5 ms·

Completely agree. This has always been a fabricated issue anyway. People enhance themselves all sorts of ways, diet exercise, tutoring, etc. The hysteria over

by darawk 8y ago

Completely agree. This has always been a fabricated issue anyway. People enhance themselves all sorts of ways, diet exercise, tutoring, etc. The hysteria over genetic engineering will last just as long as it takes for the first few successful attempts to show their benefits, and then everyone will promptly forget it was ever an issue at all.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
untog 8y ago
Yes, but genes are one of the last equalisers out there. To an extent, obviously - your genes come from your parents - but rich and poor alike have both benefitted and suffered from their genetic makeups. Before long genetic engineering will be commonplace but almost exclusively among the rich. Arguably, much like dieting, exercise and tutoring.
- eloff 8y ago
  The rich will always have advantages. Technology just gives them more. But it's up to the state to level the field if and where appropriate. Currently the US is dead last among developed nations in doing this.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Yes, but the field shouldn't be leveled by holding all of humanity back. That's silly. It should be leveled by giving everyone access to the technology.
- darawk 8y ago
  True, but my point is that banning genetic engineering will seem as silly as banning tutoring. You don't ban the ability to improve yourself because some people might use it to be better than others.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- docbrown 8y ago
  >Before long genetic engineering will be commonplace but almost exclusively among the rich. I think we’ve already fell into this type of scenario and I think this is partially why some are so against it. They’re looking at this as an luxury to families but if done right, gene engineering could and should be used solely to protect against inheritable and community spread diseases. This type of engineering can be a massive breakthrough for developing countries and similar areas. But looking at this from a realistic standpoint: genetic engineering will be a taboo extreme that only a few will ever be successful with—until it is internationally recognized as beneficial and properly regulated.
- daemonk 8y ago
  Maybe a more relevant analogy are medical procedures. IE. Banning specialized brain or heart surgery because only rich people can afford it.
- speby 8y ago
  Perhaps. And like salt in ancient times, there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means. I can see that being the case for genetic engineering too. Consider that the first genome sequencing (the human genome project) cost around $2.7 billion dollars in the 90s (https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-complet...). These days, you can do a full sequenincing of your DNA (not like the 23andme style) for around $1,400 (https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-complet...).
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means Inequality is rising, not falling. For example, any person at all today can easily get their hands on weapon that would win them any fight with a caveman wielding a bone, sure. But today, there's tanks and satellites and whatnot -- the most powerless became WAY more powerless in contras to the most powerful. You don't compare the poor of today with the rich of yesterday, you compare the them with the rich of today. And you compare the poor of tomorrow with the rich of tomorrow. > Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell Already it's pretty normal for rich people to consider themselves above socializing with poor people. Adding editing of genes on top of that might not just turn that wide gap into a fortified moat, complete with property rights and patents and enforcement of said patents (imagine getting a mutation by chance that you have no license for), it might also mess up the incentives for medical research even more. Why find a cure for a disease that anyone can get, that is another "equalizer", when you can immunize yourself and your offspring to it? You may say all such things will always be made available to everybody, but how would you know now? What of the current behaviour of the powerful gives you reason to consider that likely? When it comes to biodiversity and the possibility of extinction, not many HN comments mention the people with the biggest footprints, but a lot mention "overpopulation". So how would that mesh with making the unwashed masses more resilient and healthy? Wouldn't it make more sense to go the opposite way? You see, "perhaps" isn't good enough with something like this. At these speeds, "eventually" steering means crashing into a wall.
