11 ms·

Unfortunately, human germline modification is still taboo here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/scientists-argue-the-us-ban-on-human-gene-editing-wil

Unfortunately, human germline modification is still taboo here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/scientists-argue-the-us-ban-on-human-gene-editing-will-leave-it-behind https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/scientists-argue-... It angers me that a misguided and stringent sense of ethics might slow the deployment of one of the most beneficial technologies ever conceived.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
I agree with this, but not a popular opinion. Hence the down votes you are getting. Korea and China don't have the same memetic immune response to such ideas, injecting one's children with growth hormone in hope of increasing future job prospects, for example, is extremely common in Korea. I suspect embryo selection and generic engineering for increased IQ will take off in East Asia first. Then we will be forced to allow it to compete. 50+ more IQ points looks very possible: https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 However, any significant lag could spell the end of American economic dominance. For this reason, I intend to start investing more in Korean firms in the next few decades.
- deepnotderp 10y ago
  A better way to increase iq would be to raise the socioeconomic level...
  - cm2012 10y ago
    If genetic boosting is actually possible and not fringe bullshit, it's way faster than socioeconomic fixes, which seem to take 10 years per 3 iq points.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
    Nope. Genetic engineering works far, far better. We've already plucked the low hanging fruit of adequate nutrition, early education, salt iodization, and lead reduction. Anyway, those reduce mental retardation, they don't improve the baseline too much. And the Flynn effect looks to be slowing or reversing. 50 IQ points is huge. It's the difference between a burger flipper and a physics professor. The change to the world when the average 5th grader is mastering chromodynamics is hard to even contemplate.
    - josephagoss 10y ago
      Is there any foreseeable way to apply gene editing like this to adults? Could existing adults (us) in the future make use of this type of IQ increase?
      - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
        Not impossible but much, much, much more plausible with embryos. Modifying billions of neurons is a very, very tall order, and would likely be much less effective after the brain is grown. Embryo selection and modification are almost doable now, we just don't know which alleles to select for or edit in. A gift you can give your children but one you are unlikely to be able to get for yourself.
        deepnotderp 10y ago
        This is true, as much as I disagree with his ideas. Trying to genetically modify a living adult across many cells is very difficult.
        josephagoss 10y ago
        Who's ideas?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
      > Genetic engineering works far, far better. Um, do we know that? Unless I've missed some very interesting research that sounds like an extremely untested hypothesis.
      - blueblimp 10y ago
        It's untested in the sense that no genetic engineering has been done in humans, yes. (Unless you count gene therapy to cure disease, which is fairly different.) However, there are some pretty strong reasons to think it would work, at least if we're just talking about improving within the typical range of human ability. Going to the extremes of existing ability and beyond is probably possible too, but there are more unexpected problems that could exist.
  - ygaf 10y ago
    No amount of life quality can raise iq by the magnitude in the parent post.
    - kweinber 10y ago
      If we don't try, then we'll have a lot of poor, sick, and unhappy geniuses walking around. I wonder which types of crime they'll optimize?
      - quotemstr 10y ago
        Wow. That's amazing. You're actually arguing that we need to keep hoi polloi stupid so that it's easier to control them.
        deepnotderp 10y ago
        No, he's arguing that we provide the "hoi polloi" with a higher quality of life...
  - gspetr 10y ago
    It only takes you so far. Mainland China is 99, Hong Kong is 107. The ethnicity is virtually the same so that is being as close to a controlled parameter as it realistically can be without doing unethical things.
- DaUR 10y ago
  Would it not be the same argument as GMOs, that we don't understand the consequences enough and therefore shouldn't be used? N. Taleb has quite a detailed critique of GMOs, I'm wondering if this is the same to that and if the same concerns apply.
- samfisher83 10y ago
  Well what happens when people start modifying people not for illness, but for other characteristics. You start having parents paying for their kids to make them faster, stronger, smarter, etc. You are left with two classes of citizens which might already be the case with wealth inequality. What about athletics with gene doping? It might be inevitable, but you have to think about what might end up happening.
  - quotemstr 10y ago
    So because some people might benefit and not others, we're all supposed to be stuck with these Savannah-adapted bodies forever? That's the ultimate crab bucket mentality.
mrfusion 10y ago
That same misguided sense of ethics is becoming rampant everywhere. It might end up completely halting human progress. Looks at the first Reddit comment on any interesting new technology. There's always someone dismissing the whole idea due to some outlandish risk.
amluto 10y ago
I would like to see reliable, precise modifications before human germline modifications happen. As I understand it, current techniques involve infecting cells, integrating whole foreign genes (or even genomes) into them, and hoping that a beneficial modification comes along for the ride. If every family starts editing their children's genome like this, we'll end up with a whole lot of random crap in our germlines. CRISPR is better but not there yet, I believe. Let's get all the way to being able to do the equivalent of sed to our germline cells before we start editing.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago

