We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom • Hacker News Board

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#21

Post by varelse » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #10

varelse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have nothing to fear. I'm all in favor of breeding genetic disorders out of the species and there's a whole bunch we can eliminate before we get into murky ethical territory. Religion can bite me on this one. But also, take a look around you. The species isn't going to optimize for intelligence. It's going to optimize for looks. That's just how we're wired. And that will destroy a lot of plastic surgeon j…

Yeah, let's do what we can to reduce genetic diversity, weeding out the bits of code that we don't understand. Never mind the rapidly changing climate. Sounds like a great plan. edit: the comment about plastic surgery is really weird. Do you think that 90% of humanity is going to stop breeding just because they aren't as attractive as the other 10%? And who's paying for plastic surgery? From my understanding, it's th…

You really don't think a startup that promised to disrupt beauty at the genetic level wouldn't find customers? Are you even paying attention to the things people invest their discretionary time into?

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#22

Post by varelse » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 7:12 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #19

FiggyPudding wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"breeding out" is the horrible version of eugenics. Gene editing is the less family destroying, individual abusing way to go. As long as it's more focused on disease removal and less about having thousands of [insert favorite movie star/model here] walking around. Like klyrs said, we want some weird in the gene pool

Gene editing is also the only way we'll get offworld-hardy humans. The time it will take to naturally select, when throwing unfit after unfit is impractical. This is still the same concept as "thousands of [model here] walking around", but with a focus on different traits. This is all far-future when we are more experienced and knowledgeable about genes in total, at least after having made loads of mistakes. That's w…

We're going to have to rewrite humanity from the ground up if we want to colonize space because these delicate eggshell bodies of ours are just not compatible with hard vacuum. Nor will they fare well in inhospitable planetary environments.

Which is why I roll my eyes realizing that none of that will happen for a very long time but if you could make 60-year-olds look like 30-year-olds with an mRNA treatment or something similar, you would make Bezos and Musk look like paupers. It wouldn't even have to make you young on the inside and you'd still die in a decade or two but at least you'd leave a beautiful corpse because that's all that matters in the end.

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#23

Post by klyrs » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

varelse wrote: post #21

klyrs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, let's do what we can to reduce genetic diversity, weeding out the bits of code that we don't understand. Never mind the rapidly changing climate. Sounds like a great plan. edit: the comment about plastic surgery is really weird. Do you think that 90% of humanity is going to stop breeding just because they aren't as attractive as the other 10%? And who's paying for plastic surgery? From my understanding, it's th…

You really don't think a startup that promised to disrupt beauty at the genetic level wouldn't find customers? Are you even paying attention to the things people invest their discretionary time into?

Nope, there's a sucker born every minute, of course they'll pull money in hand over fist, damn the consequences. Do you actually think that it would put plastic surgeons out of business though? Do you think that people that fixated on their appearance will ever be satisfied?

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#24

Post by varelse » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #23

varelse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't think a startup that promised to disrupt beauty at the genetic level wouldn't find customers? Are you even paying attention to the things people invest their discretionary time into?

Nope, there's a sucker born every minute, of course they'll pull money in hand over fist, damn the consequences. Do you actually think that it would put plastic surgeons out of business though? Do you think that people that fixated on their appearance will ever be satisfied?

You're right they will never be satisfied. And I can't wait for the Black Mirror episode about that very subject. Not that Nathaniel Hawthorne didn't cover that nearly two centuries ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth-Mark

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#25

Post by bobthechef » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #10

varelse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have nothing to fear. I'm all in favor of breeding genetic disorders out of the species and there's a whole bunch we can eliminate before we get into murky ethical territory. Religion can bite me on this one. But also, take a look around you. The species isn't going to optimize for intelligence. It's going to optimize for looks. That's just how we're wired. And that will destroy a lot of plastic surgeon j…

Yeah, let's do what we can to reduce genetic diversity, weeding out the bits of code that we don't understand. Never mind the rapidly changing climate. Sounds like a great plan. edit: the comment about plastic surgery is really weird. Do you think that 90% of humanity is going to stop breeding just because they aren't as attractive as the other 10%? And who's paying for plastic surgery? From my understanding, it's th…

I agree that there's a purpose to this diversity. Why do we assume that it is bad to have rank and uneven distributions of qualities in a species, among human beings? Like it's bad to have an IQ less than 180 now? A society is enriched by this diversity because various niches can be filled and concerns taken care of. One guy brings the pot roast and the spices, another brings the napkins. We don't all need to be equal and identical. Why are some people so afraid of someone being more than another? Pride, that's why.

But I would suggest we don't slander beautiful people. Vanity comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes and isn't the exclusive province of beautiful people. There's plenty of vanity in this thread alone, let along HN, much worse than the petty vanity of a 13 year old girl. Vanity affects all human beings.

