Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 178 posts

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#111

Post by simplify »

quotemstr wrote: post #42
komali2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is fair that caution is needed - otherwise we're just a bunch of Qyburns, right?

GRRM framed Qyburn negatively. You could view him from a positive angle instead: he's a brilliant scientist who left the scientific community so he could pursue groundbreaking research without being slowed by obsolete and conventional ideas. That's a heroic narrative, not a sinister one. ASOIF is fiction. We live in reality. The problem is far more often that we're held by obsolete and suffocating rules than that we'…

It's easy to say you'd like to "try new things" when you're not the one being experimented on.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#113

Post by saidajigumi »

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…

> our much more intelligent children will realize total species improvement is a better investment

I view this as a fallacy which is close kin to the "algorithms are neutral" fallacy. Scenario: we, with our incredibly poor understanding of genetics vs. the total impact of those on a fully-developed organism do this:

1. Make more "intelligent" humans, but oops the genetic modification we make reduces empathy. E.g. the "high-functioning autistic" stereotype. Now we have "bright" humans who are less capable of understanding and mirroring emotional impacts on others.

2. Second oops: the empathy reduction above doesn't also reduce instincts governing human tribalism.

3. Coup de grace: now we have a "race" of perfect little fascists, capable of incredible feats of rationalization to cover for their poorly-understood desires, a stronger than ever in-group vs out-group anathema, and with barely a twinge for the others their actions are now crushing.

Society crumbles due to lack of social cohesion and mass genocide. Thanks for playing! Please enter 25￠ to continue.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#114

Post by toomuchtodo »

scierama wrote: post #110
seanp2k2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you outlaw genetic engineering, only outlaws will be genetically engineered. Then they'll take over the world.

That's a paradox since a genetically improved species would abhor violence. They would have no ability to take over the world. They would become subservient like the Eloi in The Time Machine.

> That's a paradox since a genetically improved species would abhor violence.

Bold claim.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#115

Post by komali2 »

simplify wrote: post #109
seanp2k2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said it was a single gene? Do you believe that because there is a risk, no study of these methods or this idea in general should continue?

There are several problems. First, what is intelligence? Is it simply math & science? What if we lose other hard-to-measure, essential traits? How much happiness is "better"? Should we "switch on" a gene that makes someone perpetually happier, given the option? What happens when a set of traits becomes popular? Will diversity be lost? Will everyone choose lighter shades of skin?

Those are fantastic questions. Aren't they worth exploring with further research?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#116

Post by roceasta »

There's a huge difference between eliminating known mutations and somehow engineering for enhanced positive traits. The latter requires knowledge that we simply don't have.

Even if we did obtain it, it doesn't follow that Jo Slow would be worse off. We're all of us already better off living in a world with smart people in it. We're obviously better off living in a world with healthier people in it (reduced healthcare costs)

Futhermore it doesn't make sense to be personally jealous of smart people. It seems that being smart can be a significant burden; you're an outsider at best or you veer into mental disorder at worst. Only rarely do smart people flower into creative geniuses, the kind of people who contribute to progress. Most people use their smarts to be more normal than the norm...

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#117

Post by danso »

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…

It's not necessarily just about moral standards. China's government has a recent history of strong policy on matters of population and birth, the One Child Act being the most well-known. There are still regulations on reproduction in the name of population control, such as making it illegal for unmarried women to freeze their eggs:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/world/asia/china-us-women...

> According to the National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, assisted reproductive technologies are denied to “single women and couples who are not in line with the nation’s population and family planning regulations.” Even married women must provide proof of marriage, a license to give birth and evidence either of infertility or of medical treatments that could impair fertility, such as chemotherapy.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#118

Post by [deleted] »

saidajigumi wrote: post #113
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…

> our much more intelligent children will realize total species improvement is a better investment I view this as a fallacy which is close kin to the "algorithms are neutral" fallacy. Scenario: we, with our incredibly poor understanding of genetics vs. the total impact of those on a fully-developed organism do this: 1. Make more "intelligent" humans, but oops the genetic modification we make reduces empathy. E.g. the…

[deleted]

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#119

Post by qbrass »

maxerickson wrote: post #38
conception wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it was proving that being clever you can cheat the system. He showed, several time, why he wasn't as capable and probably put everyone on the mission in jeopardy because of it (Do they have contact lens replacements in space when no one else needs them? Probably not.) That is one of the reasons why I love that movie, Ethan is the bad guy. Though that's probably not what the director was going for.

Do you have a hot take on Harrison Bergeron?

He was a 14 year old with a god complex who was arrested under suspicion of planning to overthrow the government, and proved them right when he attempted exactly that after escaping custody.

He and his compatriots were dealt with as any other traitors would have been while being caught in mid coup.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#120

Post by justonepost »

roceasta wrote: post #116

There's a huge difference between eliminating known mutations and somehow engineering for enhanced positive traits. The latter requires knowledge that we simply don't have. Even if we did obtain it, it doesn't follow that Jo Slow would be worse off. We're all of us already better off living in a world with smart people in it. We're obviously better off living in a world with healthier people in it (reduced healthcare…

Healthier people don't reduce costs, they just delay them.
Post reply on HN