Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#191

Post by hycaria »

andreamez wrote: post #115
sethbannon wrote: post #12

I am so insanely excited for the potential of this technology. There are many ethical questions here, but the potential benefits far outweigh the downsides. In the near future, we can detect and eliminate genetic disorders, ensuring no child has to suffer from these defects any longer. Long term, this gives us a tool to take control of our own evolution in a way never before possible. Couldn't be more excited for wha…

I agree for deadly genetic disorders, but we can't be sure if a harmful mutation will be important in the future. For example sickle-cell disease make people immune to malaria. What if in the future a pandemic rises, and we have "edited away" the only mutation that would give immunity?

1) It's not perfect immunity but rather resistance, and it's when they are heterozygous.

2) Heterozygous still carry the gene and can pass it on (you're likely to just exclude homozygous people)

3) Sickle-cell disease has a lot of downsides... Yes, it's a disease.

There is little to zero downside in preventing births of homozygous affected people.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#192

Post by bluGill »

zanny wrote: post #181
visarga wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is true, but not really useful. There are only a few planets that we can inhabit. Not enough energy (sunlight) reaches Saturn to make it a useful planet even if you can stand the gravity.

In short if we want to expand beyond at best 3 planets we need a new solar system. That means we need humans able to make the several thousand year journey in a generation ship to a different star.

I suppose we could also take an earth sized chunk out of Saturn and put it into earth orbit. A generation ship to a different star seems more feasible to me.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#193

Post by biggerbistro »

Tade0 wrote: post #132
theWatcher37 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The rest of the world either catches up or lands in a zoo eventually.

The fact that more people aren't terrified of this worries me. Hitler may have been wrong with his "aryan superman" view but what happens when there is science backing it up? Not really looking forward to a genetically-enforced caste system.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#194

Post by hycaria »

nerdponx wrote: post #150
literallycancer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People refusing genetic modifications to remove risks of birth defects are more harmful than antivaxxers.

No. Birth defects aren't contagious and are not often fatal. Also -- where do you draw the line between "defect" and "cosmetic enhancement"? It will become a race to the bottom.

What is advantageous in keeping anything that is guaranteed to need life long treatment to simply stay alive and is genetically accurately identified in our gene pool (eg cystic fibrosis, not mild myopia) ? Technology for this is already available (and even parental testing could already help diminishing incidence) yet I doubt it's common.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#195

Post by pcnonpc »

pcnonpc wrote: post #176

"The BGI Cognitive Genomics Project is currently doing whole-genome sequencing of 1,000 very-high-IQ people around the world, hunting for sets of sets of IQ-predicting alleles. I know because I recently contributed my DNA to the project, not fully understanding the implications. These IQ gene-sets will be found eventually—but will probably be used mostly in China, for China. Potentially, the results would allow all C…

The average Chinese also values education and intellgence much more than the average American.

"Beijing parents splurge £154,000 on street alleyway in catchment area for desirable school

It may be a dusty passageway, ridden with insects and with electric cables dangling precariously from crumbling concrete overhead, but its value outstrips top-end property in Kensington and Chelsea due to rising demand from Chinese parents battling to get their children into elite schools."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/beijing-parents-s...

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#197

Post by SophosQ »

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…

Our genetic homogeneity implies that anatomically modern humans arose relatively recently (perhaps 200,000 years ago) and that our population size was quite small at one time (perhaps 10,000 breeding individuals).

-Another strongly supported hypothesis is that there was an near-extinction event that wiped out all but a pocket of human settlements from which we descended. - The diversity in other species that are about as old as ours is significantly far greater than ours suggesting that it is more likely an event like an unusually strong ice-age period that could've worsened our genetic diversity.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#198

Post by bluGill »

zanny wrote: post #186
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.

You would want that, but that choice may not be possible. There are some known genes where you choose between social skills or memory. You cannot have both as it is the same gene.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#199

Post by pbhjpbhj »

zanny wrote: post #184
eggie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "negative" traits that lead to poverty in our Western Democracies might arguably include such things as empathy, charity, and a preference for cooperation instead of conflict. Selecting for people who "win" at Western capitalism seems likely to usher in a much worse distopia.

I go for dumber people helping each other to live happy, fulfilled lives over intelligent super people destroying one another so they can control the most resources.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#200

Post by Xeoncross »

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…

0.1% difference is huge when talking about a ~6 billion character code. The OP is talking about the danger of moving to only a 0.001% difference (600M vs 6M).
Post reply on HN