8 ms·

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ign

by dr_ 9y ago

I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance - be it mental or physical. But if one nation ignores this consensus, and starts producing "super humans" wouldn't other nations be compelled to follow? Otherwise, over time, wouldn't their citizens, and their nation, slowly fall behind as a country of power and status? Just a thought.

david927 9y ago
My understanding is that China has been doing this for years. *https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838
- drngdds 9y ago
  >Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. Wow, that's a huge deal if it's accurate. (I don't know much about the science involved so I can't judge whether it is.)
theWatcher37 9y ago
I all honestly, we can not allow a gene-gap. Forget racism, what happens when a country can actually make it's people "better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?
- Tade0 9y ago
  The rest of the world either catches up or lands in a zoo eventually.
  - biggerbistro 9y ago
    The fact that more people aren't terrified of this worries me. Hitler may have been wrong with his "aryan superman" view but what happens when there is science backing it up? Not really looking forward to a genetically-enforced caste system.
- zanny 9y ago
  Are you going to declare war over it? Unlike how a lot of science fiction portrayed it, it really does not look like genetic modification is going to be individually costly once it is "production ready". A lot of the fears are of creating an underclass of genetically inferior humans, and then the usual argument is you have to ban improvement based modifications for that reason, but why not just promote not having unmodified births the same way we somewhat incentivize aborting fetuses with significant defects already? All it is moving the bar higher, so that the "average" natural birth just becomes acknowledged as a defect. This is not new - centuries ago children born with even some of the most debilitating mental retardations could still be useful as manual laborers doing the most simple tasks. The abolition of most of those tasks has made is so extraordinary mental deficiency is almost always absolutely crippling, to the degree parents often do decide to abort over it. The bar was raised then. People only seem content with it because it is both uncommon and a burden to them to support the deficient. When we have superhumans, are regular humans not then also a burden?
taneq 9y ago
Assuming it becomes possible - why shouldn't people edit their genes to produce superior children? We're already talking about just that, when we discuss editing out congenital diseases and the like. The only difference between the two cases is that one is eliminating unexpected weaknesses and the other is eliminating generally-expected weaknesses. Really what's being said is that nobody should be allowed to use their resources to improve their offspring beyond the level of random chance. This mentality isn't about ensuring that anyone does well, it's about preventing anyone from doing better, like crabs in a bucket.
- aquadrop 9y ago
  Don't forget to enhance empathy genes then as well, because if you don't, oh boy this new generation of superhumans will make previous ones to suffer.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    This isn't just a theoretical concern. Several genes known to improve cognitive skills harm social skills. (social skills and empathy are not the same, but they are related)
maga 9y ago
>I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance I'd like to know what's scientific about it and who reached that consensus. There are a plethora of things to define before we even begin this discussion. What constitutes an enhancement? Isn't removing recessive genes aka "curing genetic deceases" an enhancement? If some people already have these "superior" genes, is it just to keep others from getting them? Who decides what genes are good or bad anyway? What's fundamentally different between trying to improve the germline by these means and the "natural" way of choosing best mates? We are choosing genes in both cases, in case of CRISPR we are trying to do it with better precision and certainty.

by dr_ 9y ago

david927 9y ago

My understanding is that China has been doing this for years. *https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

drngdds 9y ago
>Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. Wow, that's a huge deal if it's accurate. (I don't know much about the science involved so I can't judge whether it is.)

theWatcher37 9y ago

I all honestly, we can not allow a gene-gap. Forget racism, what happens when a country can actually make it's people "better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?

Tade0 9y ago
The rest of the world either catches up or lands in a zoo eventually.
- biggerbistro 9y ago
  The fact that more people aren't terrified of this worries me. Hitler may have been wrong with his "aryan superman" view but what happens when there is science backing it up? Not really looking forward to a genetically-enforced caste system.
zanny 9y ago
Are you going to declare war over it? Unlike how a lot of science fiction portrayed it, it really does not look like genetic modification is going to be individually costly once it is "production ready". A lot of the fears are of creating an underclass of genetically inferior humans, and then the usual argument is you have to ban improvement based modifications for that reason, but why not just promote not having unmodified births the same way we somewhat incentivize aborting fetuses with significant defects already? All it is moving the bar higher, so that the "average" natural birth just becomes acknowledged as a defect. This is not new - centuries ago children born with even some of the most debilitating mental retardations could still be useful as manual laborers doing the most simple tasks. The abolition of most of those tasks has made is so extraordinary mental deficiency is almost always absolutely crippling, to the degree parents often do decide to abort over it. The bar was raised then. People only seem content with it because it is both uncommon and a burden to them to support the deficient. When we have superhumans, are regular humans not then also a burden?

taneq 9y ago

Assuming it becomes possible - why shouldn't people edit their genes to produce superior children? We're already talking about just that, when we discuss editing out congenital diseases and the like. The only difference between the two cases is that one is eliminating unexpected weaknesses and the other is eliminating generally-expected weaknesses. Really what's being said is that nobody should be allowed to use their resources to improve their offspring beyond the level of random chance. This mentality isn't about ensuring that anyone does well, it's about preventing anyone from doing better, like crabs in a bucket.

aquadrop 9y ago
Don't forget to enhance empathy genes then as well, because if you don't, oh boy this new generation of superhumans will make previous ones to suffer.
- bluGill 9y ago
  This isn't just a theoretical concern. Several genes known to improve cognitive skills harm social skills. (social skills and empathy are not the same, but they are related)

maga 9y ago

>I realize that scientific consensus is that gene editing should not be permitted to enhance human performance I'd like to know what's scientific about it and who reached that consensus. There are a plethora of things to define before we even begin this discussion. What constitutes an enhancement? Isn't removing recessive genes aka "curing genetic deceases" an enhancement? If some people already have these "superior" genes, is it just to keep others from getting them? Who decides what genes are good or bad anyway? What's fundamentally different between trying to improve the germline by these means and the "natural" way of choosing best mates? We are choosing genes in both cases, in case of CRISPR we are trying to do it with better precision and certainty.