3 ms·

> Do we allow a bunch of 6'5" mega-geniuses with blonde hair, blue eyes, and all the right genotypes to take over society? We will. Quoting from https://westhu

> Do we allow a bunch of 6'5" mega-geniuses with blonde hair, blue eyes, and all the right genotypes to take over society? We will. Quoting from https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/typos/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/typos/ "What would a spelling-checked person, one with no genetic typos, be like? Since no such person has ever existed, we have to speculate. I figure that kind of guy would win the decathlon, steal your shirt and your girl -- and you still couldn't help liking him."

charlchi 9y ago
This is all optimistic speculation. Being able to remove diseases from our genome is not equivalent to being able to create mega-geniuses with blonde hair. The "spelling-checked" persons DNA is just that, their DNA. It says nothing about how they're going to be raised, environmental factors etc. Before we can even start to think about "engineering" ourselves we still need to figure out how we're engineered to begin with and how that engineering changes throughout the span of our lives.
crote 9y ago
How would that work in practice? Of course, you could eliminate all hereditary diseases, make people smarter, remove certain genetic predispositions; but I'm not convinced that the "perfection" thing is possible. The most obvious being, what exactly is perfection? If you ask 100 people to describe their perfect partner, you'd get 100 completely different answers. If our species would converge to any one of those descriptions, those who have a different idea of perfection would find themselves in a objectively worse world. Converging to some kind of average wouldn't be any better either. Just take a look at the standards of beauty even over the last, say, 40 years. There's no constant, purely objective measurement of beauty, so to me it seems impossible to create perfection.
- sanxiyn 9y ago
  It's actually easy. For each allele, you simply take the majority allele. Yes, this will lose some new beneficial mutations, but since most mutations are deleterious, taking majority allele is guaranteed to be an improvement in whole. Huge improvement.
  - crote 9y ago
    I don't follow your reasoning. It might work for some genes, but a very large part has no meaningful significance at all. If we were to simply take the majority allele, that would eliminate all blonde people, all redheads, everyone who has any form of biological talent for anything whatsoever; you'd even get rid of white people altogether: after all, they are the minority. Taking the majority would mean getting rid of all variation. To me, that is not at all what I would call a huge improvement.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      Plus there's going to be interaction between the genes. After all, that's exactly what evolution is trying to evaluate. If it was possible to simply know the answer, don't you think it would have found that in 3 billion years runtime ? Duplicate some hollywood star's genes ? Maybe even a scientist's ? Some combination ? Perhaps (have fun being the first one to try it though). "Perfect" genes/humans ? No way. It'll take decades before we can create smarter humans. "Duplicate" your beloved pet ? Sure (domesticated animals are pretty close to clones already, but whatever). However, it'd be much easier to create the perfect dishwasher/street wiper/soldier. Obedient, maybe even dependent on a drug and unable to reproduce by themselves (ala Monsanto plants). And the question isn't whether we can stop the US military from doing that. The question is whether we can stop China.
      - davidivadavid 9y ago
        Speaking as a marketer, I think people will be more interested in differentiation than in perfection (provided the basics are covered). I.e. get the "secret" formula for a unique hair color or body proportions, or whatever. If everybody's "perfect" in the same way, there's no advantage to being perfect, and people will look for ways to differentiate. (Of course all of this is Hollywood-level speculation, but still).
cimmanom 9y ago
That's falling pretty strongly on the nature side of the nature vs nurture debate.

charlchi 9y ago

This is all optimistic speculation. Being able to remove diseases from our genome is not equivalent to being able to create mega-geniuses with blonde hair. The "spelling-checked" persons DNA is just that, their DNA. It says nothing about how they're going to be raised, environmental factors etc. Before we can even start to think about "engineering" ourselves we still need to figure out how we're engineered to begin with and how that engineering changes throughout the span of our lives.

crote 9y ago

How would that work in practice? Of course, you could eliminate all hereditary diseases, make people smarter, remove certain genetic predispositions; but I'm not convinced that the "perfection" thing is possible. The most obvious being, what exactly is perfection? If you ask 100 people to describe their perfect partner, you'd get 100 completely different answers. If our species would converge to any one of those descriptions, those who have a different idea of perfection would find themselves in a objectively worse world. Converging to some kind of average wouldn't be any better either. Just take a look at the standards of beauty even over the last, say, 40 years. There's no constant, purely objective measurement of beauty, so to me it seems impossible to create perfection.

sanxiyn 9y ago
It's actually easy. For each allele, you simply take the majority allele. Yes, this will lose some new beneficial mutations, but since most mutations are deleterious, taking majority allele is guaranteed to be an improvement in whole. Huge improvement.
- crote 9y ago
  I don't follow your reasoning. It might work for some genes, but a very large part has no meaningful significance at all. If we were to simply take the majority allele, that would eliminate all blonde people, all redheads, everyone who has any form of biological talent for anything whatsoever; you'd even get rid of white people altogether: after all, they are the minority. Taking the majority would mean getting rid of all variation. To me, that is not at all what I would call a huge improvement.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Plus there's going to be interaction between the genes. After all, that's exactly what evolution is trying to evaluate. If it was possible to simply know the answer, don't you think it would have found that in 3 billion years runtime ? Duplicate some hollywood star's genes ? Maybe even a scientist's ? Some combination ? Perhaps (have fun being the first one to try it though). "Perfect" genes/humans ? No way. It'll take decades before we can create smarter humans. "Duplicate" your beloved pet ? Sure (domesticated animals are pretty close to clones already, but whatever). However, it'd be much easier to create the perfect dishwasher/street wiper/soldier. Obedient, maybe even dependent on a drug and unable to reproduce by themselves (ala Monsanto plants). And the question isn't whether we can stop the US military from doing that. The question is whether we can stop China.
    - davidivadavid 9y ago
      Speaking as a marketer, I think people will be more interested in differentiation than in perfection (provided the basics are covered). I.e. get the "secret" formula for a unique hair color or body proportions, or whatever. If everybody's "perfect" in the same way, there's no advantage to being perfect, and people will look for ways to differentiate. (Of course all of this is Hollywood-level speculation, but still).

cimmanom 9y ago

That's falling pretty strongly on the nature side of the nature vs nurture debate.