Live data from Hacker News

Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

interestingengineering.com

91–100 of 384 posts

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#91
post #70

I find it hard to describe how I feel about this. These scientists essentially created what may have been a new species, that perhaps would have had similar sentience to us and had them terminated after 100 days. The cat's out of the bag with this research so to speak now. Someone's bound to do this again The part about whether they should have been born or not, which was the ethical thing is what tears at me. Is it…

Honestly, though the ethics are certainly dicey, I do wonder whether recreating a bridge intelligence between man and animal would raise appropriate societal questions that we've chosen not the think about all of modern history (lacking any sort of Neanderthal cohabitant). It might help us all be in more relation with the world. Our lack of relation feels to me to be part of what's driving us into this extinction eve…

I would guess such information would be preferred by many to remain unillustrated.

I suspect we have more to answer for in the scale of animal suffering than we could possibly imagine.

An awakening to the truth of how cruelly indifferent we are to animals would threaten power structures at a magnitude that makes #metoo look small.

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#92

From an engineering perspective, when trying to explore a dynamic, you simplify the experiment to reduce extraneous variables. So along these lines, I’d be more interested in following experiments like these on say sea slugs. Give them a proto-amygdala/hippocampus or limbic system and test them for increased memory, adaptive behavior etc. This choice of monkey experiment seems to be more sensation and less investigat…

unfortunately, the further you move generically from the human, the more extraneous variables you introduce and the lower the relevance of any result. There is a reason drugs and experiments are performed on primates. Any result you saw in say a sea slug would provide no insight into the human function. The ideal experiment would be to delete the gene from a human, but this is unethical for obvious reasons.

I should have also said, I think it is premature to attempt genetic engineering of human brains for medical benefit. Intuitively I believe we are decades behind the amount of conceptual development and experimental validation we need to do to get a proper understanding of genetic brain engineering. So I think the ethics is spot on here, it's ethically wrong IMO because we don't know what we are doing. Ethically I don't see a problem messing with sea slugs, though no doubt some people might.

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#93
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also such things as nuclear weapons, genetically engineered virii, patents on life, tampering with ecosystems, plants designed to be sterile to ensure a seed market, lakes full of sterile fish stocked for sport. >No, if you can save billions and you choose not to, you have killed them. If you can uplift species and you choose not to, you have killed their cognition. We are gods over the Earth. We have dominion o…

A fool with a tool is still a fool...

True, but a fool without a tool must make two transformations to become a genius with a tool. A fool with a tool need only make one.

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#94

I find it hard to describe how I feel about this. These scientists essentially created what may have been a new species, that perhaps would have had similar sentience to us and had them terminated after 100 days. The cat's out of the bag with this research so to speak now. Someone's bound to do this again The part about whether they should have been born or not, which was the ethical thing is what tears at me. Is it…

You're giving nature too much credit. Nature doesn't try and balance life. Nature doesn't care- it throws asteroid impacts and supervolcanos and natural disasters all over the place. Life just happens to be very very resilient and consistently able to jump back and fill new niches. Nature also "created" us - were a product of the universe like everything else. If we are destabilizing, so is nature. And most scientist…

I don't give it credit, like it's trying to gain balance, but functioning ecosystems do maintain a balance. Most of our climate problems have come from humans disrupting this.

If you take any functioning healthy ecosystem on earth, one generally less tampered with by humans, you'll find from a microscopic, right up to a macroscopic level, the life in those ecosystems have adapted to function together.

If you want to see some good examples of this, check out some terrarium channels on youtube, there's some really cool, perfectly balanced ones people have had going for years.

The reason why we have so many ecological problems around the world is that humans have been constantly disrupting this. We introduce invasive species that dominate the landscape, cause extinctions and extirpations of native species and change the fundamental balance of the ecosystem.

You're right, life does push through, but personally, I prefer the native songbirds and shrubs that are local to my area than a landscape full of Japanese knotweed and starlings.

And so do most things, that first example likely has at least a dozen species of songbirds, a bunch of shrubs and herbacious plants. That second example has two species, maybe some rats or crows if your lucky.

The thing is, ecosystems don't stand alone, they're all connected and the collapse of one leads to the collapse of the neighbouring ones and so forth.

If you actually look through the published literature.on various ecosystems around the world, we have a very shallow level of knowledge. We don't understand fully the complex connections between everything and the research that does keep coming out keeps showing how much we've vastly underestimated how much our actions have impacted things.

Even things like the ecosystems in our own body's. The microscopic organisms that have been found to even play a part in things such as our decision making and moods.

The human body itself functions as an ecosystem, all our body systems, our cells, our organs, all function independently and cohesively to make everything that is you.

The earth itself functions the same way. The ecosystems, and all life, including humans, are the cells and organs that make up all life on Earth.

Altering life at a fundamental genetic level goes even further than how we alter ecosystems.

Humans really don't understand the potential consequences to changes we make to the genetic code. We have a vague idea, but we really are.delving mostly blind into this. If we barely understand how life works on a macroscopic level, what makes us think we're ready to change it at an even lower level?

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#95
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is simple: We massively fucked up chemistry in the last 100 years. How do we get the confidence to know we can't fuck up biology (much much much much more complex)?

> We massively fucked up chemistry ?

Greenhouse effect

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's why I find it hard to describe how I feel. I'm pro choice. It's not my place to tell someone what to do with their bodies or the fetuses they're carrying(please don't get into an abortion debate because of this, i'm not going to answer any comments going on about that to avoid things getting out of control), but this still makes me feel uncomfortable. This is something different, this is the first time thi…

> No, that's why I find it hard to describe how I feel. Cognitive dissonance? Sorry to be snarky.

Yup, I thought I made that clear in my op honestly....

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#97

Is there a better source? I'd like to know what gene they added and if there is any reason to believe that could have been an evolutionary step. Gene's dont appear whole out of nowhere. Was it an extra copy of an existing gene? A mutation and duplication? Some weird replication error?

I'm also curious about all the related morphological changes that must go along with increased brain size, such as different proportions of the skull and face and wider hips on females to accommodate birth. It seems unlikely one gene can modulate all of those, let alone yield the social structures required for increased rearing time.

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#98
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is simple: We massively fucked up chemistry in the last 100 years. How do we get the confidence to know we can't fuck up biology (much much much much more complex)?

> We massively fucked up chemistry ?

I’d guess talking about advances in physical chemistry and the ability to more closely model and understand how atoms interact?

Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

#100
What the hell?!?

There is no pro-choice argument for killing the fetus here - the mother monkey is not sapient and was not consulted as to whether she wished to carry the potentially sapient baby to term or not.

This is straight up feticide.

Post reply on HN