We Risk Programming Inequality into Our DNA (vice.com) 367
An anonymous reader writes:Imagine having a chip in your brain to boost your concentration, or pumping artificial blood into your veins to improve stamina. With gene editing, this may be possible. Scientists are pioneering the ability to tweak our DNA to wipe out disease and maybe even allow us to choose desirable traits in our unborn children, like height or intelligence. None of these technologies have moved out of the lab, but Americans are already uncomfortable with them. In a survey from Pew Research Center, almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes -- whether it were to combat disease or shop for traits. Nearly 70 percent of survey participants also said they were more worried than enthusiastic about the possibility of synthetic-blood and brain-chip implants. They saw these options as "meddling with nature," even though we've been using technology to enhance our lives for thousands of years.
Most nonsensical summary/title ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
GP is right.
"We risk" how is it a risk if we do it intentionally?
"Programming Inequality" what is not equal? That sounds like "we" are planning to intentionally cripple a segment of the population.
"Our DNA" then the first sentence of the summary talks about artificial blood and chip implants, nothing to do with DNA
Re: (Score:2)
Like everything new, it's initially a luxury that few can afford, but it's in
Re: (Score:2)
It might be in society's interests to augment everyone, but is it it in the one percent's interests to let the plebs catch up, especially if machines do most work? Our society is not big on common good, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't life going to get pretty boring for the 1% if they let everyone else die off? And who's going to do all the menial work like maintaining and repairing the machines, designing the next generation of machines, etc.? You might not need as many people for all that, but you need some, and the ultra-wealthy aren't going to want to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean it won't improve everyone equally.
Should all human progress stop unless it happens everywhere at once? Should we all abandon our cities since some tribes still live in villages?
Re: (Score:2)
Even the rich need human capital. If they are healthy as a horse and easily led then so much the better. It's going to go along the lines of Alphas, Betas and Deltas.
Natures been doing this (Score:3, Interesting)
for hundreds of millions of years.
We generally call it "evolution" round these parts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shout it out: "I want a Monsanto kid!"
And that's the problem (Score:2)
Whether it's Monsanto and RoundUp-resistant weeds, or bananas and Panama disease : Nature [nytimes.com] adapts [bbc.com], while man-made genes don't. If humans modify their genes, the "most-popular genes" will become a larger and larger portion of the population, leading to a lack of genetic diversity, making for a wonderful opportunity for some disease to conquer them all, or some natural change to make it difficult for that portion of the population to adapt. As it's been said before, "Nature finds a way."
Re: (Score:2)
We generally call it "evolution" round these parts.
True enough, but there is absolutely an ethical concern.
An interesting thing about evolution is that usually traits aren't fully removed, not for an extremely long time. You tend to get a range. Maybe a bell curve, maybe a curve skewed to one side or another, but it usually isn't a complete removal. Human adults have an average height, but adults range from under three feet (1 meter) to over seven feet (2.3 meters). Most people tend to be biologically extroverted, but about 1/3 of people are introverte
We program our ideology into our story titles (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We demand locomotion equality NOW NOW NOW!
Re: (Score:2)
Equal in the meaning that Abraham Lincoln expressed. We were physically nor mentally the same, but were equal in the capacity to be treated the same under the law and by our system of government.
already done (Score:5, Insightful)
humans have inequality programmed into their DNA. that's why for example average strength of women is less than 2/3 that of men. that's why I can get a sunburn in less than third the time as someone whose ancestors are from some other places, so unfair I demand sunshine time equality!
Re: (Score:2)
humans have inequality programmed into their DNA. that's why for example average strength of women is less than 2/3 that of men. that's why I can get a sunburn in less than third the time as someone whose ancestors are from some other places, so unfair I demand sunshine time equality!
Yes. This.
Peanuts taste like vomit. I demand flavour equity.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? When your mutation gives you delicious vomit??? Ingrate.