I agree with this, but not a popular opinion. Hence the down votes you are getting. Korea and China don't have the same memetic immune response to such ideas, injecting one's children with growth hormone in hope of increasing future job prospects, for example, is extremely common in Korea. I suspect embryo selection and generic engineering for increased IQ will take off in East Asia first. Then we will be forced to allow it to compete. 50+ more IQ points looks very possible: https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 However, any significant lag could spell the end of American economic dominance. For this reason, I intend to start investing more in Korean firms in the next few decades.

deepnotderp 10y ago
A better way to increase iq would be to raise the socioeconomic level...
- cm2012 10y ago
  If genetic boosting is actually possible and not fringe bullshit, it's way faster than socioeconomic fixes, which seem to take 10 years per 3 iq points.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  Nope. Genetic engineering works far, far better. We've already plucked the low hanging fruit of adequate nutrition, early education, salt iodization, and lead reduction. Anyway, those reduce mental retardation, they don't improve the baseline too much. And the Flynn effect looks to be slowing or reversing. 50 IQ points is huge. It's the difference between a burger flipper and a physics professor. The change to the world when the average 5th grader is mastering chromodynamics is hard to even contemplate.
  - josephagoss 10y ago
    Is there any foreseeable way to apply gene editing like this to adults? Could existing adults (us) in the future make use of this type of IQ increase?
    - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
      Not impossible but much, much, much more plausible with embryos. Modifying billions of neurons is a very, very tall order, and would likely be much less effective after the brain is grown. Embryo selection and modification are almost doable now, we just don't know which alleles to select for or edit in. A gift you can give your children but one you are unlikely to be able to get for yourself.
      - deepnotderp 10y ago
        This is true, as much as I disagree with his ideas. Trying to genetically modify a living adult across many cells is very difficult.
        josephagoss 10y ago
        Who's ideas?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
    > Genetic engineering works far, far better. Um, do we know that? Unless I've missed some very interesting research that sounds like an extremely untested hypothesis.
    - blueblimp 10y ago
      It's untested in the sense that no genetic engineering has been done in humans, yes. (Unless you count gene therapy to cure disease, which is fairly different.) However, there are some pretty strong reasons to think it would work, at least if we're just talking about improving within the typical range of human ability. Going to the extremes of existing ability and beyond is probably possible too, but there are more unexpected problems that could exist.
- ygaf 10y ago
  No amount of life quality can raise iq by the magnitude in the parent post.
  - kweinber 10y ago
    If we don't try, then we'll have a lot of poor, sick, and unhappy geniuses walking around. I wonder which types of crime they'll optimize?
    - quotemstr 10y ago
      Wow. That's amazing. You're actually arguing that we need to keep hoi polloi stupid so that it's easier to control them.
      - deepnotderp 10y ago
        No, he's arguing that we provide the "hoi polloi" with a higher quality of life...
- gspetr 10y ago
  It only takes you so far. Mainland China is 99, Hong Kong is 107. The ethnicity is virtually the same so that is being as close to a controlled parameter as it realistically can be without doing unethical things.
DaUR 10y ago
Would it not be the same argument as GMOs, that we don't understand the consequences enough and therefore shouldn't be used? N. Taleb has quite a detailed critique of GMOs, I'm wondering if this is the same to that and if the same concerns apply.
samfisher83 10y ago
Well what happens when people start modifying people not for illness, but for other characteristics. You start having parents paying for their kids to make them faster, stronger, smarter, etc. You are left with two classes of citizens which might already be the case with wealth inequality. What about athletics with gene doping? It might be inevitable, but you have to think about what might end up happening.
- quotemstr 10y ago
  So because some people might benefit and not others, we're all supposed to be stuck with these Savannah-adapted bodies forever? That's the ultimate crab bucket mentality.

mrfusion 10y ago

That same misguided sense of ethics is becoming rampant everywhere. It might end up completely halting human progress. Looks at the first Reddit comment on any interesting new technology. There's always someone dismissing the whole idea due to some outlandish risk.

amluto 10y ago

I would like to see reliable, precise modifications before human germline modifications happen. As I understand it, current techniques involve infecting cells, integrating whole foreign genes (or even genomes) into them, and hoping that a beneficial modification comes along for the ride. If every family starts editing their children's genome like this, we'll end up with a whole lot of random crap in our germlines. CRISPR is better but not there yet, I believe. Let's get all the way to being able to do the equivalent of sed to our germline cells before we start editing.