4 ms·

> CRISPR holds way more promise than silly fantasies of human genetic enhancement I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this. What's so inher

> CRISPR holds way more promise than silly fantasies of human genetic enhancement I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this. What's so inherently wrong with the entire category of genetic "enhancements" (changes for a perceived positive benefit)? You can't respond to this by just pointing out some proposed enhancements or motivations that are silly. I'm asking why you object to the very idea of any enhancements. What about changes to make the following at some point in the future (these are just to give the general idea of positive changes, I'm not saying CRISPR could necessarily be used for them). These are things that in principle could be addressed by genetic "enhancements". - stop people from getting diseases like celiac disease - lessen our evolutionary desire for fatty and sugary foods (that no longer makes sense in the modern world, and which causes great harm) - address some of the more egregious cognitive biases that cause so many problems in the world

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> address some of the more egregious cognitive biases that cause so many problems in the world I'm not sure how to interpret this - are you saying we should use CRISPR to make people think a certain way? If so this seems like a pretty horrific suggestion.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendancies, if they are harmful?
  - wgjordan 8y ago
    In order to consolidate the consensus needed to genetically alter specific 'cognitive biases' that are 'harmful' to 'humans' in 'today's world', you'll probably first need to establish a global totalitarian dictatorship ('take over the world'). That adds an extra technical challenge beyond CRISPR itself, but you can always shoot for the moon and land among the stars.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      Why do you think it'd require a global totalitarian dictatorship?? (Also, why do you put 'cognitive biases' in quotes, as if it's a notion of suspect legitimacy?)
      - snerbles 8y ago
        How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. And, regarding "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program" (emphasis added), grow up.
        snerbles 8y ago
        Changing how people fundamentally think and reason about things is a big deal. Probably the biggest deal out of your suggestions from a societal perspective. Such transformative things will be met with pushback, and if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Own it.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendencies, if they are harmful? The examples I gave are hardly of "Changing how people fundamentally think and reason". > Such transformative things will be met with pushback It certainly could be. There's also what I said in my last comment, about why that's not necessarily so. Which you have ignored. > if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. That is such a ridiculous argument to make in response to what I have said. That is to assume that 1) the governments feel so strongly about it and 2) feel that they need to go to extreme lengths to make their will accepted. There is no reason to think that either of those conditions would be true in the case of DNA modifications like I have talked about. You certainly haven't attempted to argue for it. Your argument could be used against any suggestion. "If such a program of combatting global warming through enforced tax on carbon is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide." See how ridiculous that sounds? > And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Grow up. You said "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program". Show me where I said anything that even implied some sort of 'program' that is 'enforced' upon people, or that I had some sort of plan to do so? Don't try to make it out as if you were saying something else.
fifnir 8y ago
> I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this. And I (as a scientist) really dislike having to frame everything I do as being relevant to human medicine for laymen to appreciate it. Some things are extremely valuable even if they can't be used to treat cancer and congenital disease.
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  I can appreciate that. My only counterpoint is that I and many other "laymen" (as apparently we're referred to?) can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. It's not like genetics is the only field that struggles with this. I'm primarily a web developer and still remember the 10+ years of trying to explain to people why "The Web" was an important technology that would radically impact all of our lives. I still remember the bubble. I still remember being told this was a dead field. Where are those people now? I remember how dismissive people were about mobile apps, too. The same challenge applies to AI, blockchain, virtual/augmented reality, etc. As a non-scientist, I struggle to explain to people why it's important that we increase our funding and support for all of the sciences. It's hard to appreciate how seemingly "useless" discoveries combine with other "useless" discoveries to give us the amazing advances in technology and medicine that we have today. BUT, we have to try. And when some "layman" dares to ask about the meaning of such-and-such a discovery, maybe take a deep breath, recognize we don't all have you incredible knowledge about this topic, and appreciate that someone is expressing interest in what you do, in the only terms they have available to them. All of which was a long-winded way of saying: All I know about CRISPR is what I read in relatively mainstream publications. Help me out. Or don't. Your call, really.
  - fifnir 8y ago
    I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess. Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important thing after actually generating said knowledge. > can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question) "Why do you do this?" "What can we use this for in humans?"
patates 8y ago
> lessen our evolutionary desire for fatty and sugary foods (that no longer makes sense in the modern world, and which causes great harm) What about making them harmless instead? Surviving on donuts (plus perhaps supplements) and staying perfectly healthy... Think about it! :D
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  Sure, that kind of thing might be an option too.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

> address some of the more egregious cognitive biases that cause so many problems in the world I'm not sure how to interpret this - are you saying we should use CRISPR to make people think a certain way? If so this seems like a pretty horrific suggestion.