Re: (Score:2)
it should make you happy that three times more children have peanut allergies now than in 1997
Re: (Score:2)
it should make you happy that three times more children have peanut allergies now than in 1997
Nah, they're just faking it because they don't like the taste of vomit.
Re:already done (Score:4, Insightful)
humans have inequality programmed into their DNA. that's why for example average strength of women is less than 2/3 that of men. that's why I can get a sunburn in less than third the time as someone whose ancestors are from some other places ...
Exactly. "Equality" is a social construct.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the aristocracy a formal version of this? (Score:2)
A zillion years ago, some person had attributes that made them a better hunter. They brought home the best meat and their children ate better, so they got to breed with better mates. These hunting abilities overlapped with fighting abilities, so not only could they get better food, they could neutralize local rivals or lead the fighting against the tribe on the other side of the river.
These people became clan, then tribal leaders. Eventually more formalized class systems enforced these breeding systems a
Re: (Score:2)
so you imagine DNA has nothing to do with testosterone production ability?
edit away (Score:4, Funny)
we have evolved to Trump2016 maybe evolution needs help!!
and if you believe in creationism... the devil is winning and god needs help.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the devil is winning and god needs help.
But recent polls indicate her lead is evaporating. So maybe there is a god.
Risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have inequality in our DNA, and not just the *ist kind. Some people are inherently susceptible or resistant to certain diseases, more likely to live longer and so on. The very nature of DNA is to be unequal and provide genetic diversity. Species that lack enough diversity in their DNA have a habit of going extinct.
Parents will decide to look out for the best interest of their child and enhance their child's opportunities in life. The body, can and will be hacked, get over it.
Re: (Score:3)
All of these clever nitwits will willy-nilly splice and dice, with only the weakest knowledge of how one splice affects another. Kill the insects that eat corn, then end up killing lots of bees, unintentionally.
We know so little about DNA, RNA, rDNA, mitochondrial interactions, and all of this across the entropy of life cycle, that it's truly folly to create mutants without full knowledge of the implication(s).
The "after all, we've been doing this for millennia" is also total crap. We've homogenized to the
Re: (Score:2)
Always Afraid (Score:5, Insightful)
Usual, and correct. Eat this (Score:2)
Yes, it is normal to be cautious of new things with unknown effects, especially when we know the effects will be significant, but we don't know what they'll be. The reason that's normal is because it makes sense; most people are smart enough to be careful.
Most animals avoid putting unknown substances in their mouth until they first look at it, smell it, then they have a small lick to taste it. There is one exception ...
There is a certain group of people who follow one of these two patterns of thinking:
Pat
Re: (Score:2)
No real thinking, just "hey that's new, let's try it and see what happens" (typically teenagers). Or "hey that's new (even though it's not), let's mandate that everyone must do it and see what happens" (typically these people call themselves 'liberals').
There's also: "this ancient book written by primitive goat-herders says such-and-such and makes a bunch of supernatural and downright ridiculous claims, so we need to follow it blindly" (typically these people call themselves 'conservatives').
"Meddling with nature"? Yes, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given "nature's" obvious shortfalls, and the resounding success that our "meddling" has yielded so far -- clothing, farming, animal husbandry, domesticated fire, water purification, and so on -- I find it a bit depressing that the "meddling with nature" trope still gets any traction at all. I rather wish that those who oppose "meddling with nature" would pull themselves away from this globe-spanning communication network and go become wolf food, rather than bothering the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Meddling with nature"? Yes, please. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Generally, I agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we don't have a choice.
The advent of antibiotics especially, and various other social and economic systems, have effectively halted a large portion of natural selection in humans. There is no more evolution / survival of the fittest happening in the western world. Medicine, vaccines, social support mechanisms, etc are all hugely good and beneficial, but the result will be a long-term problematic build up of genetic material that will weigh down any fun
Re: (Score:2)
I would wonder what that 70% would say to someone suffering from Huntington's disease. "Sorry your genetic death timer shouldn't be removed because it is unnatural."
