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

251–260 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#251

Post by literallycancer »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #232
literallycancer wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Taking someone's cattle so that they starve doesn't require technology. I guess you could say smallpox blankets are a biological weapon.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#252

Post by D-Coder »

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…

"...all of these genes have been vetted by millions of years of evolution, so we know they're rock solid."

You haven't talked with my knees recently, have you.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#253

Post by pmoriarty »

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…

"Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is."

IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#254

Post by jchien17 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #253
pcnonpc wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is." IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?

Don't think it is - do you have anything to back this up? I think IQ is pretty accepted as a measure of intelligence.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#255

Post by mmirate »

mmirate wrote: post #217
zanny wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

So I suppose it's not the empathy itself that's the problem; rather, it's that we are so emotionally sensitive to the data we gain from our empathy.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#256

Post by ghurtado »

strgcmc wrote: post #248
ghurtado wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cosmetic-only editing is pretty analogous to cosmetic surgery, I grant you that. But if cosmetic surgery made you smarter, then clearly all who couldn't afford it would suffer (relative to those who could). We don't worry about that because cosmetic surgery doesn't have that potential (or does it? I dunno), but with gene editing I think it's a very real potential. That's not to say I'm wholesale against it, nor would…

Completely agree.

Let's hope that as a civilization we have enough sense to sort out making it available to everyone by then, at minimum in the most obvious areas (preventing disease, avoiding birth defects, etc...)

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#257

Post by pcnonpc »

Pulcinella wrote: post #237
pcnonpc wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Modern advanced society already requires a high minimum intelligence for people to function in especially to hold a respectable job or be a respectable member of a community. The minimum is increasing when more automation is used for most kinds of automation.

If someone's children will likely have a lower than this minimum intelligence, which you can infer from parent's IQ and other measures, will you encourage or prohibit them to use either embryo selection or genetic engineering? What are the impact on the child's life for each option? Is the 'distaste' more important than giving a better opportunity for the newborns?

Also, what can you do? You cannot put regulations on China or other countries. On this issue, they will not agree on international agreement either. And there will be rich people who fly to other countries to have the procedures done. This will cause even more inequality than allowing it domestically.

Jordan Peterson IQ and Job Market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#258

Post by kwhitefoot »

jchien17 wrote: post #254
pmoriarty wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is." IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?

Don't think it is - do you have anything to back this up? I think IQ is pretty accepted as a measure of intelligence.

Maybe, but what is the definition of intelligence? And even if there is a usable definition is it something that warrants being optimized?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#259

Post by gpawl »

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.

Please tell me which of these bodies is superior to the others: http://mymodernmet.com/howard-schatz-beverly-ornstein-athlet...

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#260

Post by gpawl »

biggerbistro wrote: post #246
literallycancer wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here? As in posting on the internet? Why not?

I of course have no sources to back this up (how would one even get such data?) but I suspect billionaires have better things to do than go e-slumming with those of us with fewer than 30 cars.

https://www.reddit.com/user/martinshkreli/
Post reply on HN