jamesrcole 8y ago
Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendancies, if they are harmful?
- wgjordan 8y ago
  In order to consolidate the consensus needed to genetically alter specific 'cognitive biases' that are 'harmful' to 'humans' in 'today's world', you'll probably first need to establish a global totalitarian dictatorship ('take over the world'). That adds an extra technical challenge beyond CRISPR itself, but you can always shoot for the moon and land among the stars.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    Why do you think it'd require a global totalitarian dictatorship?? (Also, why do you put 'cognitive biases' in quotes, as if it's a notion of suspect legitimacy?)
    - snerbles 8y ago
      How are you going to enforce your eugenics program when a sizeable chunk of the population resists it?
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        Who said anything about a program enforced on people?? Also, you're assuming it would necessarily be something people resist. Remember that this could be quite a fair way into the future. By that time our understanding of things like the human brain and how it works (and of all its limitations), and of how to change details of our bodies and brains, may be very good and well-accepted, such that it's not a big deal. And, regarding "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program" (emphasis added), grow up.
        snerbles 8y ago
        Changing how people fundamentally think and reason about things is a big deal. Probably the biggest deal out of your suggestions from a societal perspective. Such transformative things will be met with pushback, and if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Own it.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person Humans are, for example, very poor at making risk assessments. Evolution has "programmed" our brains to focus too much on certain things and not enough on others. These heuristics might have made sense in ancestral environments bit are quite harmful in today's world. Evolution has already "made us think a certain way". Why would it be so horrific to, for example, lessen certain of those tendencies, if they are harmful? The examples I gave are hardly of "Changing how people fundamentally think and reason". > Such transformative things will be met with pushback It certainly could be. There's also what I said in my last comment, about why that's not necessarily so. Which you have ignored. > if such a program is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide. That is such a ridiculous argument to make in response to what I have said. That is to assume that 1) the governments feel so strongly about it and 2) feel that they need to go to extreme lengths to make their will accepted. There is no reason to think that either of those conditions would be true in the case of DNA modifications like I have talked about. You certainly haven't attempted to argue for it. Your argument could be used against any suggestion. "If such a program of combatting global warming through enforced tax on carbon is deemed beneficial by the powers-that-be it will be pushed upon the populace through means anywhere from marketing campaigns to outright genocide." See how ridiculous that sounds? > And since you suggested it and are actively defending it in this thread, yes it is yours in the context of this thread. Grow up. You said "How are you going to enforce your eugenics program". Show me where I said anything that even implied some sort of 'program' that is 'enforced' upon people, or that I had some sort of plan to do so? Don't try to make it out as if you were saying something else.

fifnir 8y ago

> I really dislike pandering, dismissive statements like this. And I (as a scientist) really dislike having to frame everything I do as being relevant to human medicine for laymen to appreciate it. Some things are extremely valuable even if they can't be used to treat cancer and congenital disease.

nickelcitymario 8y ago
I can appreciate that. My only counterpoint is that I and many other "laymen" (as apparently we're referred to?) can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. It's not like genetics is the only field that struggles with this. I'm primarily a web developer and still remember the 10+ years of trying to explain to people why "The Web" was an important technology that would radically impact all of our lives. I still remember the bubble. I still remember being told this was a dead field. Where are those people now? I remember how dismissive people were about mobile apps, too. The same challenge applies to AI, blockchain, virtual/augmented reality, etc. As a non-scientist, I struggle to explain to people why it's important that we increase our funding and support for all of the sciences. It's hard to appreciate how seemingly "useless" discoveries combine with other "useless" discoveries to give us the amazing advances in technology and medicine that we have today. BUT, we have to try. And when some "layman" dares to ask about the meaning of such-and-such a discovery, maybe take a deep breath, recognize we don't all have you incredible knowledge about this topic, and appreciate that someone is expressing interest in what you do, in the only terms they have available to them. All of which was a long-winded way of saying: All I know about CRISPR is what I read in relatively mainstream publications. Help me out. Or don't. Your call, really.
- fifnir 8y ago
  I re-read the thread and you're right, you were a bit unfairly "attacked" for asking a reasonable question. I focused on what you said without taking context into proper consideration, sorry for that. I was not responding to your original question, but more so to ... something in my head I guess. Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important thing after actually generating said knowledge. > can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it. The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question) "Why do you do this?" "What can we use this for in humans?"

patates 8y ago

> lessen our evolutionary desire for fatty and sugary foods (that no longer makes sense in the modern world, and which causes great harm) What about making them harmless instead? Surviving on donuts (plus perhaps supplements) and staying perfectly healthy... Think about it! :D

jamesrcole 8y ago
Sure, that kind of thing might be an option too.