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, we also invented nuclear weapons, globalization with the resulting spread of invasive species and deadly diseases, electricity and the burning of unprecedented amounts of carbon, environmentally unfriendly farming methods, and are in the process of causing what is likely to be the largest mass extinction in history. In the near future we might also create humanity-destroying AI or bioweapons.
Of course, nature invented supervolcanos, planet-ending meteors, supernovas, and various such things as c
Re: (Score:2)
...and the resounding success that our "meddling" has yielded so far -- clothing, farming, animal husbandry, domesticated fire, water purification, and so on -- I find it a bit depressing that the "meddling with nature" trope still gets any traction at all.
There is a HUGE difference between developing external technologies and altering internals that we don't understand. I would put human understanding of human biology somewhere between .05% and .07%. We can't even create relatively simple medicines that don't have side effects, or create replacements for relatively simple organs without risking death, or manufacture basic replacement parts that actually work, and you're all for altering our foundational existence?
That's insane. You've been watching way t
Re: (Score:2)
Except none of those things have altered the human being.
That's a very silly assertion.
Re: (Score:3)
Except none of those things have altered the human being.
While I can't speak for you, I am an anatomically correct modern human - largely hairless, with large cranium, and a digestive system capable of processing grains.
I'd consider it (Score:3)
I have family histories of both hypertension and arthritis. If it was possible for me to prevent my children from developing these diseases, I would have to think long and hard about it.
LK
Copyright violation (Score:2)
You would have to think about it??? Why wouldn't you do it, assuming no side effects?
Well one reason would be that if you have a copyrighted gene sequence in your DNA having kids may mean that you get prosecuted for copyright violation.
Re: (Score:3)
You would have to think about it??? Why wouldn't you do it, assuming no side effects?
The rub is this "assuming no side effects". We don't have any "junk" DNA, just DNA whose function we haven't yet determined. We don't know how different sections of DNA play together. We simply can't fathom the side effects until it's done.
Re: (Score:3)
Hear, hear. None of your genetic strengths or gifts matter if you have one or two hereditary diseases. Off yourself, and leave the planet to anonymous cowards with no empathy, no wisdom, and no common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I've checked and the gene is "autosomal dominant" so if your spouse does not have the gene, all you need to do is make sure you use IVF and select the right embryo(s). Googling "ivf and embryo testing for cancer" immediately brought up loads of clinics that provide this, like http://www.fertility-docs.com/... [fertility-docs.com]
So if you find the right partner who agrees with you on this, it's not hard to have genetic screening *right now*. No need for a vasectomy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
But ... ask yourself, would you prefer to have never been born?
That line of thinking will lead you to the conclusion that it's morally wrong to allow any human ovum to go un-fertilized.
Programming inequality?, never! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should program all humans to be equal by design. Therefore, all babies since now on should be clones. We just need to find the perfect template.
The future is YOU.
Re: (Score:3)
Diversity is important.
Look at the banana crop- almost all bananas produced in the world are identical clones propagated by cuttings. Now they're being wiped out because that particular cultivar has a weakness to a disease.
Similar things are happening with Arabica coffee beans- thank god we've got Robusta (as bad as it is), because the genes from Robusta might help keep Arabica alive.
Imagine if all humans were clones of each other and had a certain weakness to "Honey Badger Flu"- guess what, when Honey Bad
Reality ain't equal (Score:3)
While it's a nice thought to say that everyone is equal, in reality some are stronger, some are smarter, some are more persistent, some are more creative, some are more empathic, some are more willing to take risks to improve their condition... and what is even less fair, some of that you can't change much beyond what you were born with. Of course, with more advanced technology it may be possible for people to choose whatever genetics they want for themselves, or at least for their children. But then, some people just don't want that sort of responsibility.
Inevitable (Score:2)
Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever - CRISPR [youtube.com]
(Maybe that's exactly what TFA is talking about, but it's blocked for me at work.)
News flash: people hate change (Score:2)
Internet, cellphones, vaccines, etc. People can either accept progress or get left behind. Things like DNA programming are here now thanks to things like CRISPR. Expect custom babies in your lifetime. I look forward to improvements in my own programming for that matter as I have inherited some baggage and in need of some tweaking.
