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

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#231

Post by cr0sh » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 6:11 PM UTC

theWatcher37 wrote: post #101

tcbawo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate the optimism in this sentiment, the similarity to the early atomic age gives me pause. Human beings have shown time and time again that they cannot be absolutely trusted.

The atomic age came without the world or our species ending.

We are still in the "atomic age" - and will be for as long as nuclear weapons continue to exist.

Furthermore, right now these weapons just "sit around" - but one day they will be used again. All it will take will be a "brief moment" of insanity by a leader, and by the people he leads, to touch off the tragedy to follow.

Or...more likely...because we know it has happened in the past: It will happen due to a mistake, either by one or more humans misinterpreting what other humans are doing, or by misinterpreting the signals of machines (or machines sending the wrong signals, which are then interpreted correctly by the humans - though the signals are false).

This scenario is far more likely than sheer anger causing madness leading to tragedy - simply because it has historical precedent of happening not once, but multiple times.

Humanity will never be safe as long as these weapons and weapon systems exist.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#232

Post by wu-ikkyu » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

literallycancer wrote: post #227

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

>Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword. People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] If anything, now that a significant portion of the world has nukes, we haven't had two developed countries at war for perhaps the longest period in recorded histo…

>People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3]

Technology was used in all of those examples.

Technology by itself didn't create mass murder, but it does makes it much easier to do.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#233

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

Amygaz wrote: post #66

alextheparrot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain where the premise that our medicine must "Do no harm" comes from. Chemotherapy, for example, is known for being extremely toxic and harmful, yet the justification is that it often yields better outcomes than no treatment. Why can we not use the same justification for editing DNA? Honestly some therapies cause mutations by design, as some cancers are less capable of DNA repair. I do see one argument, h…

Maybe because chemo currently gives you 10% chance, while gene editing at the whole embryo level has 100% chance of resulting in mosaicism. This more recent work by Mitalipov's group dealt with single cell embryo and still ended up with mosaicism, which I was a bit surprised at first. But when you think about it, this single-cell embryo's genome is actively being replicated, so not 100% of the alleles will be edited.…

[deleted]

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#234

Post by dotancohen » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #222

SophosQ wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abou…

That sounds really interesting, does this hypothesis have a name so I can read up on it a bit more?

I'm not the OP, but the Toba catastrophe comes to mind. There were a few others.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#235

Post by austinjp » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

austinjp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that token, every single activity of anyone, anywhere, any time has been a success.

So let's put it differently: was the atomic age net good for humanity? I'd say very much, yes .

Maybe. I think it's difficult painting these things as having a net value. There's good and bad, and they co-exist, one doesn't come without the other.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#236

Post by BearGoesChirp » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

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…

I wouldn't worry too much about that, because I don't see the whole of humanity having access to this technology. Their will remain an underclass who, in general, won't be allowed to have access to this (more due to economics and politics that don't allow access instead of direct prohibition of access, think about how medical care is currently allotted). I think the interesting bit will between what happens between those who have regular access to this technology and those who don't. Could there end up being two human species resulting from this?

Also, as someone else pointed out, it would be more likely we edit different lines of humans. Two people having the best genes for a soldier and having the best genes for a scientist are likely to be better off than a single individual who has the best possible maximum of the two together. Optimizing multiple lines of humans each on a smaller set of traits is likely to produce far better result than optimizing one line on all traits.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#237

Post by Pulcinella » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 7:19 PM UTC

pcnonpc wrote: post #205

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…

From an interview with Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist: "Q: What does that mean in human language? A: Any given couple could potentially have several eggs fertilized in the lab with the dad’s sperm and the mom’s eggs. Then you can test multiple embryos and analyze which one’s going to be the smartest. That kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple…

The "fertilizing many eggs and then picking the genetically 'best' ones" is literally a plot point in Gattaca.

"This child is still you, just the best of you."

I don't know if the "economic competitiveness" part will be a comforting argument if this ever comes to pass. What I mean is, it won't been seen as "look at how our economy could grow if we do this." That economy would just be viewed as the new standard. This technology will be seen as "do this or you will be left behind." I fear it will be coercive and alienating.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#238

Post by Pulcinella » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 7:29 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #179

thosakwe wrote: post #146

In my class just Monday, we watched a film titled Gattaca, which tells the story of a society fueled by eugenics, where most births are in-vitro modified babies, and there is clear discrimination against those with "imperfect" genes. It's crazy how close these things are to reality.

I hated that movie. It's nice to think that you could overcome a heart condition through willpower, but the flip side of that is that if someone has a heart condition and doesn't overcome it then it's their fault. In reality life is just biologically unfair and disease or infirmity isn't actually a moral failing.

I don't think they ever confirm he has the heart condition, just when they screen him as an infant there is "~99% chance" he has it. Part of the plot is that the main character and others like him are never given a chance at anything in life because genetics have become viewed as destiny. They have futuristic advanced medical technology that probably could give everyone a good, meaningful life. He lives at the best time in history to survive a heart condition and yet he can't even get into daycare because the insurance won't cover him.

The society in Gattaca has used their advanced technology to imprison themselves and eliminate social mobility rather than expand it.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#239

Post by evolve2017 » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

roceasta wrote: post #158

evolve2017 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can remove a discussion about changes in allele frequencies from environments. Thus, making 'other things being equal' is not a reasonable premise from which to discuss evolution. I do see the argument you are espousing but I would only suggest that you consider the broader context of what happens when new species arise. I suspect you care more about the elimination of alleles (which is surprisingly…

That's a pretty subtle case but I don't think it's relevant to the issue of human evolution for at least two reasons: (1) humans have universal intelligence which gives us the ability to adapt to any environment, (2) human evolution is now swamped by the evolution of memes, not genes. We now decide what to do (including whether to speciate or not) A more realistic analogy from the animal kingdom would be something li…

I guess I would need to see an analysis of whether there's been any change in human allele frequencies. I suspect there hasn't.

But to your example, one issue with the farmed fish is that they now constitute a closed gene pool - we can easily explain their decreased fitness with the likely rise of harmful alleles.

With the explosion of population, I don't see much relationship between the salmon and humans.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#240

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

plaidfuji wrote: post #188

speby wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 na…

Certain breeds of dog get hip dysplasia. Dalmations go deaf. Molosser breeds often have respiratory issues, particularly pugs. This has not stopped people from breeding dogs.

Natural selection will be out the window. It will be replaced entirely by intentional selection. We will certainly see new diseases rooted in human vanity and hubris, and they will become business opportunities for surgeons and pharmacists, just as our natural and lifestyle ailments have become moneymaking industries.

So the great-grandchildren of people that were gifted by their parents with then-fashionable gene mutations will have all new reasons to pay for health care.

And Sylvester McMonkey McBean simply unveils his star-off machine.