First Human Embryos Edited in U.S • Hacker News Board

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#181

Post by zanny » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:48 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #122

WalterBright wrote: post #20

Gene editing is probably the only way humans can colonize space. By adapting people to different gravities, air chemistry and pressure, radiation, etc., the need for life support equipment can be significantly reduced, and the quality of life of the colonists can be improved.

Why would you live on a planet with different gravity, atmosphere, etc when you can have a nice orbiting habitat adapted to human needs?

Turns out space stations are not the most easily expanded spaces to accommodate growing populations.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#182

Post by bluGill » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

aquadrop wrote: post #136

taneq wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming it becomes possible - why shouldn't people edit their genes to produce superior children? We're already talking about just that, when we discuss editing out congenital diseases and the like. The only difference between the two cases is that one is eliminating unexpected weaknesses and the other is eliminating generally-expected weaknesses. Really what's being said is that nobody should be allowed to use thei…

Don't forget to enhance empathy genes then as well, because if you don't, oh boy this new generation of superhumans will make previous ones to suffer.

This isn't just a theoretical concern. Several genes known to improve cognitive skills harm social skills. (social skills and empathy are not the same, but they are related)

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#183

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

Omnius wrote: post #174

alistairSH wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will it cause a convergence? Or, a divergence, as we engineer people for specificity? A dedicated military caste, intellectual caste, etc.

This would imply that you had to choose a specialization when the "designed" human could just be best suited for all of those things. Physical and mental perfection.

Hmm, true. But, can we design for perfection across all traits?

I always imagined it's a bit like the old Mage vs Warrior vs Ninja (or whatever) selections in fantasy games - you can maximize total area under the curve, or you can specialize in certain areas at the cost of others.

Edit/add - A convergence would also indicate there is global agreement on the "gold standard". Sure, maximizing intellect and longevity/health is easy. But, physical appearance?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#184

Post by zanny » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:53 PM UTC

eggie wrote: post #19

roceasta wrote: post #6

The talk is of 'genetic enhancement' but the potential benefit seems more boring and necessary to me: removal of many new and as-yet-unidentified mutations. It is thought that these have been accumulating generation by generation since about 1800 when child mortality started to fall.

Why would you throw away the biodiversity of our species? You're forgetting about the huge bulk of mutations that have been tested (and were embryonic lethal). Our rapidly growing species has only accumulated mutations that don't cause us to die, and that's an immensely valuable resource to have. The evolution rate of a species is proportional to its genetic diversity.

Species also evolve in response to environmental stimuli. Nowadays anyone of any relatively normal genetic disposition can reproduce almost as much as they want. There is no selection bias in our children on a structural level - the beautiful smart people aren't having dramatically more babies. If anything, we are culturally selecting for poverty since the poorer you are the more children you have on average. Poverty itself is not a genetic trait, but the negative traits that can lead one into poverty are obviously going to be much more abundant.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#185

Post by zanny » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:56 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #78

As if there wasn't enough inequality in the world, now the rich will be able to afford to make their offspring genetically superior to everyone else's. Have fun with a 1% that are literally overlords.

The tech isn't that expensive, it is the R&D into knowing what you are doing. Once we have "perfect" embryos cloning and implanting them will be an expense almost anyone in the world could afford, especially if global incomes in the poorest regions keep rising as they have been the last 20 years.

The broader problem is that the educated and wealthy will probably either sterilize themselves or use birth control to avoid having "normal" children, whereas the poor either won't know, won't care, or won't be able to consistently afford it.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#186

Post by zanny » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:58 PM UTC

mmirate wrote: post #71

Well this is exciting, but hopefully it will advance beyond "genetic disease". Or maybe in the future we will be able to expand our definition of that term, to include all genetic predispositions to suboptimal traits? (e.g. slow observation-decision loop, hedonism, sentimentalism/too-much-empathy, neuroticism, etc.) Either way - hopefully, when this tech is completed, we will be able to accept and enjoy that our desc…

Wait, being empathic is now a negative trait? I'd hope we would want our first generation of superhumans to be too empathic, or else they might exterminate all of us of inferior breed.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#187

Post by Nihilartikel » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

strgcmc wrote: post #175

ethbro wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of the earlier male in vitro embryos successfully carried to term in the US, I'll claim a unique perspective on the scientific creation of life. As a living, thinking human, I am grateful for everything that was done so that I may live. If the fertility lab had mixed chemicals differently, or deleted a propensity towards colon cancer, or changed my hair color, there's no way in hell I would have mourned my "un…

Designing blond babies because society slightly prefers blonds, takes an implicit preference and makes it explicit. Not everyone will be able to afford all the "premium" upgrades on designing their babies (and you can bet that cosmetic features will be premium). People who can't afford blond babies or cute-nosed babies or skinny babies or w/e the hell the fad is, will find that their children grow up to be second-cla…

Not everyone will be able to afford it until a robust private financing infrastructure and means based state or federal subsidy program is instituted!

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#188

Post by plaidfuji » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 3:01 PM UTC

speby wrote: post #167

plaidfuji wrote: post #160

I've seen most of these arguments for and against gene editing before, but the fact of the matter is that it will come down to the economic competitiveness of nations, as always. What concerns me in the long term is that gene editing will cause human genomes to converge to a single gold standard with proven mental and physical benefits, thereby reducing our species' genetic diversity and leaving us more vulnerable to…

Thing is, we are naturally not diverse at all (in part because our nearest ancestors with whom which we, at one time, did have reproduction compatibility with, are no longer here): https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf Specifically, modern humans have, on average, less than 0.1% of differences in their DNA amongst each other: "How diverse are we? Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human g…

This is definitely true, but all of these genes have been vetted by millions of years of evolution, so we know they're rock solid. The edits we're talking about will be happening on a time scale that won't be constrained by natural selection, so by the time a weakness is found in one of these new genes, it's likely that it will already be widely adopted. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to anticipate what natural selection will look like when we multiply the "mutation rate" by probably > 10 orders of magnitude.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#189

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

Omnius wrote: post #174

alistairSH wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will it cause a convergence? Or, a divergence, as we engineer people for specificity? A dedicated military caste, intellectual caste, etc.

This would imply that you had to choose a specialization when the "designed" human could just be best suited for all of those things. Physical and mental perfection.

I think divergence is more likely, simply because of tradeoffs required. For example, physical strength and mental capabilities compete with each other for energy.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#190

Post by pcnonpc » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 3:23 PM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #162

PrimalDual wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive thanks to procedures like this humanity would be better for it. This would probably be true even if only a minority of people can afford it. If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity w…

>If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended. Because science and technology alone cannot save us from destroying ourselves. Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan and many others warned of how our scientific progress has been outpacing our human social progress.…

That is partly because most people are not Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan. If using genetic techniques and most people become as smart and wise as those names the world WILL be a better place, no?