- darawk 8y ago
  > Yes, but genes are one of the last equalisers out there. Are they equalisers though? And what makes you think gene editing won't be available to everyone? It seems like the sort of thing with an exponential cost curve. It will very rapidly become cheap and accessible to all. In fact, i'd argue it's likely to be more equalizing than inequalizing.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And what makes you think gene editing won't be available to everyone? It seems like the sort of thing with an exponential cost curve. It will very rapidly become cheap and accessible to all. The rich and already disproportionately powerful will get it and use it first (creating barriers to upward mobility and exacerbating class power divides), then will have every incentive (and even more disproportionate power than previously) to create barriers to access. Similar to the reason that, 70+ years later, there are only a handful of nuclear weapons states.
    - darawk 8y ago
      You mean like how they did with the iPhone? Where exactly has that ever happened for any nontrivial period of time? Technology gets pushed to the masses. The rich will get richer by selling it to them not keeping it for themselves.
orblivion 8y ago
Since you're so certain all of these philosophical issues are silly, could you explain why we care to propagate our species (and not some other species) to begin with?
- darawk 8y ago
  Which philosophical issues are you talking about?
  - orblivion 8y ago
    "Once we do this, we're no longer human." Perhaps for some people, this takes the form of "this is playing God". EDIT: What hysteria were you talking about?
    - darawk 8y ago
      > "Once we do this, we're no longer human." Perhaps for some people, this takes the form of "this is playing God". I think the burden of proof is on the person asserting that to say why it is so. We alter ourselves in lots of ways, why is this different? > EDIT: What hysteria were you talking about? All the scientists condemning this as terrible, and articles written about the dystopian future it portends.
      - orblivion 8y ago
        > We alter ourselves in lots of ways, why is this different? This is a fair question. And I've had philosophical problems taking psychiatric drugs, for that matter. (I think it's resolved to some extent by considering that lots of substances we ingest all the time are psychoactive. So it's part of the normal human experience.) I would say this - Whatever modification you make, you have to come up with a line, a standard, for which you argue "this is still a human." I draw that line at deliberate engineering of genetics. What is yours? Are there some genes that still shouldn't be edited? Maybe you could draw some line there? OR, if you think that's a silly question and don't care about what is or isn't a human, let's revisit the equally silly assumption that we should care about propagating the human race. I personally feel like if you take such a nihilistic approach to the definition of human, you may as well go all the way and adopt an anti-natalist position. It's just not clear any more what game we're playing. > All the scientists condemning this as terrible, and articles written about the dystopian future it portends. Interesting, I'd expect scientists to be on the pro-side of this. I don't know have a strong opinion on the consequential outcomes. (Made some edits above)
sytelus 8y ago
Gene modifications slips in to rest of the population, other changes don't. You can think of every human being as virus out to infect others with its genes ;). Given how so many parents are desperate about their kids to succeed in the super-competitive world, this is bound to become a trend - especially in middle class population who have money for the procedure but aren't rich. In China, Japan, there is cutthroat fight for getting in best schools, be the most attractive etc. These parents are also very easy to be mislead with incorrect/incomplete information.
- darawk 8y ago
  Ya but so what? I feel like people often say something like what you said, but I don't really see the dystopian future that its supposed to invoke.
Terribledactyl 8y ago
I agree with the fabricated outrage but there is an interesting difference between diet, exercise, tutoring. Your descendents also get your enhancement for free. (Or at least 50% off)
- naasking 8y ago
  Actually, lifestyle choices can be transmitted to kids via epigenetic factors. Not to mention that wealth is also heritable.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
When will the hysteria over the "hysteria" end, and the actual discussion begin? If one side leads into it with just smearing the other as "hysteric", they don't win, they forfeit.

