[concordDance]

What's it currently doing with that money? I guess we could get rid of funding healthcare and trying to help people out of poverty so that a small number of people get to use a very expensive toy...

You know what would be an awesome big science project that would immeasurably improve future people's lives? Sequencing all genes and using that data provide free embryo selection services to everyone who wants to be a parent.

Would probably cost the same as that giant particle smasher and but unlike the giant ring it would pay for itself in a generation.

[PietdeVries]

Well... The US Defense budget for 2021 alone is 7 times the money needed to build a new LHC (705 billion [1] for the US defense in 2021). Germany will spend a similar 100 billion dollars on weapons in the coming years. So while 100 billion looks like an amazing amount of money, the military spends this in the blink of an eye and without the slightest promise of a RoI...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

[tomcatfish]

I like having something to scale 100B to, but this is a silly argument.

"Instead of cutting this program, just have every military cut funding at once" is not a very realistic path forwards, and we're not going to get the program funded on stuff like that.

In the hypothetical universe we're in here, where we have to convince people now.

[sinenomine]

Embryo selection[1] is criminally underrated. It is a method to permanently enhance the genetic potential of a child of any given couple. It is already live and there are living children, the only remaining issue is scaling[2].

1. https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

2. https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/first-...

[otabdeveloper4]

IVF carries risks of damaging the child's genome and so is fundamentally dysgenic.

[rendall]

Terrifying but intriguing idea. China's one-child policy led to widespread female infanticide and a generation of missing girls. What would prevent some similar unintended consequence in Europe?

[martin_a]

> What would prevent some similar unintended consequence in Europe?

We're not some fucked up dictatorship state?!?

[Georgelemental]

> No, that could never happen here, are you crazy? We're a prosperous and civilized nation!

- Every prosperous and civilized nation's last words

[martin_a]

I think the EU as a group of states seems to work quite well. Furthermore it seems like anti-democratic behaviour is getting punished now, too, if you look over to Poland. I'm quite optimistic that this will further improve.

[Woodi]

Dude, what is your definition of "democracy" ? Because your opinion about Poland state seems to be really, really brain-washed. At best.

Democracy as in free election ? Perfect democracy here - one party won twice, other parties lost. You call it a problem ?

Democracy as in free speech ? Dude ! Wake up ! In Poland is so much free speech that it's boarding with anarchy ! Eg. almost decade of opposition internally and internationally literally urges to harm their own country just to retake power - without any gov punishment or something. Mrs. Merkel ex-pet, Tusk, literally calls for purges, without any law procedures ! Freedom bordered with anarchy !

Maybe you are aware judges here act as caste and they do whatever they want. Law is twisted at will here. Do not saying all the time, just when they want it. And that judges are official* opposition of elected party ! Judges ! Acting politically ! You call that despotism ? Or too much freedom ?

Do we have military state like in France ? No. Do we have censorship like in Germany ? No. Do we have problems with making government like Italy ? No. Do our PM resigned because of corruption and next PM promised silence and no more leeks like in GB ? No.

You see ? It's oasis of peace and happiness here compared to rest of the EU ;)

But tell me pls, what you have in mind about that "anti-democracy" in Poland ?

[_j5l3]

> Furthermore it seems like anti-democratic behaviour is getting punished now, too, if you look over to Poland.

They're saying anti-democratic behavior is being punished, which implies that Poland is pro-democracy.

[Georgelemental]

> anti-democratic behaviour

You will have to be more specific, "democratic" is a grossly overlaoded term these days. When you write "democratic", do you mean "in accordance with the will of the majority of the population", or do you mean "in accordance with the will of unelected EU bureaucrats, the US Department of State, and media elites"?

[rendall]

I'm not sure what the form of government has to do with long-term, unintended consequences deriving from parents regularly choosing the characteristics of their unborn children. Would we have more or fewer: engineers, artists, short people, quirky people, homosexuals, religious people, etc?

[dane-pgp]

Yeah, we'd only kill the disabled and mediocre children standing in the way of our Utopia, nothing immoral like those awful Chinese people do.

[martin_a]

We're talking about embryos here. I think you're well aware about the ongoing discussions on when those are to be considered humans and when not. That's not an easy topic, obviously, but I'm fairly confident that we won't throw babys in the garbage can if we don't like them but try to make those decisions as early as possible.

[telotortium]

> I'm fairly confident that we won't throw babys in the garbage can if we don't like them

Why not? What exactly is the limiting criterion? Sentience is the main criterion that people who want to argue for animal rights and yet support abortion use, and it's a pretty squishy criterion. Already Peter Singer supports veganism and effective altruism (i.e., rebranded utilitarianism), and yet is perfectly okay with both abortion and infanticide, at least until the child gets "sentience".

