Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#71

Post by openasocket » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #57

scierama wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choices, the answer is people choose to behave as they do, when they do and how they do.

What is choice? I don't believe that "free will" exists. The concept isn't even meaningfully defined for non-dualists. In reality, we're Turing machines. We have certain inputs, a memory, and certain outputs.

You're forgetting that DNA is far from the only input. There's also environment. And you're underestimating the chaotic, nonlinear system that is the material world. We can't accurately predict the weather a month in advance, what makes you think you can accurately predict the life of a human being?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#72

Post by komali2 » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

ece wrote: post #52

komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

It's a little dangerous to think gene-editing is the cure to human-ills, and that it is "natural" progress for the human race. Considering everything currently known in the human sciences, I think what you're asking for is asking too much of gene-editing alone. I prefer the Star Trek view of gene-editing, for genetic diseases, ok. Otherwise, no. Arguably, there is nothing to make better, or faster than what evolution…

Haven't we effectively halted evolution, though? Strength doesn't really matter when you can become wildly "fit" in this world via brains alone, brains don't really matter when you live in a society that isn't ok with (generally) letting people die on the streets of hunger, etc. Seems the traits being selected for is a total crapshoot - anything goes.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#73

Post by laydn » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:05 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said:

If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will.

Maybe it is time to start thinking about an international agreement to limit unethical genetic engineering. A "Paris Accord" for "Genetic Engineering" if you will...

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#74

Post by CoolNickname » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:06 PM UTC

A lot of people will be talking about ethics. But I'm thinking more along the lines of economics.

Rich people having expensive gene edited kids. They're stronger, smarter, more driven, and healthier than your kids. They are better looking. They'll be more advanced than kids their age. They'll have all sorts of built in advantages.

The social and economic gap will widen. Opportunities come easier to the people who look great, are crazy smart, and are driven to attain them. So the rich kids become richer and more powerful.

It's one thing to get a head start in life because your parents give you money. It's a much bigger advantage when your parents can also afford to give you built in physical and mental advantages far beyond other people.

Imagine being the kid who realizes he's slower than his classmates because his parents are poor, and that it's too late to ever change that.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#75

Post by komali2 » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

laydn wrote: post #73

komali2 wrote: post #6

>and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism. If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exer…

I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said: If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will. Maybe it is time to start thinking about an international agreem…

Apologies, I'll need to re-read my comment and account for that perhaps in an edit. I don't mean to cast any country in a "better" light - I'm only speaking from the perspective of an American. Basically I'm saying if "we" don't do it, "they" will.

The endgame of my argument is that I hope EVERYONE will do it, and I frame it as "us" vs "them" as an attempt to find a way to overcome typical ethical concerns about genetic engineering, most of which I disagree with (so I myself don't need convincing).

My objective is a united human race. Whoever takes us there is fine by me.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#76

Post by openasocket » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #14

Good! For too long, we've been hampered by the limitations of a human nature evolved millions of years ago for a very different environment. All previous attempts at changing human nature have failed. Activism does not work. Grand social movements do not work. Policing language does not work. We now have a chance to succeed in improving ourselves using tools that actually work.

I think we should be very very careful about messing around with human nature, especially in the face of the extreme power that genetic engineering offers. It's not just about the dangers of messing up, but the dangers of which things we decide to change. I hate to link a comic to make a point, but http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/eugenics-is-a-great-idea raises an interesting, if humorous, argument.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#77

Post by EvilDictator » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:10 PM UTC

As someone with a genetic disease that involves my spine disintegrating and my heart basically being a time bomb, I have a really hard time seeing a problem with this.

Limit it to diseases and genetic anomalies so it doesn't become a race thing and voila. Why would getting rid of things like my disease be a bad thing?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#78

Post by branchless » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:11 PM UTC

nopinsight wrote: post #68

JackFr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe-to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will. So what? They win more Olympic medals? Or what, they invade like in Red Dawn? Or they take all the places in our elite colleges? While its not an argument against, fear-mongering a ludicrous, purely hypothetical b…

The country with more capable populace will produce more valuable goods and services. If free trade is allowed, trade imbalance will accumulate to an extent that might tip the scales in other domains, including global standing. Technological and military power also fundamentally depend on the quality of people. Full-scale war is not likely in the near future, but will people accept being an underdog after a century o…

Wait, yanks are worried about a trade deficit with China? Take a seat, i have some news...

Really this post is what is already happening. Nothing to do with genetic engineering, everything to do with neoliberalism.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#79

Post by TallGuyShort » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:11 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #70

TallGuyShort wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all about the ethics of future applications of technology. I'm talking about "fixing" an embryo with trisomy so that it doesn't have trisomy. We don't have to get into the particulars of current technology or little differences in various genomic anomalies. Or we can pick pretty much any other disability, and one that is a mutation in a DNA sequence. My question stands. What is the objective, non-religious th…

As I alluded to in my other response, I'm not sure getting rid of legitimate disabilities like Down's is optimizing for "shorter-term competitiveness." Your argument is basically a slippery slope argument. If we fix Down's, what's next? When does everyone become a 6'4" blonde haired blue eyed Adonis? If you'd rather say that we need to keep having folks with preventable disabilities because it represents "all sorts o…

... I am one of their parents - and I can assure you the happiness anyone gets from associating with my children or the happiness they get from experiencing their life is independent of their capacity to become a scientist or an athlete. I'm not talking about not preventing diseases. Gene therapy as announced in the article? Sounds good. Eugenics beyond that? I think we need to have a big discussion about what we're actually trying to achieve as a society, because beyond actual lethal diseases there's a lot of big costs to society that come with it.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#80

Post by The_Notorious » Wed, Aug 02, 2017, 7:12 PM UTC

I think it's unethical for us to not pursue gene editing. Why bring children into this world with greater susceptibilities to disease? Also, if people want to go a step further and alter traits like appearance and athletic ability that should be their choice. It is their genetic material.