reason.

Disease Prevention vs. Human Enhancement

• Many see editing out monogenic diseases (e.g., inherited deafness, psychosis risk, color blindness) as compassionate and ethically distinct from “designer babies.”
• Others push further: in a world mismatched to our evolved traits, they argue for editing behavioral predispositions (e.g., depression, tribalism) to better fit modern life.
• Critics respond that “improvement” is undefinable and historically weaponized (eugenics, racial projects), and that fixes for things like depression could effectively engineer a compliant underclass.

IVF, Embryo Selection, and Real-World Use

• A detailed personal account describes using whole-genome sequencing plus IVF to avoid a known hearing-loss mutation, emphasizing relief from disease rather than pursuit of perfection.
• Some biologists in the thread stress that embryo selection (not editing) is already technically feasible and ethically harder to criticize, though IVF carries real physical burdens for women.
• Others note cosmetic choices (like eye and hair color) and elective embryo selection are already happening quietly despite official bans.

Ethics, Eugenics, and Moral Status of Embryos

• Deep disagreement appears on whether embryo screening/editing is “eugenics” or simply medical repair.
• One side argues bans are cruel to people with heritable disease; the other says no one is entitled to a particular kind of child and likens large-scale embryo discard to commodifying human life.
• Long subthreads debate when human moral status begins and whether opposing gene repair is akin to opposing vaccines or surgery.

Inequality, Sports, and “Superhumans”

• Commenters worry about genetic elites in sports and society: separate leagues, exclusion of enhanced individuals, and widening genetic class divides are all imagined.
• Others counter that elite athletes are already genetic outliers and that rules will evolve pragmatically, like existing sex and weight classes.

Technical and Practical Constraints

• One contributor does back-of-the-envelope math: selecting for even five favorable gene variants via IVF would require on the order of hundreds of embryos, making broad “optimization” impractical.
• CRISPR editing in embryos is portrayed as more complex and error-prone than popular narratives suggest; off-target effects and long-term unknowns are a major concern.

Risk, Progress, and Societal Control

• A recurring theme is whether modern societies have become too risk-averse and overregulated, preventing “trajectory-changing bets” that earlier generations routinely took.
• Others reply that the stakes of germline edits—irreversible and multi-generational—justify extraordinary caution, and that suffering from earlier eras is not a good moral benchmark for today.