Greater wealth inequality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I got my genome sequenced for a hundred bucks a decade after the Human Genome Project concluded. How long did it take the third world gain cell phones, which are now ubiquitous?
If this technology is ever denied to the poor, it will be the consequence of government meddling at the behest of busybody moralizers and the ultra-rich who manipulate them as useful idiots.
What about selective fertilization? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called IVF and if you have IVF/ICSI it's already being done just to increase the chance of actually getting pregnant. They also screen the embryo for nasty inherited diseases if they run in the family. No reason why this cannot be extended, but the procedure is not exactly pleasant for women.
Dean Karnazes (Score:3)
Frankly I do not see why anyone in the world getting Artificially inseminated is not insisting on Dean Karnazes's sperm.
Frankly, I am surprised people aren't hunting him down and getting sperm at gun point. At the age of 54, he can't run very fast, even if he literally does not need to stop EVER.
He once ran for over 80 hour straight, without sleep.
Worse than the Terminator.
Call me a luddite... (Score:2)
They saw these options as "meddling with nature," even though we've been using technology to enhance our lives for thousands of years.
Call me a luddite but comparing the selective breeding we've been doing for thousands of years with livestock, for example, to the ability to insert cat and lizard DNA into a fertilised human egg cell and produce people that can see in the dark and regrow severed limbs is like comparing a stone hand-axe to a chain saw. When you are able to modify the human genome on that level you would be well advised to be agonisingly careful.
It's a cool idea, BUT (Score:3)
There's always a BUT.
There comes the issue of balance. When there's something good, there's something negative/bad to counterbalance it. It happens in every part of our lives. Everything biologically (chemically, physically, electromagnetically) must find balance and is always striving to do so. Heck, that's what the universe operates on with everything we've found so far; something got screwed up and things went BOOM, this way, that way, or didn't...but what's always been observed is energy of all types converting, exchanging, repelling, attracting, you name it. Our entire existence is the result of imbalance and everything trying (unsuccessfully so far) to find balance.
Having said that, it's just plain scary to think that there's even a remote possibility that a genetic change can offer something of awesomeness and not have a major negative to counterbalance it. e.g. "I'm 7'2" tall now and have massive muscles. Downside is that I'm lacking calcium and my center of gravity is off."
To try and meet the demand of maintaining balance, more muscle need to be used. Since the rest of the body's components haven't been accounted for when it comes to an imbalance, it's quite possible that one of those imbalances will destroy or injure other parts of that body. It's a complicated mess (and a beautiful one), but we have become what we are today due to accidents (oops, just had sex with a different species of human, but look how tough my kid is), disasters (big rock hit, make everything cold, body must adapt and pass genes on with adaptations), and so many others. Heck, why do we have butt hair? It doesn't really do anything but get in the way as far as we can tell, but the body hasn't mutated it away over time, so it does something, right?
Back to the topic.. If I volunteer to have my kid (don't have one, just saying) given an advantage in advanced brain development with an emphasis on the pre-frontal cortex, perhaps it will trigger a dormant gene somewhere around the age of 25 that breaks down neural connections and causes brain cells to trigger death so it doesn't, you know, explode. I'm stating something that can be argued to death (no pun), but it's just food for thought.
It comes back to what I said in the beginning - everything finds balance, and usually good is just a swinging level of imbalance from the bad which normally causes something else good to cancel it out, but the extreme bad used to cancel out the good might be TOO MUCH for the good to counteract, hence problem. I don't need to state the obvious about not knowing how bad it is until it happens.
So, who wants to sign up as a 100% committed test subject and relieve the testing company from all legal recourse if something goes wrong? I'm not quite there. Need to see more examples where I can ask questions and have the questions answered along with a demonstration of the outcome or a new example with a modification that helps to cancel/counteract something I find wrong. I'm still talking rats at this point. Seeing other humans who have committed to the project and seeing their failures and successes just leads to more questions. I guess I still have something to live for (though I have no idea what it is). I guess it's "I want to see what's gonna happen next".
