Well, it is about time. I have long advocated modifying our symbiots
first, and then replacing them with nanotech when available (nanochondria,
see http://www.transhumanism.com/lexicon/n.html). Why should children not
have the very best mitochondrial DNA available? I am sure that beyond
avoiding mitochondrial disease, there are bound to be folks out there that
do not have as much general energy available to them because they have low
efficiency symbiots. If I were going to reproduce myself today, I would
not choose my own (mother's) mitochondria to pass on, I would go for
mitochondria from Bar-Headed Geese. These guys fly at up to 30,000 feet
to get over the Himalayas every year on migration. Now, that, is
somekinda bio energy system!
-Ken
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> There may have been some discussion about this previously
> but it was news to me, so it may be news to some others.
>
> See "Genetically altered babies born":
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1312000/1312708.stm
>
> The children have non-maternal mitochondrial DNA and are
> alive and well. This is going to play out in a very interesting
> way as a fundamental "reproductive rights" issue -- parents
> unable to have children should have a fundamental right (???)
> to perform whatever engineering is necessary such that they
> *can* have children.
>
> Gosh, golly, jeepers. I'm looking forward for the future
> and find its already in back of me.
>
> Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT