First Human Embryos Edited in U.S • Hacker News Board

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#71

Post by mmirate » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:06 AM UTC

Well this is exciting, but hopefully it will advance beyond "genetic disease". Or maybe in the future we will be able to expand our definition of that term, to include all genetic predispositions to suboptimal traits? (e.g. slow observation-decision loop, hedonism, sentimentalism/too-much-empathy, neuroticism, etc.)

Either way - hopefully, when this tech is completed, we will be able to accept and enjoy that our descendants will literally be superior beings to us, and not look upon them with too much envy.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#72

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:08 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #26

cellis wrote: post #15

CRISPR is coming. I seriously think with CRISPR we could see several trillion dollar companies. From cancer and aids cures to fundamentally altering what it means to be human, this is all within the near grasp of CRISPR ( if what i've been reading is to be believed ).

Gilead managed to demonstrate how curing a major disease does not result in such a spectacular outcome (of the trillion dollar scale). They did very well by curing HepC, briefly, and now they're eroding back down after just a few boom years. The same would occur with curing HIV/AIDS. There would be a brief boom derived from sales in some developed nations (most nations would receive the cure extremely inexpensively,…

How are you controlling for competition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbasvir/grazoprevir

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#73

Post by nyolfen » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:11 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #41

roceasta wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a formal claim just sharing my thoughts. Though I do believe at least one evolutionary biologist has written about this: Hamilton W.D. (1999). The hospitals are coming. Narrow roads of gene land (Oxford University Press). Btw the phenomenon of 'mutational meltdown' is a closely related topic and may re-pay googling.

It seems to be a philosophical position more than anything: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof97.htm I would guess it is wrong; we are on a track where genetic manipulation to treat blatant defects will (relatively shortly) be cheaper than the traditional medical treatments.

this worry is not a fringe concern: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#74

Post by analog31 » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:11 AM UTC

In the future, every dissertation will include in its Acknowledgements section, the student's parents, faculty advisor, and gene editor.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#75

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:16 AM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #73

maxerickson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be a philosophical position more than anything: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof97.htm I would guess it is wrong; we are on a track where genetic manipulation to treat blatant defects will (relatively shortly) be cheaper than the traditional medical treatments.

this worry is not a fringe concern: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26714

Your link proposes that we will be able to manage mutations using genetic engineering.

Parents could choose to have children created from their healthiest genes, rather than leaving children to be shotgunned with a random and increasing fraction of damaged genes. Genetic repair would replace the ancient cruelty of natural selection, which only fights entropy by tormenting organisms because of their genes.

The concern espoused above is that we won't be able to fix the problem.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#76

Post by ernestipark » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:17 AM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #70

rubatuga wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

> We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that. china in particular does not have the west's historical scruples wrt genetic editing and eugenics. i think this 'debate' will last about as long as it takes for the first generation of modded chinese children with two or three SDs on the mean to be brought into the world.

I don't think you can make a very strong argument for the "west's historical scruples wrt genetic editing and eugenics" when you look at the prevalence of convenience abortions and the history of eugenics in America.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#77

Post by coffeevradar » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:18 AM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #24

WalterBright wrote: post #20

Gene editing is probably the only way humans can colonize space. By adapting people to different gravities, air chemistry and pressure, radiation, etc., the need for life support equipment can be significantly reduced, and the quality of life of the colonists can be improved.

On the flip side, if we have a problem with racism now just on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/(culture), just imagine what sort of conflicts would arise once there are actual different human races. Even more so if they cannot reproduce with one another.

Life, uh, finds a way.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#78

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

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.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#79

Post by robotresearcher » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:28 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #37

JeffreyKaine wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where it comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

But in that sense it's not literal at all. Again, chemotherapy.

And surgery, and injections, and stitching wounds, etc.

Obviously it's net harm, not no harm at all.

Re: First Human Embryos Edited in U.S

#80

Post by mmirate » Thu, Jul 27, 2017, 2:29 AM UTC

rubatuga wrote: post #48

albertTJames wrote: post #36

Ethics questions need to be raised now, and guidelines have to be decided. The future of humanity is in gene editing. It should not depends on the lazyness of law makers and outrage of godfearing creatures to decide the fate of humanity. It is time we take our evolution into our own hands.

Most agree that it is unethical to purposely have a disabled/diseased child if it possible to not have a nondisabled one. In that case, I think it is quite ethical for this technology to be used on those with debilitating genetic defects. We’re in no rush to allow any genome editing other than that.

Hmm. Including myself, anyone with an IQ less than 2.5 sigmas above average, or with strong enough emotions to make bad decisions that contradict correct analyses, or with not enough ambition to want to attempt anything useful with their high IQ in the first place ... is thusly "debilitated" and should have been allowed genetic engineering.