Re: (Score:2)
That's too broad. Think only of the components of it.
Plus, if you want to get technical, sedentary leads to less muscle damage, hence less healing. Active requires more healing but leads to more tensile strength....
Beware blanket bans (Score:2)
I don't think a blanket ban would necessarily be a good thing.
If we can eliminate certain diseases and syndromes, that might be beneficial for all of society as well as the individual. Although, care must be taken we don't stifle our genetic diversity too much. Some of our weaknesses might be strengths under certain circumstances (example: sickle cell).
When it comes to "cosmetic" enhancements, that's where we should leave DNA alone (unless it's for things such as eliminating hare-lip or other conditions t
The future belongs to the bold (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that paranoid, credulous, and superstitious people will avoid genetic therapy is a feature, not a bug.
The only real risk is that their numbers become too large and they become an unsustainable burden on society as the human baseline leaves them far behind. Their own sense of entitlement might very well create the sci-fi dystopia they're currently whining about.
If god had wanted it that way... (Score:2)
almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes
Interestingly enough 46% of Americans believe God created people in his image only a few thousand years ago. I wonder if there's any correlation.
It would be most interesting if natural selection ends up eliminating god.
Survey approach (Score:2)
Survey them about "Fourth gen, polished, already-found-to-be-useful implants".
The doubts toward DNA tinkering may be similarly couched. "How do you feel about allowing the population access to predefined, targeted splices for specific (eg disease) conditions? These are contained splices, with well-understood boundaries an
We Risk Programming Inequality into Our DNA? (Score:5, Interesting)
from the ./ summary:
That is a rather stupid take on the issue for at least two reasons:
First, the situation at present is that humans already have unequal genetic gifts. Genetic engineering will enable us to help those who are deficient, to aid those (or the children of those) who suffer from from lousy genetic makeup. Think of it as eugenics done right; We do not exterminate or sterilize the genetically deficient, instead we enhance the genes of their offspring and let them carry on. That would increase, not decrease equality.
Second, we should be concerned with improved well-being of society as a whole, instead of (as appears the poster to be) obsessed with a perverse desire to make everyone equal. Making just only one person in the world better off is always a Pareto improvement but can either increase or decrease equality.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the worry is that "the haves" will have the ability to genetically engineer their children to have higher intelligence, better looks, stronger muscles, better coordination, bigger willies, perkier air bags.
The "have nots" will be base-model humans.
This will make the divide between the rich and the poor larger and condemn the descendant of those on the bottom of the stack to stay on the bottom.
I wish I could have genetically engineer my kids (Score:2)
I don't care about any cosmetic eye-colour changes.
Don't care about intelligence, etc.
I just wish I could have genetically predisposed them to get up off their arses and do some housework.
Re: (Score:2)
Survey says...? (Score:2)
"In a survey from Pew Research Center, almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes"
My guess is that they only surveyed Westerners, likely Americans, who've been the subject of heavy social programming for the last 50 years.
Ask the REST of the world, you're going to get a different answer. Hell, in India and China simply knowing your baby's going to be a girl is enough to get her aborted or tossed into the river after birth. Give them the option to *tweak* away the chance to even BE fema
as someone with a hereditary parkinsonian disorder (Score:2)
Product-specific personal mods. (Score:2)
Nearly 70 percent of survey participants also said they were more worried than enthusiastic about the possibility of synthetic-blood and brain-chip implants.
Future Apple enthusiasts will get brain-chip implants and ditch their ears -- to make themselves more water resistant.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs ears when you can directly hear Bluetooth signals?
