Next year, babies carrying the DNA of three people will be born for the first time ever, thanks to a UK parliamentary ruling that passed earlier this week.

The ruling, which has been subject to worldwide interest and outrage from some corners, will allow donor DNA to be implanted into the egg of women with mitochondrial disease, ensuring they do not pass on the devastating condition to their children.

This news cannot be underestimated: it is a highly significant step in human history, far surpassing the first test tube baby in 1978.

In effect this development will change our species, widening the definition of humanity from the long-set concept of a child with two biological parents.

However, in terms of impact to our daily lives, it is a fairly minuscule development, likely to only be noticed and truly valued by those carrying, or who know someone with mitochondrial disease.

Why, then, is the development so controversial?

Although it was passed, Many British MPs opted to oppose the bill, with 128 against and 382 voting in favour. And there is still the question of the UK’s second house, the House of Lords, approving the bill, although it generally expected to go through.

Elsewhere, religious groups have opposed the bill, citing ethical reasons and expressing concern that the technology will lead to the emergence of “designer babies” bred with select characteristics considered ideal by their parents.

The reality is, however, quite different. The part of the DNA provided by the donor has no characteristics that define our appearance or identity, so the designer babies panic that so often gets trotted out is of little relevance to this particular development.

The ethics aspect is a little more complicated. During a parliamentary debate, Conservative MP Fiona Bruce highlighted the main concern about the technology:

“[This] will be passed down generations, the implications of this simply cannot be predicted,” the BBC quoted her as saying.

“But one thing is for sure, once this alteration has taken place, as someone has said, once the gene is out of the bottle, once these procedures that we’re asked to authorise today go ahead, there will be no going back for society.”

The thing is, society generally doesn’t go back. In fact, outside of the US’ 1933 decision to reverse prohibition, I’m struggling to think of an example where a society has actively taken a step back from a line of progress it has been pursuing.

In reality, if a technology, procedure or law is of real and considerable benefit it generally gets passed sooner or later.

Often, as with the case of a slew of civil rights as well as some technologies, it’s a matter of it being later than it should have been, leaving generations wishing they’d only been born a bit later. But it does get passed.

Humanity is changing faster than ever before, and different countries are changing at different rates, accepting some technologies when others will not let them progress.

The places that will thrive and progress better, becoming economically superior and providing better well-being are those that embrace change, and embrace bringing the new into humanity.

This technology is undoubtedly only going to be the first in a line of developments designed to wipe out life-destroying diseases and improve human life, and those places that open the bottle first will improve more lives than those that hold back for decades over ethical concerns.

Human improvement past our current form is going to happen. It is becoming possible, and that means that somewhere, sooner or later, it will be approved for use.

Trying to prevent it will only prevent people from living full and rich lives, and there’s really no moral reason why that should be acceptable.