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

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#151

Post by chii » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 2:49 AM UTC

The_Notorious wrote: post #80

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.

The issue I think is one of accessibility and availablity. If you're poor, and can't afford this, you are literally priced out of the gene pool. There has to be regulation to make sure that the tech is not out of reach of the poor.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#152

Post by Noos » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 2:58 AM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #115

simplify wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"But I prefer here to stick to a strictly logical line of distinction, and insist that whereas in all previous persecutions the violence was used to end our indecision, the whole point here is that the violence is used to end the indecision of the persecutors. This is what the honest Eugenists really mean, so far as they mean anything. They mean that the public is to be given up, not as a heathen land for conversion, but simply as a pabulum for experiment. That is the real, rude, barbaric sense behind this Eugenic legislation. The Eugenist doctors are not such fools as they look in the light of any logical inquiry about what they want. They do not know what they want, except that they want your soul and body and mine in order to find out. They are quite seriously, as they themselves might say, the first religion to be experimental instead of doctrinal. All other established Churches have been based on somebody having found the truth. This is the first Church that was ever based on not having found it.

There is in them a perfectly sincere hope and enthusiasm; but it is not for us, but for what they might learn from us, if they could rule us as they can rabbits. They cannot tell us anything about heredity, because they do not know anything about it. But they do quite honestly believe that they would know something about it, when they had married and mismarried us for a few hundred years. They cannot tell us who is fit to wield such authority, for they know that nobody is; but they do quite honestly believe that when that authority has been abused for a very long time, somebody somehow will be evolved who is fit for the job. I am no Puritan, and no one who knows my opinions will consider it a mere criminal charge if I say that they are simply gambling. The reckless gambler has no money in his pockets; he has only the ideas in his head. These gamblers have no ideas in their heads; they have only the money in their pockets. But they think that if they could use the money to buy a big society to experiment on, something like an idea might come to them at last. That is Eugenics."

G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and other Evils.

I recommend reading this book, as Chesterton was one of the few voices against Eugenics in its prime, and the arguments still are good.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#153

Post by Noos » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 3:06 AM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #98

civilian wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you like to be born with Huntington's disease, knowing that your parents could have taken an unknown risk to save you from it? We are all utterly innocent and unwilling participants in being born. You can either take the random cards that nature deals you, or we can try to act to have better outcomes. Just because you refuse to take action doesn't absolve you from taking a suboptimal action.

This could also easily turn into a larger discussion about the ethical considerations of procreation when one is not in a favorable position (e.g. poor, homeless, addicted to drugs, mentally ill). What's OK and what's not? Who decides for everyone? Is that the best way? Should people be allowed to decide for their future children?

the end goal in this is a class of priest-like experts to decide, obviously. I'm surprised no one realizes the tyranny of being forced to justify your right to procreate at all, let alone unguided by scientific experts with their own clear ideals of what should be done with your child.

Very few people are honest with themselves and admit the end goal is not making better, its making more controllable/more in aim with how the rulers want their population to be.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#154

Post by Retric » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 3:36 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #99

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…

> 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. China already spent a generation letting people shoot themselves in the foot with specifying genetic preferences in children. Don’t know what I mean? I’m talking about the gender trait. This is something determine…

That's been vastly over reported, the default M:F ratio is actually ~1.03-1.05 men to 1 women. Men are however significantly more likely to die every year (other than 10-12), and the age gap at marriage means even more men die before finding a spouse. Add on women are more likely to remarry than men and you can have large gender gaps without destroying society.

PS: China M:F ratio is 106 to 100. By comparison India is 108 to 100 but 90 to 100 over 65 the population is simply young. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#155

Post by bamboozled » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 3:49 AM 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…

This comment comes across as kind of paranoid and delusional.

There is no way that gene editing will give you "control over the environment" or that we need to start interfering with embryos to win some kind of non-existent arms race. Where is the evidence to suggest that these "super intelligent" children will grow up to ignore borders etc?

