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

171–178 of 178 posts

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#171

Post by simplify »

tambgbtanla wrote: post #157
Noos wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

How are they inapplicable to modern biology?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#172

Post by komali2 »

saidajigumi wrote: post #142
saidajigumi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I've realized that I have an even deeper problem with the whole notion of eugenics-for-"intelligence" here. It's mired in the better-living-through-[TECH THING] mentality. I'll digress with an example from medicine: humanity made amazing, world-changing strides in health care on two important fronts: antibiotics and trauma surgery. These areas, the pill and the scalpel, then grew to encompass the vast part of the min…

I am fully on board with tackling the social issues that prevent equalizing education. I guess my hope is that a spread of smarter kids will find a solution, when we've spent the last 2,000 years failing to find solutions to unequal classes.

So basically deus ex machina :P

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#173

Post by komali2 »

Digit-Al wrote: post #164
komali2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Here's one I find interesting. There is always talk of choosing for white, or lighter, skin, but what about the other side of the coin. Tanning is a huge business. Large numbers of white skinned people try to get a tan whilst on holiday, or use tanning salons. Large numbers of white people bemoan their inability to get a decent tan. What if lots of white people were to choose to have light brown children so that they…

>we barely value them as people at the moment

I don't agree with that, violating ADA specifications is a sure fire way to be slapped across the face with massive fines and lawsuits, and every school I've attended bent over backwards to facilitate the disabled. Were there some cases or general biases you meant that I can read about?

Regarding your light vs dark skin, it would be an interesting question - if the laws allowed for "form" choices rather than purely "function," what sort of different kinds of children would we see from different cultures? Taller, tanner, blonder women from Sweden? Stouter, tanner, thicker men from America? Thinner, whiter, effeminate men from Taiwan? It'd be interesting if nothing else.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#174

Post by cwkoss »

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…

Sounds like a great slide deck for a funding round from the Illuminati

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#175

Post by ece »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #160
ece wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

This is just wrong. Do bears not make homes in caves? Do monkeys not use tools? Parasites co-evolve with who ever they're leeching from. Plants, insects, and bacteria are still evolving in greenhouses and petri dishes. Natural selection is determined in many ways, you can go read about it (most definitely not just with "random mutations"). None of those reasons exclude humans on earth just because we live in concrete walls. A lot of animals and whole species are "less fit" by your definition and still pass on their genes just fine. Or are "fit" by your definition and don't.

Once again, I have no idea what you mean by halting, or "less fit" or anything else in your rambling comment. The fact that you focus on the traits you think matter, makes the comment even more idiotic. People who have no fucking clue what evolution is, should not be a part of this conversation and should be ridiculed and ignored.

Evolution is not survival of the fittest, it's natural selection. It is working on earth, on humans, and will continue to work with or without genetic engineering. Like I said, the decrease in natural genetic diversity from unchecked genetic engineering will hurt every species on earth. What we've done to cultivated plants in reducing biodiversity, should be more than enough evidence of what will happen with genetically engineered humans if we ever get there.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#176

Post by ece »

tathougies wrote: post #129
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #11

> They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg, expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion ... Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene. The authors don’t know why it happened. This seems like the most remarkable part of this entire article. It sounds like a huge discovery. There's a lot of ethical concerns that can be laid asi…

On the other hand, being completely unfamiliar with genetic imprinting as we are, we have no idea what the effects that this kind of single-gender inheritance may be.

Isn't this called crossing over and a common thing in gametes?

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#177

Post by MagnumOpus »

nonbel wrote: post #136
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." Any country that does widespread "gene editing" anytime soon will either: 1) See no difference at all, since it doesn't actually do anything more than selecting for sperm/eggs. 2) Have an insane onslaught of heal…

Or 3) have a massively reduced healthcare bill and a healthier happier population thanks to the elimination of heritable ailments like Huntingtons, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia or most kinds of diabetes.

Like you say, your understanding of the human body as a software developer is rudimentary. Luckily there are a vast number of people whose understanding of the body is less limited than yours.

Re: Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos

#178

Post by nonbel »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #177
nonbel wrote: post #136

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." Any country that does widespread "gene editing" anytime soon will either: 1) See no difference at all, since it doesn't actually do anything more than selecting for sperm/eggs. 2) Have an insane onslaught of heal…

Or 3) have a massively reduced healthcare bill and a healthier happier population thanks to the elimination of heritable ailments like Huntingtons, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia or most kinds of diabetes. Like you say, your understanding of the human body as a software developer is rudimentary. Luckily there are a vast number of people whose understanding of the body is less limited than yours.

There are only people who think they understand the body because they don't know what a p-value means. As indicated by the replication crisis, where over 50% of results are not even repeatable, the majority of this info is incorrect. And that is the tip of the iceberg because even if an experiment/observation is consistent that does not mean you interpreted the results correctly.

Actually, I bet there are very few people who actually have a better understanding of the human body than me, just because I have the appropriate skepticism.

Post reply on HN