We'll do it, just not talk loud about it (Score:2)
About 90% of the women who learn their child will have Down's syndrome [wikipedia.org] choose to have an abortion. Very few will say much if anything at all about it out of respect for the other 10% and those who didn't have the test at all. Maybe we won't do designer babies but at least remove genes strongly corrolated with bad medical conditions, because ultimately nobody wants their kid to have potential heart/lung/liver/kidney diseases, be predisposed for cancer and whatnot. But the implied critique against other paren
the Master Race (Score:2)
Sometimes referred to as 'eugenics'. The idea that one group of people, due to some inherent superiority, should rule over others. Don't we all want to be in that group? Don't we fear that we are in the other group?
Robert Klark Graham, founder of the Nobel Sperm Bank, was fond of placing advertisements in various publications (particularly Mensa publications) that simply said "The smarter you are, the more children you should have."
On the surface, that seems a fine and sensible sentiment. But underlying it
We're all created equal (Score:2)
And the half that embrace genetic mods, win (Score:2)
Essentially, this is still evolution. The queasy, moral folks will breed themselves out in the long run.
Re:Attica! Attica! (Score:5, Insightful)
No wait... I meant "Gattaca! Gattaca!"
We may enact some legislation to "prevent" this sort of thing, but it's going to happen anyway, because there will be a demand for it.
Prohibition simply doesn't work, whether it's prohibition of drugs, prostitution, alcohol... or genetic manipulation. One way or another we're going there. Perhaps this is a chance to "get it right" for a change, and educate the public about this emerging technology, rather than the usual FUD tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's an interesting question; where should we draw the line? Obviously, if your embryo/fetus is destined for cystic fibrosis, we would all cheer for a genetic intervention. But if you just think it would be cool if you kid would glow in the dark, it may be quite reasonable for the rest of us to resist allowing those "imported" genes into our collective gene pool.
I think a key concept to consider in all genetic modifications is the difference between vertical gene transfer and horizontal gene transfer. The f
Re:Attica! Attica! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an interesting question; where should we draw the line?
Most people want to "draw the line" just a little past what they are used to, so "the line" slowly creeps forward. Back in 1978, the first test tube baby [wikipedia.org] was born, and people worried that we were playing God, and whether the resulting creatures would even be accepted as "human". Today IVF is mainstream, and no one gives it a second thought.
A decade from now, it will be common to correct genetic disorders in embryos, and it may even be considered child abuse to refrain from doing so. Today's moral handwringing will be long forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Every Western country will ban it completely. There will be much debate about medical cases and, eventually, that will be allowed -- and at-risk parents will get help via socialised medicine. But it won't be germline alteration. It will be embryo gene therapy.
There may be some non-religious govts that embrace it. Rich parents will fly out to get inseminated. It may start off with medical cases but it will soon be designer babies, with or without your line in the sand.
In the West, public attitudes will
Re: (Score:3)
This is atomic-scale stuff. Do you really think that the number of errors by gene-splicers will be so low that diversity is reduced?
There are a great number of risk-takers in the world who would be willing to experiment with their children.
Year after year more diseases are discovered that are caused by genetic flaws that have no plausible compensating advantages. This aspect of "genetic diversity" is in no way an advantage for humanity. It lowers lifespan, r
Re: (Score:2)
We do not have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be directly editing out genome.
FUD.
Trial and error served humanity well up to this point, there is no reason to expect that it won't work in this case.
Humanity survival depends on us becoming recursive and self-correcting, as environmental pressures that drove evolution up to this point are addressed/mitigated. Alternatively, our future is Idiocracy of breeders - whoever can push out most babies and consume most food will inherit the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Trial and error served humanity well up to this point, there is no reason to expect that it won't work in this case.
Oh look, another fucktard who can't see past his own nose. I suggest you take up juggling running chainsaws then. Don't bother practicing with balls or sticks or anything less than running chainsaws, otherwise you're just giving in to FUD and are a cowardly pussy. Just jump right in with the runnign chainsaws; what could possibly go wrong? You're yet another one who just proves my point for me in all-too spectacular fashion: you have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to realize your knowledge and wisdom
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, another fucktard who can't see past his own nose.
The irony of trying to lecture others on wisdom in this way is probably lost on you.
