3 ms·

Can you elaborate on what do you think would be the great step forward, and what is the pros to counter all the cons?

by NhanH 11y ago

vonklaus 11y ago
> Can you elaborate on what do you think would be the great step forward? As someone with little knowledge of the field or the science involved, my ideas are largely borrowed from others much smarter than myself. Steve Jurvetson, a VC from DFJ who regularly talks about this field, engineering solutions through evolution, and Gordon Moore. Craig Venter was a fundamental force in sequencing the entire human genome this research made companies like Anne Wojcicki's 23AndMe possible. They are the people who will likely provide the true merit of this endeavor. My thoughts: * Early diagnosis. This is one of the most obvious ones. With companies like theranos providing quick testing equiptment and the price of sequencing plummeting, having gentic evidence to compare for risk factors and real-time blood tests, the ability to diagnose things early would be amazing. * Cures. Broadly, the ability to read, write and interpret genetic sequences would allow for personalized medicine and curing genetic illnesses one was predisposed to. * Adaptation. If we were able to have access to a dataset so massive, we were able to uderstand and curate genes. Outside of basic gene therapy and medacine we could actively enhance humans. This could possibly provide electronic interface with our own wetware, the extension of life, or otherwise change aspects of the human condition that were not desirable. * Creation. This is controversial, so I will leave it there. There are so many ways even with current technology that would provide positive things if we had this data and the tools to analyze it. I am excited for this. Similar to AI which will bifurcate between extinction or utopia, this has quite a large upside but also some substantial negatives.
- harigov 11y ago
  I am on a similar boat as you are with respect to the prospect of genomes revolutionizing health and the necessity and advantage of making it available openly (or at least to the researchers). Right now, most of the differences in humans tend to be more biological rather than ideological. The one thing that bothers me is - are our ideological differences just because of our biological differences? It just goes back to the question of free will. If there is no free will and we are just driven by what our genes dictate, all of us end up being very similar like machines. Then we can only be different by choosing different things intentionally. Are we really mature enough to do that? I am not sure if this belongs to the topic here but something I keep thinking once in a while and would like to know what others here think.
  - visarga 11y ago
    Self, intentionality and free will are mental concepts, not external objects to be observed from a third person perspective and studied like atoms and force fields. When trying to apply physics to psychology, such as trying to relate determinism and free will, a mixup of language domains occurs. Free will has a first person perspective (subjectivity) that places it on a different domain than physical forces and particles which can be observed externally.

Can you elaborate on what do you think would be the great step forward, and what is the pros to counter all the cons?

by NhanH 11y ago

Can you elaborate on what do you think would be the great step forward, and what is the pros to counter all the cons?

> Can you elaborate on what do you think would be the great step forward? As someone with little knowledge of the field or the science involved, my ideas are largely borrowed from others much smarter than myself. Steve Jurvetson, a VC from DFJ who regularly talks about this field, engineering solutions through evolution, and Gordon Moore. Craig Venter was a fundamental force in sequencing the entire human genome this research made companies like Anne Wojcicki's 23AndMe possible. They are the people who will likely provide the true merit of this endeavor. My thoughts: * Early diagnosis. This is one of the most obvious ones. With companies like theranos providing quick testing equiptment and the price of sequencing plummeting, having gentic evidence to compare for risk factors and real-time blood tests, the ability to diagnose things early would be amazing. * Cures. Broadly, the ability to read, write and interpret genetic sequences would allow for personalized medicine and curing genetic illnesses one was predisposed to. * Adaptation. If we were able to have access to a dataset so massive, we were able to uderstand and curate genes. Outside of basic gene therapy and medacine we could actively enhance humans. This could possibly provide electronic interface with our own wetware, the extension of life, or otherwise change aspects of the human condition that were not desirable. * Creation. This is controversial, so I will leave it there. There are so many ways even with current technology that would provide positive things if we had this data and the tools to analyze it. I am excited for this. Similar to AI which will bifurcate between extinction or utopia, this has quite a large upside but also some substantial negatives.

harigov 11y ago
I am on a similar boat as you are with respect to the prospect of genomes revolutionizing health and the necessity and advantage of making it available openly (or at least to the researchers). Right now, most of the differences in humans tend to be more biological rather than ideological. The one thing that bothers me is - are our ideological differences just because of our biological differences? It just goes back to the question of free will. If there is no free will and we are just driven by what our genes dictate, all of us end up being very similar like machines. Then we can only be different by choosing different things intentionally. Are we really mature enough to do that? I am not sure if this belongs to the topic here but something I keep thinking once in a while and would like to know what others here think.
- visarga 11y ago
  Self, intentionality and free will are mental concepts, not external objects to be observed from a third person perspective and studied like atoms and force fields. When trying to apply physics to psychology, such as trying to relate determinism and free will, a mixup of language domains occurs. Free will has a first person perspective (subjectivity) that places it on a different domain than physical forces and particles which can be observed externally.