Live data from Hacker News

First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

technologyreview.com

91–100 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, if we have a problem with racism now just on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/(culture), just imagine what sort of conflicts would arise once there are actual different human races. Even more so if they cannot reproduce with one another.

Life, uh, finds a way.

I finally registered an account just to show how much I appreciated the double entendre!

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#93
post #89

here's a TODO list i made for possibly interesting genome editing targets: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic-modifications/ Many of these have low demonstrated correlation or significance so don't just blindly load everything on that document into your at-home CRISPR kit http://www.the-odin.com/gene-engineering-kits/ but it should be a good starting point for thinking about what can be modified, improved, disimproved, et…

rs193536 affects male genitals you say? Here I go, injecting it directly into my penis without any further questions (his decision, not mine).

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#94
I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in that sense it's not literal at all. Again, chemotherapy.

And surgery, and injections, and stitching wounds, etc. Obviously it's net harm, not no harm at all.

It's not simply 'net' harm, as we would regard surgeons as breaking this principle, if they were to murder a homeless man and distribute his organs to 5 otherwise terminal patients.

Medical ethics is its own field precisely because overeager and overconfident solutions are fraught with problems.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#97
post #89

here's a TODO list i made for possibly interesting genome editing targets: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic-modifications/ Many of these have low demonstrated correlation or significance so don't just blindly load everything on that document into your at-home CRISPR kit http://www.the-odin.com/gene-engineering-kits/ but it should be a good starting point for thinking about what can be modified, improved, disimproved, et…

Fascinating. This just popped in my head: does the human genome contain pointers? Or am I missing a key piece?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#98
post #94

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

My understanding is that China has been doing this for years.

*https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#100
post #94

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

I all honestly, we can not allow a gene-gap.

Forget racism, what happens when a country can actually make it's people "better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?

Post reply on HN