One doesn't have to be religious to feel as if some of these ideas are ethically questionable.

There is nothing wrong with the children we have today, we just don't look after them or their environment properly. Super smart children won't do much good with us for role models.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#156

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 4:07 AM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #84

quotemstr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? How are we going to learn unless we experiment? I detest the precautionary principle. If we'd followed it in prehistory, we'd have never left the trees: who knows what might be down there?

Experiment on who, exactly? How do you get consent from an embryo for the life it will have to live as a result of what you're about to do to it? "I detest the precautionary principle." Sometimes, a little bit of caution is what keeps someone alive long enough to reproduce. Plenty of Darwin Award winners could have used a little more caution.

I completely agree that a little bit of caution is important. That's not at all what the precautionary principle is. It says that before you do something, you must first prove that it's harmless.

This kind of proof is of course impossible, and in practice it means "never do anything".

The fun thing about is that people only advocate applying it to things they don't want to do, never on their own favorite projects

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#157

Post by tambgbtanla » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 4:46 AM UTC

Noos wrote: post #152

komali2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"But I prefer here to stick to a strictly logical line of distinction, and insist that whereas in all previous persecutions the violence was used to end our indecision, the whole point here is that the violence is used to end the indecision of the persecutors. This is what the honest Eugenists really mean, so far as they mean anything. They mean that the public is to be given up, not as a heathen land for conversion,…

the arguments may be good in some rhetorical sense, but their inapplicability to modern biology means they aren't very good in the only sense that counts for this discussion. the fear is amusing, though

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#158

Post by tambgbtanla » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:15 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #150

bryananderson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is just not true. I know it doesn't feel like it when you get on Twitter or turn on the news, but human beings are far nicer to each other today than they have ever been in history. Violence, poverty, and bigotry are all on gargantuan, multi-century downward trends. The evidence is clear that human behavior can change.

Every period claims they are better than before. Only future generations can truly determine the actual degrees objectively.

we are capable of making measurements now, and they show undeniable, massive improvement. i'm not even sure what your objection is, it's like questioning what addition means when someone tells you 2+2=4

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#159

Post by pcnonpc » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:47 AM UTC

brandonmenc wrote: post #97

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…

> 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. External tools will still provide orders of magnitude more advantage than any gene-edited maximum human body. Your soldiers can bench press a hundred more pounds than us? Big deal, ours can just press a button and…

Other powers have nukes too, so using it is out of the question. If nukes are not used, technology and economic capacity will determine the results.

Russia has a lot of good engineers and scientists but they don't have the industrial capacity to compete with the US. China's current capacity may already be double that of the US but its technology is still catching up (fast).

Winning wars requires intelligence not raw calculations. A nation with 10 extra IQ points on average would have many times more people with 130+ IQ needed to build and improve on advanced robots.

Btw, have you checked the list of top supercomputers in the world? The top two are in China. The top one has 4-5 times the power of the top American machine, which is #4. It also uses Chinese built microprocessors.

https://www.top500.org/lists/2017/06/

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#160

Post by seanp2k2 » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 7:24 AM UTC

ece wrote: post #140

farresito wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't increase the chance of survival, which is what he probably means when he says we halted evolution.

Genetic engineering isn't about to give anyone an "increased chance of survival." Unless you have a genetic disease, then it's ok. The population of earth isn't going to start decreasing anytime soon. Unchecked genetic engineering reducing natural genetic diversity might actually reduce the population of earth. I don't understand what "halting" evolution means. Evolution as a process, through natural selection, is at…

Halting evolution insofar as "organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." no longer applies where "organisms" = humans in developed countries. You can now be less fit for your environment and still survive just as well as someone who is more fit. You can reproduce the same as or more than someone who is more fit, and pass on more of your less-fit genes. Your random mutations don't matter much since we've solved survival pretty well for the vast majority of people. One finger being half an inch longer won't help you much in modern society.