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

First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 292 posts

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#221

Post by e12e »

yohui wrote: post #88
abecedarius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already done for some genetically-modified crops. I don't know about the state of practice for animals.

While the technology exists, so-called "terminator genes" have not been implemented due to opposition from anti-GMO activists and other groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...

On the other hand, if you make a fish-pig that lives off algae and tastes like bacon, perhaps "terminator genes" is a sensible protection to avoid accidental destruction of the biosphere? (The "terminator genes" could end up going both ways in terms of containing engineered species).

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#222

Post by freeflight »

SophosQ wrote: post #197
speby wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, we are naturally not diverse at all (in part because our nearest ancestors with whom which we, at one time, did have reproduction compatibility with, are no longer here): https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf Specifically, modern humans have, on average, less than 0.1% of differences in their DNA amongst each other: "How diverse are we? Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human g…

Our genetic homogeneity implies that anatomically modern humans arose relatively recently (perhaps 200,000 years ago) and that our population size was quite small at one time (perhaps 10,000 breeding individuals). -Another strongly supported hypothesis is that there was an near-extinction event that wiped out all but a pocket of human settlements from which we descended. - The diversity in other species that are abou…

That sounds really interesting, does this hypothesis have a name so I can read up on it a bit more?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#223

Post by freeflight »

alistairSH wrote: post #183
Omnius wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would imply that you had to choose a specialization when the "designed" human could just be best suited for all of those things. Physical and mental perfection.

Hmm, true. But, can we design for perfection across all traits? I always imagined it's a bit like the old Mage vs Warrior vs Ninja (or whatever) selections in fantasy games - you can maximize total area under the curve, or you can specialize in certain areas at the cost of others. Edit/add - A convergence would also indicate there is global agreement on the "gold standard". Sure, maximizing intellect and longevity/he…

> Mage vs Warrior vs Ninja (or whatever)

Canonically it's Thief/Rogue, analogous to the MMO trinity of "healing, tank, damage" aka "wisdom, strength, agility".

Those can also translate into a holistic way: You gotta have the wisdom to know when to retreat/heal, the strength to endure and the agility to hit/get to where it matters. They don't necessarily exclude each other.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#224

Post by Turing_Machine »

bluGill wrote: post #201
Turing_Machine wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"100 million paying 10k is much more likely." 10K is already well within the range people spend on births (currently about $8k including prenatal and postnatal care). Not to mention the cost involved in raising the child to adulthood. :-) You might even be able to charge $50k or $100k, if it actually got to the point of design-to-order (which, granted, would be orders of magnitude more difficult than simply removing…

How much would an insurance company pay to fix high cholesterol, diabetes, cancer etc? I know people spending close $10,000 a year on cholesterol medication. Diabetics' insulin can cost $500 (I don't know how long this lasts), plus the other blood monitoring costs and costs of other complications. Cancer treatment is not cheap but I don't know how to look up the costs. All of the above costs are mostly covered by ins…

You're absolutely right.

And of course someone is paying for the insurance. Even if it's given as part of your employment, that's money that your employer could otherwise be using for other things (maybe even giving it to you as your salary...that's how we got into the employer-provided health insurance mess in the first place -- salary was taxable, insurance wasn't).

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#225

Post by freeflight »

ysleepy wrote: post #168

Why do in on human embryos instead of any other animal? At this stage, it must be for publicity reasons alone. Tasteless in my view.

Because we've already done it with plenty of other animals, even cloned them and let them grow to maturity. Never heard of Dolly?

We've been at a point, where it's viable for human application, for quite a while. But the ethical and religious stigma is preventing us from going the full distance.

As of right now, it is very likely that the first genetically engineered/enhanced human will be a Chinese person because they are way more pragmatic about those issues.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#226

Post by biggerbistro »

literallycancer wrote: post #151
Mikeb85 wrote: post #78

As if there wasn't enough inequality in the world, now the rich will be able to afford to make their offspring genetically superior to everyone else's. Have fun with a 1% that are literally overlords.

Ideally we'd all improve together, but hey, I'm not going to let people like you stop me, you are right about that.

Do you really think you will be among the ones allowed at the top? Protip: if you were you wouldn't be here right now. We will all likely be denied access to the best technology and will quickly fall behind within a couple generations.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#227

Post by literallycancer »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #162
PrimalDual wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive thanks to procedures like this humanity would be better for it. This would probably be true even if only a minority of people can afford it. If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity w…

>If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended. Because science and technology alone cannot save us from destroying ourselves. Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan and many others warned of how our scientific progress has been outpacing our human social progress.…

>Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword.

People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3]

If anything, now that a significant portion of the world has nukes, we haven't had two developed countries at war for perhaps the longest period in recorded history.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

---

Case and point -> You meant to write "case in point".

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#228

Post by literallycancer »

yulaow wrote: post #156
PrimalDual wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive thanks to procedures like this humanity would be better for it. This would probably be true even if only a minority of people can afford it. If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity w…

It depends, if you create a super-race which ends to fight their "inferiors" or viceversa, well, you just doomed humanity Elisium style.

I wonder, why is it that the CEOs, directors, scientists and high ranking officers are much more likely to survive a war then the common soldier?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#229

Post by literallycancer »

biggerbistro wrote: post #226
literallycancer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally we'd all improve together, but hey, I'm not going to let people like you stop me, you are right about that.

Do you really think you will be among the ones allowed at the top? Protip: if you were you wouldn't be here right now. We will all likely be denied access to the best technology and will quickly fall behind within a couple generations.

Here? As in posting on the internet? Why not?

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#230

Post by ethbro »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #207
ethbro wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of the earlier male in vitro embryos successfully carried to term in the US, I'll claim a unique perspective on the scientific creation of life. As a living, thinking human, I am grateful for everything that was done so that I may live. If the fertility lab had mixed chemicals differently, or deleted a propensity towards colon cancer, or changed my hair color, there's no way in hell I would have mourned my "un…

> So can we please stop with the deification of the default and get on with progress? Well said! I fear, though, that a problem with this admonition is that some ascribe the default state to a deity. However, I'm not sure that the characteristics you mentioned are of the same quality. Hair color, gender, and other traits are neutral in quality - especially if there's risk in the procedure, it would seem wrong to sele…

Every technology ever has opened the door to dangerous possibilities.

Caution is merited, but inaction carries culpability in the preventable negative outcomes solved in a potential future that we deny through fear.

And not disagreeing with your content, as I agree and think it's well written, but statements like "nice to look into the future and determine what the human being created would prefer, we can't do that" are part of what doesn't parse with me about this debate.

As with the anthropic principle, life has no a priori preferences. It becomes and then it is. Before it is, it doesn't want anything. After it is, it wants to be as it is. Because what is it is its identity.

There's a caveat for physical disabilities, and yes, that's a slippery slope as you've outlined. But how could one want to be another?

If I told you that I could make you smarter, right now, with 100% certainty and safety, but that afterwards... you wouldn't be you as you are now... would you say yes? Possibly, but I feel there's a certain inherent unease with that question. What happens to me if I become other?

My point being that this works in reverse too. If I am now as I was made, how would I feel about the choices made in my making? My assertion is that I wouldn't particularly care, because I am the result. So to wish otherwise would be to wish for the termination of my current identity.

If there's a debate to be had, then let it be one the social or individual merits of the actual change sought, rather than in making changes or not.

Post reply on HN