Re:People's instincts are correct (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right -- we don't have enough wisdom and knowledge yet. Wisdom, the ability to make good choices, comes from experience.
Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.
Re:People's instincts are correct (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right -- we don't have enough wisdom and knowledge yet. Wisdom, the ability to make good choices, comes from experience.
Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.
Experience comes from making choices, not just bad ones. Wisdom comes from learning not just from your mistakes but the mistakes of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.
Your 'bad choices' might very well lead to an extiction-level event for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.
Your 'bad choices' might very well lead to an extiction-level event for humanity.
I think the extinction level event you refer to only comes about in case of a monoculture - where a huge percentage of the gene pool has some identical characteristics, and a disease evolves or is created to attack that characteristic.
Which might be an argument for a more wild west approach to gene editing - let a thousand flowers bloom, so that genetic diversity is maintained.
Or a corporate model. Imagine an iPhone like event every year where the latest genomics products are unveiled, so that while I might
Re: (Score:3)
I'll say it again, LOUDER for the benefit of the usual internet idiots who can't be bothered to read:
WAKE UP SHEEPLE! [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We DO NOT have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be editing our own genome! Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
At this moment we certainly don't, but if you go back far enough the same could be said about flying. Now it's a pretty mundane and routine thing to board an aircraft and arrive safely at some far off destination without much thought. The same is true for many other things that we take for granted because we no longer live in a world where they are though to be impossible or beyond our grasp.
Like everything else in the universe, we'll work to improve our understanding, experiment empirically, and develop
Re: (Score:2)
If the prospect itself is too scary, you can go back to living in trees, or just crawl back into the ocean if the who prospect of life on land was a bit much as well.
Fuck you, asshole. Know what you sound like? You sound like some fucktarded teenage boy, mouthing off to his father, when being told that $SOMETHING he's going to do is fucktardedly stupid and that he should just stop. All you or anyone else who responds like that is doing, is proving my point for me. You don't have the knowledge to know you don't have enough knowledge, you don't have the wisdom to know your wisdom is insufficient, therefore you scoff at anyone and everyone who tells you to slow the hell do
Keeping up with the edited Joneses (Score:2)
True, but there is no god or equivalent to stop us. The cold-war had so many armageddon close calls that it's beyond scary and makes me suspect Anthropic Principle is at play. Climate change or run-away AI may be the next Great Filter.
Humans always plow face-first into new tools & weapons. It's their nature.
Further, if another nation edits genes an
Re: (Score:2)
Further, if another nation edits genes and becomes a military threat, or even an economic threat, because of it, then the USA may fill obligated to "keep up with the edited Joneses" and participate also.
Sadly, you are probably right. Some governement like in China, that doesn't really seem to value human life as much as other countries do, would probably just dive right in, try to make a 'super soldier' or somesuch, in a bid to grab more power in the world. Nevermind the possible consequences. Then other countries will follow suit so they don't get gobbled up. Next thing you know? Maybe extinction-level event, brought on by genetic editing that fucks up a few generations down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be directly editing out genome.
As it turns out, we also don't have the wisdom nor knowledge to stop people from editing their genomes. The potential rewards are just too great, and unless someone edits out our tendency to take large risks for personal gain, someone is going to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
What will happen is that the most obvious diseases will be targeted, leading to a whole slew of initial successes and then quite a long stall as it turns out that the remainder of what makes us, us, is extremely complex, interacts with itself in loads of unexpected ways and generally is still very poorly understood. Junk dna, methylization, gut bacteria, and the recent discovery of even more inhabitants in the gut, bacteriofages, that interact with everything as well, all show that there is still a whole wo
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're being very naieve in assuming this will be widely available and affordable by all, and that super-rich won;t benefit more than the cost.
Mark my words, this technology will massively boost inequality even more by adding yet another vector that separates the rich from the poor. People that have invested a lot in genetic procedures won't even want to date/procreate with people that haven't. Ultimately this will lead to effectively 2 races of humans. The genetically unmodified i.e. "normals" and