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

Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#31

Post by whatshisface »

workaccount21 wrote: post #23
belval wrote: post #17

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our very diversity-conscious institutions we can generally agree that some things are plain bad. You don't want a blind or deaf child. You don't want one with down syndrome or deformities that would just make their life difficult. I wonder if the high level of opp…

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically alte…

>A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human.

The world is full of societies of 120 IQ individuals. That would be, like... a typical office full of programmers. That's 1 in 10 people. Even 145 is 1 in 1,000. This gene stuff could only begin to surpass what you'd be able to do by holding a conference in an academic field at... 170? 180? For the foreseeable future the kinds of selection that operate on full-grown adults will greatly surpass this other kind which is limited to four or five embryos.

In so many words, more than four or five former embryos are selected between in a typical round of SWE interviews.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#32

Post by belval »

Scarblac wrote: post #26
belval wrote: post #17

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our very diversity-conscious institutions we can generally agree that some things are plain bad. You don't want a blind or deaf child. You don't want one with down syndrome or deformities that would just make their life difficult. I wonder if the high level of opp…

Blind or deaf people would probably feel pretty bad hearing "you don't want a blind or deaf kid".

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a blind or deaf kid. I take issue with the idea that given the technology we would refuse to fix their disability before they are born.

Try explaining to your son or daughter that they could've been able to see and hear, but you refused to avoid hurting the feelings of existing blind and deaf people...

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#34

Post by [deleted] »

belval wrote: post #17

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our very diversity-conscious institutions we can generally agree that some things are plain bad. You don't want a blind or deaf child. You don't want one with down syndrome or deformities that would just make their life difficult. I wonder if the high level of opp…

[deleted]

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#35

Post by whatshisface »

belval wrote: post #29
workaccount21 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have no idea how any of this works, selecting against one gene may have negative externalities that we don't even know how to measure. For example: a genetic cure for schizophrenia also dulling the creative traits it's correlated with. We cant even really understand how an emergent property like language works (see: every conlang), and you think we can engineer a civilization to be better by radically alte…

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion),…

>there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it.

IVF is expensive and difficult and all easily identified genetic diseases are rare, so until one of those conditions changes (cost reduction and better techniques, or so many diseases being discovered that the odds that you will be saving your kid from one become significant), it will not be used for this purpose but rather as something extra to do when IVF is required for other reasons.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#36

Post by vsef »

belval wrote: post #17

I see a lot of comments underscoring the possible eugenics implication of this, but I am curious as to why everyone always paints it as a negative? Even in our very diversity-conscious institutions we can generally agree that some things are plain bad. You don't want a blind or deaf child. You don't want one with down syndrome or deformities that would just make their life difficult. I wonder if the high level of opp…

Some people do choose to have deaf children: https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283

There was quite a bit of outrage around that case from hearing people, but it seems no different than two parents with genetic deafness choosing each other and then not trying to use genetic testing/embryo selection to have a hearing baby.

I do think when this type of genetic manipulation becomes possible/mainstream there will be many traits chosen by parents that aren't considered universally desirable.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#37

Post by ALittleLight »

whatshisface wrote: post #27
ALittleLight wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good argument for not engineering all children all at once - we don't understand the consequences. It seems like a good argument for starting to engineer a few children so we can start to learn what the consequences are. As engineering becomes more palatable to the general population we will better able to deliver good results.

Engineering children would likely introduce horrible diseases because as you say, nobody understands the consequences. What's being proposed is selection, the selection of embryos which have already proven themselves to be viable and passed several steps of Nature's disease filtration.

I'm using "engineering" in a sense that encompasses informed embryo selection. I don't think it's "likely" to have horrible results.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#38

Post by belval »

whatshisface wrote: post #35
belval wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A society of 120 IQ adults would probably be an insufferable hell beyond comprehension, considering the track record of intellectual movements and the proclivity of smart individuals, probably like yourself, to vastly overestimate the merits of rationality and concepts that can be limited to the mind of one human. Disregarding the personal attack (I am well aware of downsides, but it's called having a discussion),…

> there's no good reason to have babies born with Cystic Fibrosis, we know what genes are causing it. IVF is expensive and difficult and all easily identified genetic diseases are rare, so until one of those conditions changes (cost reduction and better techniques, or so many diseases being discovered that the odds that you will be saving your kid from one become significant), it will not be used for this purpose but…

We agree on that part, I am not advocating for editing every foetus' genome in the next 10 years. I just think it's short-sighted to put a ban on that kind of research based on fear of inequalities.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#39

Post by ajconway »

legalcorrection wrote: post #10

Thinking about the social and political implications of this in the long run. Any society or segment of any society that isn't producing average 120 IQ babies with superior sensory perception, physical strength, dexterity, and so forth, is going to turn itself into a permanent human underclass. Eugenics is here to stay this time.

The world is massively unfair as it is. Would anyone even notice already "privileged" societies becoming a little bit more privileged?

Who knows, maybe our IQ 120 overlords will be kind to make the tech available for everyone else.

Re: Scientists say they can read nearly the whole genome of an IVF-created embryo

#40

Post by legalcorrection »

ajconway wrote: post #39
legalcorrection wrote: post #10

Thinking about the social and political implications of this in the long run. Any society or segment of any society that isn't producing average 120 IQ babies with superior sensory perception, physical strength, dexterity, and so forth, is going to turn itself into a permanent human underclass. Eugenics is here to stay this time.

The world is massively unfair as it is. Would anyone even notice already "privileged" societies becoming a little bit more privileged? Who knows, maybe our IQ 120 overlords will be kind to make the tech available for everyone else.

A 120 average IQ population would run circles around a 100 average IQ population, even starting from a much lower position. Of course, there's still the question of whether society is organized such that people of exceptional talent rise to power, and whether they have the incentive to do great things.

My main concern isn't the tech being inaccessible to poorer people or countries. International intellectual property protection has always been precarious, and I guarantee that e.g. India won't just accept having a dumber population because "oh well, an American company owns the patents and we can't afford mass licensing."

Rather, Western societies have strong anti-eugenic impulses because of 1) the Christian legacy, 2) the popular fixation on WW2 atrocities, and 3) a political taboo against acknowledging population-level differences in mental (and to a lesser extent, even physical) attributes. I could see China being much more willing to embrace eugenic technology on a shorter timescale than the United States. And that could be the death blow to the US.

Post reply on HN