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

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#271

Post by eli_gottlieb »

ethbro wrote: post #230
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So can we please stop with the deification of the default and get on with progress? Well said! I fear, though, that a problem with this admonition is that some ascribe the default state to a deity. However, I'm not sure that the characteristics you mentioned are of the same quality. Hair color, gender, and other traits are neutral in quality - especially if there's risk in the procedure, it would seem wrong to sele…

Every technology ever has opened the door to dangerous possibilities. Caution is merited, but inaction carries culpability in the preventable negative outcomes solved in a potential future that we deny through fear. And not disagreeing with your content, as I agree and think it's well written, but statements like "nice to look into the future and determine what the human being created would prefer, we can't do that"…

>If I told you that I could make you smarter, right now, with 100% certainty and safety, but that afterwards... you wouldn't be you as you are now... would you say yes? Possibly, but I feel there's a certain inherent unease with that question. What happens to me if I become other?

This is silly. I don't become some other person when I drink alcohol or wear contact lenses, nor when I break a leg, exercise my muscles, or make any other permanent alteration to my body. A theory of self/identity that "breaks" under new medical advancements because it also breaks under everyday conditions is just a bad theory.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#272

Post by cmahler7 »

ajeet_dhaliwal wrote: post #262
pcnonpc wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

If someone's children will likely have a lower than this minimum intelligence, which you can infer from parent's IQ and other measures... Can it really be inferred? Not including conditions or syndromes of course. The parents' environment may have affected their intelligence and the child may turn out entirely different.

intelligence is 50-80% genetic, identical twin studies have shown this many times.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#273

Post by TallGuyShort »

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.

Billionaires? Perhaps. But aren't most of us on here taking a quick break from our Silicon Valley-like software engineering jobs that put us in or near the highest income 1% of the United States, and firmly within the highest income 1% of the world? I'm sure any significant medical advance that is remotely scalable will be available to most of us if our competitiveness and survival depends on it.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#274

Post by TallGuyShort »

rubatuga wrote: post #48
albertTJames wrote: post #36

Ethics questions need to be raised now, and guidelines have to be decided. The future of humanity is in gene editing. It should not depends on the lazyness of law makers and outrage of godfearing creatures to decide the fate of humanity. It is time we take our evolution into our own hands.

Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

So you're saying the world would hands-down be a better place if we could eliminate kids with Down syndrome? Where do you draw the line between that and not wanting your kid to have to deal with gender dysphoria or same-gender attraction in our current political climate? Should parents have the option of eliminating that too?

Sure, you can argue that homosexuality isn't an undesirable defect, but does Trump's victory in the recent US election make you feel like the people regulating this in the future really aren't going to see it that way? What is it you're optimizing for in eliminating mental defects that you're confident couldn't also be objectively be applied to other things this group would find appalling?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#275

Post by emiliobumachar »

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…

The quote is accurate, but the plot point is not. In Gattaca, they pick the best of each gene to make an optimized embryo, which is far, far more meddlier than picking the best whole embryo.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#276

Post by patkai »

I know very little about this topic, but let me shoot: isn't this method for improving competitiveness misguided and shortsighted? How about working on emotional intelligence, better education and talent management, better food in schools, better child care, more support for disadvantaged families - there is so much we can do... Or is it just not about improving society, but individuals (with deep pockets)?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#277

Post by TheCoelacanth »

eggie wrote: post #11

We would need a very particular set of conditions for embryonic editing to be justifiable under a medical dogma that aims to "do no harm." Both parents would need to carry a large common set of recessive deleterious alleles, as this would make embryonic selection of non-carriers very difficult. Then we would need the editing system to be so reliable as to not introduce off-target mutations. In a preimplantation setti…

That interpretation of the Hippocratic oath would also forbid cosmetic surgery. Clearly that's not a very widely accepted interpretation.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#278

Post by eli_gottlieb »

tcbawo wrote: post #18
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…

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.

Why vest absolute trust in anything at all? Just figure out how much trust is justified and act accordingly. And remember: the conservative, do-nothing choice is also a choice, because the world still does its thing even if you do nothing.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#279

Post by roceasta »

evolve2017 wrote: post #239
roceasta wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks. I should read up a bit. Can you link to any decent info or discussion about allele frequencies?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#280

Post by Noos »

I don't think the modest raise in IQ would be worth a society that considers children as products they can alter to specification. Bill McKibben in Enough wrote eloquently about the existential dread that could happen if we somehow managed to select for musical skill for example. It's one thing to deal with your talent or lack of it in terms of the randomness of normal life, another thing to realize you are little more than a racehorse that has been bred because your parents want you to be something.
Post reply on HN