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

Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

interestingengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 384 posts

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

#301

Post by Buge »

breakfastduck wrote: post #88
FPGAhacker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious if you feel this way about human abortion?

If I may chip in - I don't think it's really comparable. An abortion is a result of a choice being made by a person after a set of real life and possibly unexpected events have happened. The research is carefully planned in advance. This was genetically engineered to be terminated. So while I do think you've asked a relevant question, I think the ethical questions the two things raise are actually very far apart.

Huh, the usual reasons I hear for why abortion is ethical is that either (a) the fetus isn't a person and has no rights, or (b) the woman's autonomy rights trump any rights the fetus might have. (a) indicates the monkey procedure was ethical, while (b) is a little more iffy.

But you're right, the argument (c) the woman's autonomy rights trump the fetus's rights but only when the fetus was unintended does indeed indicate the monkey operation was unethical. I'm not so sure that (c) is a very logical position though.

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

#302

Post by newsbinator »

king07828 wrote: post #287
kypro wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what political ramifications this would have. Say these monkeys were intelligent enough to have conversations with and they had thoughts and opinions on the world, but they weren't quite as smart as humans – they couldn't do advanced maths and were intellectually closer to young children – would we deny them the right to vote? Would we deny them employment rights? Etc... If we did on what grounds would we do…

Rights can already taken away from people who are declared legally incompetent [1]. Similar procedures could be used to give rights to monkeys that can prove mental competence (e.g., are able to meaningfully communicate and show an understanding of money and property). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incompetence#content

The default is for humans to have rights, and in extreme cases those rights can be taken away.

It's very, very rare for a human to have to prove mental competence for any reason. We let mentally incompetent people grocery shop and drive cars and vote, knowing full well they're a danger (or at least not a net benefit). Every town in every country contains well-known incompetent citizens.

What's the default for intelligent non-humans?

Does each one have to prove mental competence? At what level: that of an average human, or that of the lowest competent human?

Is the default to assume they are competent, and have all the rights and privileges of a human, or is the default to assume they aren't competent and don't have those rights?

Personally, it makes sense to me to err on the side of "any being who tells me plainly that they want a vote gets to vote".

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

#303

Post by anigbrowl »

cubano wrote: post #186
erickj wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However in the exact same vane that "Nature doesn't care"... We as Humans should and DO care. We are not Nature, and thus these existential defining issues should at least give us some pause to debate and evaluate the moral quandaries and responsibilities that this level of engineering power wields.

How can you possibly even say "We are not Nature"? Of course we are Nature. We came to being the exact same way every other current living species did, thru natural selection. So then how can we be living, as you say, somehow outside this "Nature" you speak of? Hell, I know I may be in a small minority who says, by definition, nothing that we do is "wrong" because we are simply doing what our brains, which are 100% a…

You know that's a bullshit excuse because you wouldn't accept it from someone who knowingly caused you serious problems.

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

#304

Post by Talanes »

Veedrac wrote: post #294
yeetman21 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Certainly some people care a lot about factory farming. Even so, the key difference here is that brain function and intelligence are tied so tightly to the idea of human exceptionalism; that it is OK to enslave a horse but not a human, because humans have more capacity for autonomy, suffering, and so forth. How precisely to draw the line is very much a matter of disagreement.

Certain dog breeds were selected for intelligence, at what point does breeding a herding dog become an ethical dilemma?

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

#305

Post by dogcomplex »

klunger wrote: post #143
grawprog wrote: post #46

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…

Are you saying increasing the brain capacity for a species other than ourselves and potentially enabling them to become (undeniably) sentient is morally wrong? One could argue that it's eventually a moral imperative - otherwise we're just wasting these skills which the planet has sacrificed so many resources for, and never giving a voice to the myriad different ways that different species can see the world. That is, if consciousness is good at all... otherwise we might as well just dull ourselves back down instead. This is also clearly not a simple task that should be undergone lightly - but it does need preparatory steps like this one for it to ever happen.

If you were a new species capable of language and philosophy, would you be happy that humans unlocked that intelligence in your people, or not?

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

#306

Post by dogcomplex »

Veedrac wrote: post #294
yeetman21 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Certainly some people care a lot about factory farming. Even so, the key difference here is that brain function and intelligence are tied so tightly to the idea of human exceptionalism; that it is OK to enslave a horse but not a human, because humans have more capacity for autonomy, suffering, and so forth. How precisely to draw the line is very much a matter of disagreement.

It's all kinda not-okay, and kinda icky. But we certainly seem to put intelligence on a higher tier. If we ever make another sentient species, we should probably not enslave them. Pinky swear, guys?

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

#307

Post by dogcomplex »

grawprog wrote: post #65
renewiltord wrote: post #55

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…

We're shitty, terrible gods, unable to control our own power properly yet, but gods nonetheless - and just as responsible for the consequences of our actions and inaction. Like it or not, we have to face the reality that we can shape the entire face of the earth in days (literally) and decide what to do with that power. (Hint to readers: leaving it up to capitalism doesn't work out well)

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

#308

Post by dogcomplex »

ajuc wrote: post #126
renewiltord wrote: post #55

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…

> If you can uplift species and you choose not to, you have killed their cognition. By that logic you killed all the kids you could have made when you weren't having sex.

Kinda true. Though also presumably he feels okay with this with the knowledge that he might have close to his maximum reasonable capacity for children in the future, so it's just a time thing. No time limit on uplifting species either - let's take this nice and slow and do it right, eventually.

Similarly, he might choose not to have children, and be content that friends/family/humanity was having kids still, so no big moral harm done. If nobody was doing so though - wtf? Big moral harm by inaction there. Similar if we just have all these tools but never ever use them to uplift another species.

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

#309

Post by chmod775 »

hyperpallium2 wrote: post #80

I have a theory that intelligence, consciousness, free will are very easy to evolve (we just haven't worked out how to do it yet - like many cellular processes). What is difficult is harnessing that free will to the evolutionary success of the organism. The large brain is necessary as a harness, to control the intelligence, and enslave it to evolutionarily beneficial ends. Probably not just hardwired instincts, but a…

> intelligence, consciousness, free will

Monkeys and many, many other animals already have the first two, and whether there is such a thing as "free will" hasn't even been settled for humans.

In fact it's pretty hard to prove an animal doesn't have consciousness, and we just keep and keep adding to the list of animals that have consciousness and experience human-like emotions. We humans really aren't so special in that regard.

The next level is a bit more interesting, which is the question of which animals are able to develop a theory of mind, for which you need both consciousness and some intelligence.

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

#310

Post by dogcomplex »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #212
renewiltord wrote: post #55

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…

What makes you think "sapience" is a gift? I think the "monkeys" (they're apes of course) are just as likely to damn us for it, if it happened. Who decides what is of value, that "sapience" is an absolute value we are required to work towards? There is no answer to this we have access to except we ourselves decide. Therefore, there is no "responsibility" from outside ourselves, certainly not some kind of external res…

I think this is ultimately the best argument in here - that sapience ain't necessarily so great, and any whinging about it being a moral imperative is ultimately just promoting how great intelligence is, which we just happen to dominate in (how very colonial of us). There's not a particular way of being that is any greater or lesser, and there's an inherent value to being that we should respect regardless of "intelligence".

That said... we're not saying we need to respect the natural world any less, or need to force sapience on all animals. We might just want to give some the ability to reach our level (however good or bad it might be) and converse with them honestly. Otherwise, how are we ever going to have a moral answer on the value of sapience, if we're the only ones who ever have it?

Post reply on HN