4 ms·

> Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations loo

> Perhaps this is true. I do not know. But human enhancement through genetic engineering is coming. Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations looks possible. We would be fools to outlaw it here, for we would become as children compared to future citizens of Asian nations. What is the relevance of "Asian nations?" to this conversation? Also, we're talking about a specific experiment that was allegedly conducted in human beings with (good but error-prone) genome editing mechanisms, outside of the purview of peer review or, from what I can tell, an IRB.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dqpb 8y ago
"good but error prone" describes all of medical care right now. Hell, pharmaceuticals aren't even good in many cases.
- carbocation 8y ago
  That's absolutely not the standard for deciding to conduct an experiment on humans.
  - modzu 8y ago
    remember also its an unborn child -- its not an experiment on the living, consenting adult. child grows up, experiences whatever unknown consequences of the genetic experiment. thanks dad!
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    Only true if your country and culture cares about IRBs. China doesn’t, it’s a quarter of the human population and it won’t be long until it’s that of global GDP at least. What a bunch of post Christians with delusions about the universality of their ethical code think does not bother them at all.
    - goatlover 8y ago
      Yeah, but then maybe India will counter-balance that. From what I've heard, their ethical code will be against any such modifications.
- ethbro 8y ago
  "Good but error prone" seems to aptly describe our current method of producing offspring. Gene editing is mandatory, if only because we've managed to turn many previously lethal mutations into livable, and reproducible, ones.
nostrademons 8y ago
"What is the relevance of "Asian nations?" to this conversation?" I would assume it's because the article describes genetically-engineered babies in China, so obviously it's not outlawed there (or if it is, the law is not enforced). Grandparent poster is pointing out that if genetic engineering gives survival or competitive benefits to those who do it, it doesn't matter what your personal ethical, moral, and legal standards are, because your whole society will be outcompeted by societies without those strictures.
- anvandare 8y ago
  The purists need not be worried. There's always the hope the descendants of those humans who do take the path of editing their own genetic code will, a few centuries from now, give those purists' descendants a nice small patch of land as a reservation. Or maybe a cozy cage in a zoo, with a little sign next to the bars which reads: "homo sapiens inferior".
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Or, you know, the purists will be spared untold suffering that those others will have to go through because of "magician's apprentice" style editing...
    - anvandare 8y ago
      Of course the first period of experimentation and discovery will lead to unexpected and unpleasant results. All new technology takes time to mature, for the users to get an understanding of its tricky implementation bits and long-term impact. It's not wise to immediately put all your eggs in a brand new basket. But the ones who experiment and adapt will always eventually outperform those who refuse to change and stick to tried-and-tested. That's the very nature of evolution.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >That's the very nature of evolution. Evolution is blind to such concerns. Those who "experiment" might be wiped out because of their experiments gone wrong, and evolution wont care at all. A creature inventing tools might have an evolutionary advantage over others. A creature inventing e.g. biological warfare and nuclear weapons might have less an advantage, it can easily wipe most of its own kind and even collapse its civilization (losing even more advantages).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dqpb 8y ago

"good but error prone" describes all of medical care right now. Hell, pharmaceuticals aren't even good in many cases.

carbocation 8y ago
That's absolutely not the standard for deciding to conduct an experiment on humans.
- modzu 8y ago
  remember also its an unborn child -- its not an experiment on the living, consenting adult. child grows up, experiences whatever unknown consequences of the genetic experiment. thanks dad!
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Only true if your country and culture cares about IRBs. China doesn’t, it’s a quarter of the human population and it won’t be long until it’s that of global GDP at least. What a bunch of post Christians with delusions about the universality of their ethical code think does not bother them at all.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    Yeah, but then maybe India will counter-balance that. From what I've heard, their ethical code will be against any such modifications.
ethbro 8y ago
"Good but error prone" seems to aptly describe our current method of producing offspring. Gene editing is mandatory, if only because we've managed to turn many previously lethal mutations into livable, and reproducible, ones.

nostrademons 8y ago

"What is the relevance of "Asian nations?" to this conversation?" I would assume it's because the article describes genetically-engineered babies in China, so obviously it's not outlawed there (or if it is, the law is not enforced). Grandparent poster is pointing out that if genetic engineering gives survival or competitive benefits to those who do it, it doesn't matter what your personal ethical, moral, and legal standards are, because your whole society will be outcompeted by societies without those strictures.

anvandare 8y ago
The purists need not be worried. There's always the hope the descendants of those humans who do take the path of editing their own genetic code will, a few centuries from now, give those purists' descendants a nice small patch of land as a reservation. Or maybe a cozy cage in a zoo, with a little sign next to the bars which reads: "homo sapiens inferior".
- coldtea 8y ago
  Or, you know, the purists will be spared untold suffering that those others will have to go through because of "magician's apprentice" style editing...
  - anvandare 8y ago
    Of course the first period of experimentation and discovery will lead to unexpected and unpleasant results. All new technology takes time to mature, for the users to get an understanding of its tricky implementation bits and long-term impact. It's not wise to immediately put all your eggs in a brand new basket. But the ones who experiment and adapt will always eventually outperform those who refuse to change and stick to tried-and-tested. That's the very nature of evolution.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >That's the very nature of evolution. Evolution is blind to such concerns. Those who "experiment" might be wiped out because of their experiments gone wrong, and evolution wont care at all. A creature inventing tools might have an evolutionary advantage over others. A creature inventing e.g. biological warfare and nuclear weapons might have less an advantage, it can easily wipe most of its own kind and even collapse its civilization (losing even more advantages).