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

The first early human eggs from stem cells

conception.bio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#91

Post by tskj »

vintermann wrote: post #86
tskj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is decisively the wrong way to think about it. Yes, layering hypotheticals like that means that any one scenario is extremely unlikely to be the thing that gets you, but that doesn't mean the shape of the problem is wrong. It's like arguing with someone who doesn't believe in using seat belts when driving. "Why should I put them on?" they say, and when you try to explain what might go wrong they won't li…

"To play God" isn't just to do something spectacular which wasn't possible before. It's to use other people - to put yourself on a higher teleological level than other people, declaring their purpose (whatever it is) as fully subordinate to your purpose (whatever it is). As if they were a tool you created. Obviously, if I carve a piece of wood into a spoon, it's I who get to say that what used to be a piece of wood n…

Thanks, that's an interesting analysis. I'm not a Christian, but I definitely get the sense that we're playing with an extreme danger here, and that we're not being sufficiently humble / cautious / in awe of the sacred -- and that such hubris might literally lead to human extinction, or close to it.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#93

Post by ACCount37 »

Schlagbohrer wrote: post #15

The origins of stem cells for use in the biosciences and in cosmetics are extremely brutal and should be illegal. Sandra Bullock explains it better than I could: https://youtu.be/PwO3TEj9-5g

Can we not devolve into "think of the poor stem cells" bullshit at least on HN?

Especially given that the link in question describes this as the source of stem cells:

> After performing a simple blood draw, we converted blood cells into stem cells, and then coaxed those stem cells into becoming miniature human ovaries that contain the early eggs.

That stupid controversy set the field back a decade, and that was a decade too much. People who get their science news from celeb gossip are a blight.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#94

Post by trebligdivad »

londons_explore wrote: post #20

I am worried about the long term impact of research involving human conception, IVF, etc. The reason is that genetics/evolution don't yet seem to fully explain how humans exist. A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human. I suspect there are as-yet undiscovered effects which shape the next generation. Whether that be DNA methylation,…

As I understand it, that they've gone back to the point of making the ovary and the egg itself is going through Meiosis helps here, because it's got the randomness of picking genes between the pair of chromosomes in the source. So it's not just a clone; it's a little more natural than if they tried to produce the egg directly.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#95

Post by conartist6 »

londons_explore wrote: post #20

I am worried about the long term impact of research involving human conception, IVF, etc. The reason is that genetics/evolution don't yet seem to fully explain how humans exist. A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human. I suspect there are as-yet undiscovered effects which shape the next generation. Whether that be DNA methylation,…

https://www.smbc-wiki.com/index.php/Royalty

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#96

Post by antasvara »

Mistletoe wrote: post #58
DanielHB wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25% of humans died before reaching 5 in 1800s US, today it is We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc."

I like the spirit of what you are saying but the smart part isn’t true at all. IQ peaked around the mid 1990s and as someone that lived back then that tracks. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028962... Look at Fig. 3. The world seems to be experiencing a reverse Flynn effect.

The abstract quite literary cautions against the way you're interpreting the data. The relevant quote:

> Notably, these gains do not uniformly translate to a rise in underlying GMA, suggesting the presence of domain-specific improvements and test characteristic changes over time. Conversely, the observed decline is primarily due to decreases in word comprehension and numerical reasoning tests, also reflecting specific abilities not attributable to changes in the latent GMA factor. Our findings further challenge the validity of claims that changes in the general factor drive the Flynn effect and its reversal. Furthermore, they caution against using these scores for longitudinal studies without accounting for changes in test characteristics.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#97

Post by ACCount37 »

londons_explore wrote: post #20

I am worried about the long term impact of research involving human conception, IVF, etc. The reason is that genetics/evolution don't yet seem to fully explain how humans exist. A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human. I suspect there are as-yet undiscovered effects which shape the next generation. Whether that be DNA methylation,…

I'm far more worried about the long term impact of letting evolution exert its pressure on humankind unchecked.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#98

Post by throwaway173738 »

qsera wrote: post #53
DanielHB wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25% of humans died before reaching 5 in 1800s US, today it is We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc."

> We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc." Haven't we?

This line of reasoning leads to “some people are weak and unworthy of life because they are impure.” I don’t think rolling back our work to end infant mortality to prevent weak people from living is the right answer.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#99

Post by throwaway173738 »

tskj wrote: post #89
xi_studio wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't know if we have the terminology to talk about this kind of failure mode." We actually have and is called RISK. RISK = Probability * Damage. Applied to the seatbelt event we have a death level damage and a high probability of happening given recent studies, so using a simple belt could easily save you from deadly accidents. Applied to any unrealistic scenario we have insane level damages but also an incredibl…

Well that's the point about unknown unknowns though, we actually have no idea what the probability is. But we do know it's not low, that's the only unlikely scenario. We only know it's a very complicated system with many interlocking dependencies, and based on what we know about complicated systems in general, as well as biology in particular, is that if any one of these unknown dependencies break, the whole system c…

I don’t think this technology we’ll get people to stop having sex to the degree that IVG is all we’ll ever use. And to the degree that we believe some humans are genetically destined for anything, that’s the line of thinking that leads to dystopia.

Re: The first early human eggs from stem cells

#100

Post by killerstorm »

plasticeagle wrote: post #88
killerstorm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human. What?... Our computers can't simulate anything similar to a real world. You're comparing apples to galaxies. > meaningful loss of fitness What makes you think we don't have "loss of fitness" already? 150 years ago child mortality was around 30% in the developed world, now it's less than 1…

It's a very common misconception that "survival of the fittest" means something related to physical fitness or stamina. It does not, in fact it's almost tautological. It means only "survival of those most likely to survive." Natural selection is still fully in operation, but the things being selected for may have changed. Whatever they are now, they are still being selected for. Those most likely to reproduce are tho…

Well, modern medicine + economy + social pressure resulted in RADICAL change in fitness function for human population. It's very, very different.

So it's quite likely that modern population is not fit according to old criteria.

> It's also very important to remember that this operates over hundreds of millennia.

That's not true at all. People can make new breeds of dogs and cats in just a few generations. You can literally SEE how a change of fitness function affects the phenotype.

> You'd need to look back into deep prehistory to find changes to humans attributable to natural selection.

There are many studies which describe genetic changes within latest 10,000 years or less. E.g. paper "1,000 ancient genomes uncover 10,000 years of natural selection in Europe": "We identified 25 genetic loci with rapid changes 21 in frequency during these periods". You can find many similar papers if you do a search

One of studies identified changes in loci associated with Y. pestis immunity during the Black Death (i.e. something like a century). Black Death mortality is similar in scale to early childhood mortality 150 years ago.

Post reply on HN