Live data from Hacker News

Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

interestingengineering.com

271–280 of 384 posts

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

#271

The fetus would probably not have3 survived. You can't just make the brain bigger and expect everything else to work out. Example problems: skull too small, eyes and everything around the brain would have to be reconfigured, heart/blood supply would have to be reconfigured, etc etc. Some examples of how this goes wrong in humans (graphic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

This describes a lot of human anatomy. Head too big for mother’s’ hips. Spine warped for upright posture. Constantly choking for having a bent throat.

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

#272
My instantaneous thought: ethics.

I'm no extremist of any kind (not in politics nor religion nor technology, maybe a bit regarding what is related to the environment) but experiments related to "growing brains" are an absolute no-go for me.

Just when I thought that "2020" could not spawn any more surprises... :(

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

#273

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…

> Like I say, I find it hard to describe how I feel about it all. This is good, I like people that can recognize this. Cognitive dissonance should hurt. It's the people who can't feel it that I worry about being around...

I love when I find I have cognitive dissonance as it means I have found something I believe to be true is actually false. Once I know something is false then it is easy to just stop believing it. Progress.

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

#274
This should never have gotten past ethical review. It’s the sort of shit that gives the word science a bad name.

And the payoff was...what, exactly? We already knew that ARHGAP11B would promote a bigger brain size and neocortex folding, so the theoretical benefit is really zero. We’re precisely no closer to understanding the history of human evolution.

So what practical use is creating monkeys with more human like brains? Winning a research grant? An award? Cheap labour?

How big does your brain have to be before you can see that this is a terrible idea?

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

#275
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We massively fucked up chemistry ?

- Thalidomide - Leaded fuel, the highest ever source of lead exposure and poisoning for Humans. - Asbestos still present in 60' to 80's construction - Refrigerants with Ozone destroying CFCs - 1800's arsenic pesticides still contaminate today's rice fields and most of the world's rice crops. - DDT - Plastics are currently leaching estrogenic-mimicking endocrine disruptors and contaminating water supplies, wildlife an…

Thalidomide wasn’t a failure of chemistry, but of medicine.

CFCs were an amazing breakthrough as they stopped people getting gassed by their refrigerator and killed (ammonia was used before). Once a problem was identified then changes were made. Similar with asbestos (not actually chemistry), leaded fuel and DDT.

As for the others you have concentrated on the tiny percentage of bad outcomes rather then the millions of positive. Chemistry has been such an overwhelming good over the last 200 years that it takes a very special mind to see it in such a negative light.

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

#276

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…

As a human I feel that having morality is very important, but moving all that stuff aside for a second, the only thing in the end that really matters is whether we will cause our own extinction.

Nature took a very long time to get us to where we are, it seems to me that playing with the biological building blocks at this level, relative to nature’s approach, has a very high risk of causing something catastrophic some time in the future.

The IT professional in me would advise to continue no further until a reproducible backup/restore procedure was in place. I’m not sure how exactly that translates to biological systems though.

Also I am currently available for hire :)

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

#277

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…

I don't. It makes me sick to my stomach. I am speaking as someone who is pro-choice, pro-GMO's and pro-stem cell research, etc. This research has crossed a line that none of the above do. It is creating a new kind of sentience, a new kind of soul. And, what's the point? To confirm a theory about a gene? So fricking what. That really doesn't matter, not in relation to the possible consequences: someone taking this res…

When the scientist create a GMO chicken and they get killed by the billions to feed us, no body bats an eye. Please, "new kind of soul" is a vast over statement. When horse breeders thousands of years ago artificially bred into existence new horses, no body cared, why is this any different?

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

#278

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…

I think it's eventually inevitable for non-human intelligent life to emerge. We were the first species. We think we are kings of the world. But we won't be in perpetuity.

This can happen through multiple ways.

The first way is through simple genetic drift. Think of humans colonizing the galaxy and living in isolated populations for millions of years. Eventually we turn into different species. So maybe there is one hominid species right now, but in 1 million years it will look way different.

Another way is through a human deliberately creating nonhuman intelligent, but still biological life. Think of people wanting their pets to be smarter, furries wanting to turn into half animals, or just experimentation for science like in this instance. Maybe 99% of society is repelled by this, but if you give the 1% which desires this enough time, they'll find an opportunity to bring such life into existence. However great the taboo, eventually someone will break it. And once there is nonhuman intelligent life, there will be people who want to protect it.

A third way is through humans creating silicon based life, e.g. to upload rich people to the cloud, letting them live there like gods. Maybe if you initially build such a system, you make the experience as similar to human experience as you can, with all the unpleasant parts of it removed, but the people it simulates may eventually grow tired of interacting with the fleshy human society that they form the elite of and instead focus on interacting with each other instead. Maybe they'll then accept changes in programming, allowing human brains to be merged, duplicated, for short times, or through random mixing, etc. I think computers allow a great deal of things and likely we'll try them out sooner or later.

To summarize, I think we are at the start of a cambrian explosion like event. Think what happens if you are the first plant that can grow on land. You'll quickly fill all the lands and your numbers will have no limit. But by the time you have done that, you are a collection of different species instead of just one because your siblings had to adapt to the different environments, and the species themselves are competing with each other.

Regarding aliens, I doubt we are alone in the galaxy. I'm sure there is independently developed, intelligent, life somewhere. But likely by the time we encounter them, we'll maybe already be a cluster of multiple intelligent species.

Or idk, maybe not. Maybe there is only one hominid species because we are so utterly racist and have eliminated anything that was even a little bit different from us :).

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our track record for messing with the fundamental fabric of reality is creating antibiotics, and over the period of a century saving so many lives that wars of earlier periods are negligible in comparison. A natural reaction from people with high sanctity/degradation (in the MFT sense) is to avoid touching the trolley lever at all points. Decision making is considered association with the decision. The naturalistic f…

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…

when a beaver creates a dam, that's apart of nature and everyone sings kumbaiya, but when a human dares to start a fire because he is cold or dares to improve his food supply because he is hungry all of a sudden that "not natural" and should be condemned?

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

#280

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…

> 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.

6 million human fetuses already get destroyed every year in the USA alone. If we're ok with that why would a handful of monkeys matter?

Post reply on HN