[timeon]

Pro-life people are vegans now? It is good that they are consistent.

[skirmish]

Yuval Noah Harari in "Homo Deus" [1], paraphrased: once all your neighbors are selecting their embryos, and you see their children healthier, higher IQ, excelling in school, how long do you think you will hold out?

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062464345

[Georgelemental]

"Embryo selection"—is that a euphemism for "murdering any unborn child that doesn't have all the "right" genes? Because if so I think your definition of "people's lives" must be very different from mine.

[concordDance]

Well yes, but anti-abortionists are a rapidly shrinking minority that I assumed were pretty much extinct on hacker news.

[vixen99]

Definition? Do you mean no limits at all up to and immediately prior to birth? I'm not sure you'd get unanimity on that. That implies a few seconds separating legal permission to kill from infanticide.

[esarbe]

No, it's just that; embryo selection. It's not an euphemism for what you wrote because an embryo is not a child and you cannot murder an embryo.

From Wikipedia: "A child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty [...]"

You are also conflating the abortion of an embryo with murder; only human persons can be murdered, embryos are not persons, therefore no murder.

I sincerely ask you to cut down the polemics here on HN. It does not lead to fruitful (no pun intended) discussions.

[Veen]

I agree with your position, but it is no less polemical and ideological than the comment you are responding to.

> an embryo is not a child and you cannot murder an embryo

It is not obviously and axiomatically true that embryos are not human (I'm assuming the previous comment meant human and not child). Many people think that they are, which is the source of the disagreement. It probably is fruitless to have this conversation on HN, but you shouldn't just assert the opposing position as if it were settled when it is anything but.

[esarbe]

> but it is no less polemical and ideological than the comment you are responding to.

I beg to differ. I don't think that using dictionary definitions to make ones arguments can be counted as polemic (as in; to use contentious rhetoric). I might be wrong though.

> I'm assuming the previous comment meant human and not child

No, I actually meant 'child'. An human embryo is - obviously - human. No discussion about that. A human embryo is not a child - the definition of that is also pretty much settled, I'd say. (At least from a scientific point of view.)

But maybe I didn't clearly state my case, thus the misunderstanding.

The point I'm making is as follows. Embryos are not children and thus they are not persons. Just as I cannot murder my toe (it might be human, but it's not a person) I cannot murder an embryo.

[dane-pgp]

> A human embryo is not a child - the definition of that is also pretty much settled, I'd say.

To suggest there is only one definition of "child" is even more incorrect than suggesting that it can't refer to an unborn person:

   Definition of child
   …
   3 a : an unborn or recently born person 
       "… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

[Alenycus]

Loads of people disagree with you and believe it is murder and can quote science to back up their argument.

You also don't have any definition with a clear line when this switch from non human to human happens.

It almost always boils down to "when it's convenient for me"

[esarbe]

> Loads of people [...]

Quotation needed. Outside of religious circles there's very little debate about this. Scientific consensus is that fetal viability is considered to begin at 23 or 24 weeks gestational age. That's long after the embryo stage.

Just to make communication easier; are you aware that there's a difference between embryo and fetus?

> You also don't have any definition with a clear line when this switch from non human to human happens.

I never proposed that a embryo is not human. But we can talk about the line dividing persons from non-persons, if you like.

[zdragnar]

It's hardly a polemic when it is a question of existential importance- what does it mean to be human, when does a human begin to exist, and at what point does a human have rights?

[esarbe]

Embryos are without a question human. So is my little toe. The question is whether they are persons.

The importance of the topic doesn't make it impossible to be polemic. I can talk about a very serious topic and be polemic and I can also talk about a trivial matter and not be polemic. The question of polemic is decided by contentious rhetoric.

Equating embryos with children and abortion with murder is polemic.

[zdragnar]

The question is not are embryos human, the question is whether they are independent human life with their own rights.

I don't think it is polemic to disagree on this point, but it rationally follows that if embryos are unique life forms, which are also human, then aborting them is murder.

Personally, I don't agree with that line of reasoning either, but the argument isn't in itself polemic.

Edit: I suppose I should add that I am not treating "human" as a collective noun, the way we might talk about bread or water. "A human" is not merely a little toe, for example.

[esarbe]

>> Embryos are without a question human. [...] The question is whether they are persons.

> The question is not are embryos human, the question is whether they are independent human life with their own rights.

I think we are pretty much in agreement what the contention is about.

> [..] the argument isn't in itself polemic.

The argument itself is not polemic. No argument in itself is polemic. Polemic is defined in the language used. I'm objecting the language in which the argument is phrased;

To quote the post I originally answered to:

> "Embryo selection"—is that a euphemism for "murdering any unborn child [...]

The phrasing is polemic for reasons I pointed out before.