(Also, those who spend on plastic surgery are either mentally ill (in the manner of bulimics) or probably not in those 10%. Otherwise, why the plastic surgery? Otherwise back to mental illness. Besides, plastic surgery doesn't actually make you beautiful, it can at best make you appear beautiful because it's fake, so you're being fraudulent because you are only simulating beauty at best.)

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#26

Post by varelse » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

bobthechef wrote: post #25

klyrs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, let's do what we can to reduce genetic diversity, weeding out the bits of code that we don't understand. Never mind the rapidly changing climate. Sounds like a great plan. edit: the comment about plastic surgery is really weird. Do you think that 90% of humanity is going to stop breeding just because they aren't as attractive as the other 10%? And who's paying for plastic surgery? From my understanding, it's th…

I agree that there's a purpose to this diversity. Why do we assume that it is bad to have rank and uneven distributions of qualities in a species, among human beings? Like it's bad to have an IQ less than 180 now? A society is enriched by this diversity because various niches can be filled and concerns taken care of. One guy brings the pot roast and the spices, another brings the napkins. We don't all need to be equa…

I'm not slandering beautiful people at all, I'm just slandering people who aspire to little more than being one of them. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it. The only thing worse is people catering to that urge. But I guess it's a market opportunity and that's how capitalism works, no?

As for genetic diversity, sure we need genetic diversity, but we also no longer need the gene that fights malaria in the heterozygous case but gives you sickle cell anemia in the homozygous case because we have treatment for malaria now. Lather rinse repeat for a whole bunch of genetic ailments that will eventually get filtered out of the genome by evolution because they no longer serve their purpose so what's your problem with us accelerating the schedule? Or do you see value in the BRCA gene for your unconceived potential daughter for some reason?

There's definitely a moral hazard beyond that and I admitted as much but there's plenty of runway before we get there. But also if we really need to reintroduce these genes down the road we have the technology to do so.

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#27

Post by arthurcolle » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 12:54 AM UTC

varelse wrote: post #20

chmsky00 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolute nonsense. It’s accepted in science we select for biological traits like scent, and social standing; intelligence being a key component of a persons social standing. Even when people find someone attractive it doesn’t mean they just get together. This is some high school level perspective way off base from a contemporary relationship. Just because the words create a believable scenario does not mean y…

Have you checked out the plastic surgery fetishization of South Korea lately? Have you seen that guy who sued his wife because she got plastic surgery to become beautiful but then bore him an apparently ugly child? You overestimate humanity and underestimate their vanity. https://kdvr.com/news/chinese-man-sues-wins-120000/

The story is a hoax

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#28

Post by nradov » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

varelse wrote: post #9

klyrs wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, eugenics. Considering that intelligence seems to be correlated with autism spectral disorders, and individuals with severe autism are in need of individual care for their entire lives, are you sure that's it's smart to optimize for raw intelligence?

I think you have nothing to fear. I'm all in favor of breeding genetic disorders out of the species and there's a whole bunch we can eliminate before we get into murky ethical territory. Religion can bite me on this one. But also, take a look around you. The species isn't going to optimize for intelligence. It's going to optimize for looks. That's just how we're wired. And that will destroy a lot of plastic surgeon j…

Looks are just one factor. And good looks are a strong sign of good health (absent artificial enhancement).

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#29

Post by nradov » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

varelse wrote: post #26

bobthechef wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there's a purpose to this diversity. Why do we assume that it is bad to have rank and uneven distributions of qualities in a species, among human beings? Like it's bad to have an IQ less than 180 now? A society is enriched by this diversity because various niches can be filled and concerns taken care of. One guy brings the pot roast and the spices, another brings the napkins. We don't all need to be equa…

I'm not slandering beautiful people at all, I'm just slandering people who aspire to little more than being one of them. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it. The only thing worse is people catering to that urge. But I guess it's a market opportunity and that's how capitalism works, no? As for genetic diversity, sure we need genetic diversity, but we also no longer need the gene that fights malaria in the heter…

Who is "we"? Malaria still kills 400K people per year and the treatments aren't completely effective.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria

https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/reduction/drug...

Re: We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

#30

Post by nradov » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

foxhop wrote: post #13

rmah wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we want to grow our food on 2% of our most expensive land? Land that is already used for lots of other things?

Because you don't need energy, human or otherwise to ship food or material to where the people are. Because we stack functions through time and space. Because it solves the distribution problem. Because it's already working and all we need to do is expand. Because the sun's shines everywhere. Because polyculture allows for more variety and a single crop failure doesn't need to be insured. Because we could close loops…

That's total nonsense. Shipping food takes minimal energy. The distribution problem is already solved.