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

211–220 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#211

Post by LeifCarrotson »

rubatuga wrote: post #51
devrandomguy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with not editing the germline, is that that could easily be used to implement a DRM scheme. The recipient of this sort of editing might have a very high chance of only producing disabled or dead offspring, as they themselves would have been, without intervention. They, and their descendants, would have to procure this same treatment in order to procreate.

I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind would create a genome that had a DRM. Furthermore, would you sign up for a procedure like that? Also it’s a violation of somebody’s human rights to stop them from reproducing! What is really happening is that normal copies of the human genome are being incorporated. Which are then passed on to your sperm/ovum.

> I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind would create a genome that had a DRM. Furthermore, would you sign up for a procedure like that?

Most problems with the world are because there are a lot of people who don't make decisions based on a right mind. A few are because of insufficient information or insufficient technology to open up other choices, but most problems in economics and politics are caused by people being jerks to each other.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#212

Post by vivekd »

I think enough people recognize the ethical issues inherent in designer babies enough that we are in no danger of reaching that point. I think the tech could have great applications in livestock and curing genetic defects.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#214

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

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…

> is that gene editing will cause human genomes to converge to a single gold standard.

I think reading plays a more important role than writing.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#215

Post by ghurtado »

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…

All of your arguments could apply to cosmetic surgery just as well.

I don't agree with your wholesale assertion that all of those who are unable to afford cosmetic surgery (larger breasts, hair implants...) are suffering, however.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#216

Post by zanny »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #199
zanny wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Absolutely true. I was concerned more with traits that can drive people from fiscal stability to poverty, like an addictive personality, how gullible they are, etc.

The problem though is that happy dumb people will have an even harder time competing for scarce resources against genetically engineered unemphatic super geniuses than they do against the current crop of sociopaths that run the global economy.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#217

Post by mmirate »

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.

In addition to the factors mentioned in the sibling comment, empathy can often lead one to make the wrong decision. (Where by "wrong" I mean any decision other than the one best supported by one's rational analysis.)

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#218

Post by HillaryBriss »

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…

in today's economic environment, intelligence is a desirable trait.

but, are there other imaginable economic environments in which intelligence becomes unimportant?

i'm reminded of the saying "China has two words for foreigner: barbarian and master"

China's legendary, long standing emphasis on education and intelligence has served it well for much of its history, but perhaps not all of it.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#219

Post by e12e »

devrandomguy wrote: post #62
rubatuga wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind would create a genome that had a DRM. Furthermore, would you sign up for a procedure like that? Also it’s a violation of somebody’s human rights to stop them from reproducing! What is really happening is that normal copies of the human genome are being incorporated. Which are then passed on to your sperm/ovum.

Starry-eyed young lovers will fall for a DRM scheme, if they can be convinced that it is for the children. "Our award winning, holistic, proprietary life-experience program leads to superior outcomes, when compared to competing life experience programs. Doctors know it, children's services favor it. So, what kind of life experience does your future family deserve?" Enter perfect puppies.

At first glance, I read: "Starred-crossed lovers will run afoul of DRM scheme - to whit, a remix:

Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. From forth the fatal loins of these two foes A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life; Whose misadventured piteous overthrows Do with their death bury their parents' strife. The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, And the continuance of their parents' rage, Which, but their children's end, nought could remove, Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage; The which if you with patented ears attend, What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#220

Post by nyolfen »

ernestipark wrote: post #76
nyolfen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that. china in particular does not have the west's historical scruples wrt genetic editing and eugenics. i think this 'debate' will last about as long as it takes for the first generation of modded chinese children with two or three SDs on the mean to be brought into the world.

I don't think you can make a very strong argument for the "west's historical scruples wrt genetic editing and eugenics" when you look at the prevalence of convenience abortions and the history of eugenics in America.

what i meant was along the lines of, "we thought eugenics was good until the nazis did it, and now we think it's bad"
Post reply on HN