4 ms·

That is true, but the GP's implication is designer babies. Then normal selection is out the window. For already living, it is hard to predict how hard it will

by berntb 11y ago

That is true, but the GP's implication is designer babies. Then normal selection is out the window. For already living, it is hard to predict how hard it will be to go from in vitro to in vivo for gene modification. At a minimum, with robotisation we will get cheaper beauty surgery and chemicals can affect confidence and work ethics. So e.g. looks and first impressions (for sexual selection) will be quite irrelevant.

tremon 11y ago
No, normal selection is not out the window then. You've only added a second selection mechanism (parents) on top of nature's. And I'm afraid that selection will be based on hype alone. As to "first impressions" and such, they're based on thousands of years of both social and genetic selection, and I don't think those traits are conveniently located in a single location. Even then, what if the same genome location controls both "first-look judgements" and "jump away from the path of that speeding bike"? As to editing the genome, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. I consider our genome to be a 3.2 billion-line BASIC program (the old-skool one, with line numbers and no variable scoping), without unit tests or documentation of course. Sure, you can replace a single line and still have the program compile or run correctly. But how are you going to conclusively prove that your modification has no unintended side-effects, for either current or future generations?
- berntb 11y ago
  Sure, the parents will have influence. And they will get their information from the culture -- lamarckian evolution, if you want. (Edit: One thing everyone do seem to agree on -- humans are hard wired genetically to get most of our behaviour from culture.) In vivo means "In the living body". The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were about what could be done if it was hard to modify existing bodies. (Sorry if I was unclear.) About modifying the genome safely at all -- see the Iceland project.

by berntb 11y ago

tremon 11y ago

No, normal selection is not out the window then. You've only added a second selection mechanism (parents) on top of nature's. And I'm afraid that selection will be based on hype alone. As to "first impressions" and such, they're based on thousands of years of both social and genetic selection, and I don't think those traits are conveniently located in a single location. Even then, what if the same genome location controls both "first-look judgements" and "jump away from the path of that speeding bike"? As to editing the genome, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. I consider our genome to be a 3.2 billion-line BASIC program (the old-skool one, with line numbers and no variable scoping), without unit tests or documentation of course. Sure, you can replace a single line and still have the program compile or run correctly. But how are you going to conclusively prove that your modification has no unintended side-effects, for either current or future generations?

berntb 11y ago
Sure, the parents will have influence. And they will get their information from the culture -- lamarckian evolution, if you want. (Edit: One thing everyone do seem to agree on -- humans are hard wired genetically to get most of our behaviour from culture.) In vivo means "In the living body". The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were about what could be done if it was hard to modify existing bodies. (Sorry if I was unclear.) About modifying the genome safely at all -- see the Iceland project.