Live data from Hacker News

Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution

interestingengineering.com

361–370 of 384 posts

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

#362

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…

> Nature doesn't try and balance life

Actually it does. It's quite likely that this is neither the first universe nor the last. But it's certainly one of the more stable ones.

> If anything, that makes nature the one that was blindly messing around.

Quite hard to image that something even close to this has happened by pure coincidence - e.g. mutation - before.

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

#363

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…

Hyperspeed evolution does not sound like a good idea. Speaking as someone who is alive now. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't much matter but I would rather not suffer a genetic pandemic or takeover by genius rabid monkeys.

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

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Nature doesn't try and balance life Actually it does. It's quite likely that this is neither the first universe nor the last. But it's certainly one of the more stable ones. > If anything, that makes nature the one that was blindly messing around. Quite hard to image that something even close to this has happened by pure coincidence - e.g. mutation - before.

What we describe as balancing is an emergent property that we happen to agree with because our observation is biased in favor of the status quo.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel pretty simply, I feel a sense of sadness at the kinds of 21st century problems my kids and their kids are going to have to deal with. At some point in the next 25 years I expect there to be a 'procedure' available, which consists of cultivating a persons stem cells from their bone marrow, using a genetic editing technique to add and/or delete and/or "correct" certain genetic sequences, and then to have a "bone…

How is that something to be sad about? In case your kids miss out and feel jealous? Surely if yours kids have only an average intelligence, you'll still be happy for them despite the fact that they probably can't achieve as much success as their most successful peers in any intellectual field. Your attitude sounds like my Dad's attitude of being sad that my generation doesn't believe in God anymore or his own Dad's u…

This comment recalled for me the Bill Cosby joke which goes, "When I was a teen, I couldn't believe how stupid my Dad was. When my kids were teens I couldn't believe how much my Dad had learned between then and now." :-)

I didn't appreciate the wisdom in that joke until my kids were teens. The sadness comes from the expectation of the painful times between the onset of the technology and the eventual successful integration of that technology into our lives. For me, I live in Silicon Valley which has more superfund cleanup sites than pretty much anywhere because the chip companies dumped a lot of toxic chemicals that later turned out to be carcinogens into the ground. People I know, some well, some only by association, were harmed by that. It was part of the "learning curve" of developing semiconductors which have so changed everyone's lives. That the chips are a net good is, in my opinion, pretty clear. However, the "learning" of the superfund cleanup was painful.

Bespoke genetic manipulation will have similar "growing pains" and those pains will kill people, cause generalized harm, and likely a catastrophe or two. And once we've gone through that and understand the risks and challenges in a more fundamental way, then people will be enjoying the benefits and the risks will be contained by legislation or some other oversight.

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

#367
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel pretty simply, I feel a sense of sadness at the kinds of 21st century problems my kids and their kids are going to have to deal with. At some point in the next 25 years I expect there to be a 'procedure' available, which consists of cultivating a persons stem cells from their bone marrow, using a genetic editing technique to add and/or delete and/or "correct" certain genetic sequences, and then to have a "bone…

If you don't have any genetically-afflicted ailments, hell if you're still a healthy 18-35 year old, then I'd say maybe layoff on the moralizing about the some imagined pure beauty of letting "nature" take it's course with the human species.

Presumably you have seen the movie "Gattica", if not I can recommend it.

Imagine that we figure out the genetic sequence for total memory recall. It isn't an "illness" it is a feature that some people have. And perhaps the procedure costs $2M to have it done. Further assume that is a price that "upper middle class" people can afford to have it done for their kids. Now you have thousands of kids who are artificially "better" for jobs than unmodified kids. How do the unmodified kids compete?

It is just a hypothetical of course, there are dozens of things that appear to be genetic that give people an advantage over their peers. Unequal access to such things has always been a force for stratification in the world.

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

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Are you saying increasing the brain capacity for a species other than ourselves and potentially enabling them to become (undeniably) sentient is morally wrong?

Yes. I would call it extremely irresponsible -- on the same level as having a child you know you will be unable to feed, so the child will starve and probably die. (With the same excuse: but wouldn't the child be happy that they existed at all?)

We have no idea how different species would think and feel. If we imagine them as "exactly like humans, only with more fur", well, who knows, it might turn out to be true; but if it is not -- if the difference between us and them is greater than the difference between any two humans, just like with the biological differences -- then we might create another intelligent species with incompatible values. Where "incompatible values" could mean that a reality that makes us happy would make them unhappy, and vice versa, so there is no outcome that wouldn't require lot of suffering.

The assumption that they would be "exactly like humans, only with more fur" makes sense from a Cartesian, dualistic perspective. Same souls, in different bodies, duh. But if you think that mind is a product of body, and tiny changes in the body can have dramatic impact on how the mind works, e.g. having more or less of some hormone can profoundly change your personality; then minds of different species will probably be quite different.

Then there is this practical problem, that we can't even take care of our fellow humans. People are still starving, dying in wars and genocides, etc. Even in first world we have the problem of poverty, racism, whatever.

Now imagine that into this world you introduce a new intelligent species, which might be incapable of getting a job, dealing with bureaucracy, or just interacting with majority humans in ways that humans consider acceptable. Because this society is designed for humans, it might be impossible to navigate for them. Then what? Keep them in... a big ZOO, forever? Tell them the same fate awaits their kids, and the kids of their kids, until perhaps one day humans get bored of them and decide to exterminate them? Or let them out, and then put them in prisons, because they may be unable to abstain from behaviors that are considered criminal by us? Require them to ignore their own insticts and live accordingly to our instincts, and then punish them if they are unable to comply?

Or are we going to give them an island where they can create a civilization according to their own norms? And ignore if they decide to do things that are abhorrent to us but normal for them? Are we going to trade with them? According to their norms or ours?

The only reason this works in some sci-fi books is that the other species are "exactly like humans, only with more fur". It may not work if they are fundamentally psychologically different.

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

#369
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think also that "New Species" may also be a big leap. Its an enhanced mutant example at best...

What is a species but a mutation of another one? Let's not forget most definitions of "species" are tenuous at best. The natural world is not so easily categorized.

"Species" vs a gene mutation is pretty well defined for mammals, it's usually obscure lifeforms like microscopic worms and bacteria where that term might be less useful.

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

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Are you saying increasing the brain capacity for a species other than ourselves and potentially enabling them to become (undeniably) sentient is morally wrong? Yes. I would call it extremely irresponsible -- on the same level as having a child you know you will be unable to feed, so the child will starve and probably die. (With the same excuse: but wouldn't the child be happy that they existed at all?) We have no i…

Those all sound like interesting challenges rather than problems.

If the new species is capable of communication with us, then it doesn't really matter if they think like humans or not. In fact, they are much more interesting and valuable to us if they don't. Differences in values, territory, what they need to be happy, all of that can be worked out through negotiation and communication - or not, and we can just give them space and avoid our own interference as much as possible, while providing the resources they need.

I think it's important to emphasize that you're right - bringing a new species into the world as it currently stands with massive inequality and many human problems left completely unsolved isn't a good idea. Doing so after a post scarcity society has formed and there are enough resources to go around (not all that far off...) - much more reasonable. Expecting a new species to just magically integrate with society and "get jobs" is a little silly here. I think we need to differentiate the moral problem of eventually increasing another species' intelligence capabilities in the future under our best efforts at responsible conditions - vs doing so right now in this shitstorm.

Post reply on HN