by darawk 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

untog 8y ago

Yes, but genes are one of the last equalisers out there. To an extent, obviously - your genes come from your parents - but rich and poor alike have both benefitted and suffered from their genetic makeups. Before long genetic engineering will be commonplace but almost exclusively among the rich. Arguably, much like dieting, exercise and tutoring.

eloff 8y ago
The rich will always have advantages. Technology just gives them more. But it's up to the state to level the field if and where appropriate. Currently the US is dead last among developed nations in doing this.
- darawk 8y ago
  Yes, but the field shouldn't be leveled by holding all of humanity back. That's silly. It should be leveled by giving everyone access to the technology.
darawk 8y ago
True, but my point is that banning genetic engineering will seem as silly as banning tutoring. You don't ban the ability to improve yourself because some people might use it to be better than others.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
docbrown 8y ago
>Before long genetic engineering will be commonplace but almost exclusively among the rich. I think we’ve already fell into this type of scenario and I think this is partially why some are so against it. They’re looking at this as an luxury to families but if done right, gene engineering could and should be used solely to protect against inheritable and community spread diseases. This type of engineering can be a massive breakthrough for developing countries and similar areas. But looking at this from a realistic standpoint: genetic engineering will be a taboo extreme that only a few will ever be successful with—until it is internationally recognized as beneficial and properly regulated.
daemonk 8y ago
Maybe a more relevant analogy are medical procedures. IE. Banning specialized brain or heart surgery because only rich people can afford it.
speby 8y ago
Perhaps. And like salt in ancient times, there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means. I can see that being the case for genetic engineering too. Consider that the first genome sequencing (the human genome project) cost around $2.7 billion dollars in the 90s (https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-complet...). These days, you can do a full sequenincing of your DNA (not like the 23andme style) for around $1,400 (https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-complet...).
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means Inequality is rising, not falling. For example, any person at all today can easily get their hands on weapon that would win them any fight with a caveman wielding a bone, sure. But today, there's tanks and satellites and whatnot -- the most powerless became WAY more powerless in contras to the most powerful. You don't compare the poor of today with the rich of yesterday, you compare the them with the rich of today. And you compare the poor of tomorrow with the rich of tomorrow. > Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell Already it's pretty normal for rich people to consider themselves above socializing with poor people. Adding editing of genes on top of that might not just turn that wide gap into a fortified moat, complete with property rights and patents and enforcement of said patents (imagine getting a mutation by chance that you have no license for), it might also mess up the incentives for medical research even more. Why find a cure for a disease that anyone can get, that is another "equalizer", when you can immunize yourself and your offspring to it? You may say all such things will always be made available to everybody, but how would you know now? What of the current behaviour of the powerful gives you reason to consider that likely? When it comes to biodiversity and the possibility of extinction, not many HN comments mention the people with the biggest footprints, but a lot mention "overpopulation". So how would that mesh with making the unwashed masses more resilient and healthy? Wouldn't it make more sense to go the opposite way? You see, "perhaps" isn't good enough with something like this. At these speeds, "eventually" steering means crashing into a wall.
darawk 8y ago
> Yes, but genes are one of the last equalisers out there. Are they equalisers though? And what makes you think gene editing won't be available to everyone? It seems like the sort of thing with an exponential cost curve. It will very rapidly become cheap and accessible to all. In fact, i'd argue it's likely to be more equalizing than inequalizing.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And what makes you think gene editing won't be available to everyone? It seems like the sort of thing with an exponential cost curve. It will very rapidly become cheap and accessible to all. The rich and already disproportionately powerful will get it and use it first (creating barriers to upward mobility and exacerbating class power divides), then will have every incentive (and even more disproportionate power than previously) to create barriers to access. Similar to the reason that, 70+ years later, there are only a handful of nuclear weapons states.
  - darawk 8y ago
    You mean like how they did with the iPhone? Where exactly has that ever happened for any nontrivial period of time? Technology gets pushed to the masses. The rich will get richer by selling it to them not keeping it for themselves.

orblivion 8y ago

Since you're so certain all of these philosophical issues are silly, could you explain why we care to propagate our species (and not some other species) to begin with?

darawk 8y ago
Which philosophical issues are you talking about?
- orblivion 8y ago
  "Once we do this, we're no longer human." Perhaps for some people, this takes the form of "this is playing God". EDIT: What hysteria were you talking about?
  - darawk 8y ago
    > "Once we do this, we're no longer human." Perhaps for some people, this takes the form of "this is playing God". I think the burden of proof is on the person asserting that to say why it is so. We alter ourselves in lots of ways, why is this different? > EDIT: What hysteria were you talking about? All the scientists condemning this as terrible, and articles written about the dystopian future it portends.
    - orblivion 8y ago
      > We alter ourselves in lots of ways, why is this different? This is a fair question. And I've had philosophical problems taking psychiatric drugs, for that matter. (I think it's resolved to some extent by considering that lots of substances we ingest all the time are psychoactive. So it's part of the normal human experience.) I would say this - Whatever modification you make, you have to come up with a line, a standard, for which you argue "this is still a human." I draw that line at deliberate engineering of genetics. What is yours? Are there some genes that still shouldn't be edited? Maybe you could draw some line there? OR, if you think that's a silly question and don't care about what is or isn't a human, let's revisit the equally silly assumption that we should care about propagating the human race. I personally feel like if you take such a nihilistic approach to the definition of human, you may as well go all the way and adopt an anti-natalist position. It's just not clear any more what game we're playing. > All the scientists condemning this as terrible, and articles written about the dystopian future it portends. Interesting, I'd expect scientists to be on the pro-side of this. I don't know have a strong opinion on the consequential outcomes. (Made some edits above)

sytelus 8y ago

Gene modifications slips in to rest of the population, other changes don't. You can think of every human being as virus out to infect others with its genes ;). Given how so many parents are desperate about their kids to succeed in the super-competitive world, this is bound to become a trend - especially in middle class population who have money for the procedure but aren't rich. In China, Japan, there is cutthroat fight for getting in best schools, be the most attractive etc. These parents are also very easy to be mislead with incorrect/incomplete information.

darawk 8y ago
Ya but so what? I feel like people often say something like what you said, but I don't really see the dystopian future that its supposed to invoke.

Terribledactyl 8y ago

I agree with the fabricated outrage but there is an interesting difference between diet, exercise, tutoring. Your descendents also get your enhancement for free. (Or at least 50% off)

naasking 8y ago
Actually, lifestyle choices can be transmitted to kids via epigenetic factors. Not to mention that wealth is also heritable.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

When will the hysteria over the "hysteria" end, and the actual discussion begin? If one side leads into it with just smearing the other as "hysteric", they don't win, they forfeit.