7 ms·

The worst part is that by the time they were in Kindergarten, the newer models would obsolete them. Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter! Now 10% off!

CBLT 8y ago
I think that a newer generation having advantages over a previous one doesn't mean any improvement of our stature is forbidden.
- xrjrj 8y ago
  Yes, if the time scales of the updates were spaced across generations. But I guess commercial availability of such technology would mean much shorter time scales leading to very bad consequences for the aging population. Eventually, perhaps leading events like one generation deciding to stop manufacturing babies. Could lead to scary consequences if not thought through...
songco 8y ago
It's ok and good thing if the results is only positive like "Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter". (Maybe not include Bigger?) The worst part of this is that it may not safe. If this introduced some flaws in the babies gene, how to control this, don't allow them have babies?
- rmellow 8y ago
  Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior. Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority does to that divide.
  - joesb 8y ago
    On one hand, I kinda agree with you. On the other hand, I usually stop and inspect myself whenever my reasoning that something is bad is not because it hurts me, but because I can't accept to see others improve. Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right. How does a rich family violate poor family's right by making their rich baby better?
    - idrios 8y ago
      > Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right. On the micro-economics scale, I would not only agree with you, but argue that a successful society depends on it. Just as you should be allowed to participate in whatever harmless recreational activities you like at your own home, so should you be able to keep for yourself anything you've made or earned. Without these freedoms, people lose their incentives to be productive members of society. However, this breaks down on the macro scale when feedback loops get out of control. Monopolies, duopolies and the like are pretty accepted as bad for economic growth because they have the resources to crush competition and have total control over markets. But monopolies are often just the result of a company that was first to market, had economies of scale, entrenched themselves through legislation, maintained an established brand, and had other feedback loops to strengthen themselves. Just as we break up monopolies to give competition a chance, we should be working hard to break feedback loops that enforce hierarchy of classes so we can give everyone a chance to be successful or fail on their own. The parent comment is correct that genetically engineered babies would likely be a mechanism for the socio-economically powerful to entrench their status further. It's not necessarily an argument for outright banning CRISPR babies, but giving more power to rich families absolutely does harm poor families by putting the poor families at a competitive disadvantage.
      - chosenbreed37 8y ago
        > Just as we break up monopolies to give competition a chance, we should be working hard to break feedback loops that enforce hierarchy of classes so we can give everyone a chance to be successful or fail on their own. Mmm...with respect to enforced/entrenched class hierarchies you argue that we should break them up. That looks good on paper but when it comes down to it many parents/families who are smart do their utmost to give their children a leg up. Is this not legitimate? Isn't this, generally speaking, how families that have retained status/prosperity across generations?
Puer 8y ago
In an alternate universe where Apple produces babies, they'll eventually become so thin they'll snap and bend if you look at them funny.
- jcoffland 8y ago
  And they are full of bugs that Apple refuses to fix.
zavi 8y ago
I'm 26 right now and I'm not planning to have kids until I'm 35 for this exact reason. I don't want my kid to say: "Daddy, why do other kids have disease resistance and I don't? Do you not love me? Or were you one of those stupid anti-CRISPRers who don't believe in science (the anti-vaxxers of the next decades)?" I'd rather wait for 5-10 years to make sure I don't make a lifelong mistake.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Don’t wait too long, reproductive tissue begins to degrade in your 30s.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    Source?
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3536609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3536609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253726/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- patrickthebold 8y ago
  I did the same thing with my last computer. I waited years because something better was just around the corner.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Every year you wait, your sperms carry more and more mutations.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    That's easily fixed: freeze your sperms. A bit pricey, but not nearly as much as a baby, CRISPR or otherwise.
duxup 8y ago
I wonder if a new version, new advancement would be a terror for everyone else. They'd drop a social step, can't do things, less needed, etc. The movie Gattaca explored this a bit. People in the film are heavily defined by their engineering. They might not BE just engineered, but being superior, or inferior is all encompassing. It becomes all they are. In the film it is a bit of a curse even for the best. Jerome failed (got a silver medal) at something and can't recover. His medal only turns to gold at the very end.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  Many people have trouble communicating with the younger generation because they have their own ways and use technology more intuitively. Now imagine the generational gap if the youth is 20% smarter than their parents.
- imtringued 8y ago
  Gattaca didn't explore actual superiority of genetically engineered humans. It was mostly about a guy cheating his way through through a surveillance state that openly discriminates against humans with inferior genes. The scary aspect was that everyone blindly trusted the gene scanner to be infallible (proven wrong by the protagonist). Whether the scanner was based on genetics, machine learning or your eye color didn't actually matter to the story.
  - misnome 8y ago
    Perhaps I’m misremembering the film, but I don’t think anything was proven wrong in the film? ISTR it was always understood that the genetic evaluation gave a measured “chance” of this or that, but that society had decided that people with bad chances weren’t even worth the risk of being a bad investment.
  - macos_finder 8y ago
    > The scary aspect was that everyone blindly trusted the gene scanner to be infallible (proven wrong by the protagonist). It's been a while since I've seen the movie but the protagonist didn't prove that the gene scanner could fail. He just cheated his way through it by using a health person's DNA evidence. In fact, the final(?) scene of the movie proved the exact opposite of your claim. Again, it's been a while, but I believe the protagonist was just about to board the rocket when he was surprised by one final DNA scan and as he didn't expect it to be there he knew he couldn't cheat through it. It was heavily implied, if not told to us, that the person who operated the scanner saw the scan report and should have turned him away if he followed protocol, but he let the protagonist through anyway. I wanna say the scanner person quipped about how the protagonist must have been qualified if he could go through the training program with his non-GMO'd genes. The movie isn't about a surveillance state. It was about a hypothetical future where nobody was conceived naturally anymore. Everybody was conceived with pre-selected genes which I imagine improved physical and mental prowess while also eliminating deadly diseases and defects. The protagonist was naturally conceived and as a consequence he had eyesight problems and I want to say asthma as well. I had the impression that they didn't want to accept astronauts with say asthma because they would rather just not have to deal with that problem to begin with.
anonytrary 8y ago
That wouldn't be this scientists fault. We shouldn't blame the researchers, but should blame the people who wield the technology. We can't blame the guy who invented the firearm for every death related to firearms. Plus, he explicitly states here how he is against that future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0vnOmFltc&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0vnOmFltc&app=desktop Whether or not humans are responsible to equip technology is not really a concern to people who are advancing science, and maybe it shouldn't be.

CBLT 8y ago

I think that a newer generation having advantages over a previous one doesn't mean any improvement of our stature is forbidden.

xrjrj 8y ago
Yes, if the time scales of the updates were spaced across generations. But I guess commercial availability of such technology would mean much shorter time scales leading to very bad consequences for the aging population. Eventually, perhaps leading events like one generation deciding to stop manufacturing babies. Could lead to scary consequences if not thought through...

songco 8y ago

It's ok and good thing if the results is only positive like "Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter". (Maybe not include Bigger?) The worst part of this is that it may not safe. If this introduced some flaws in the babies gene, how to control this, don't allow them have babies?

rmellow 8y ago
Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior. Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority does to that divide.
- joesb 8y ago
  On one hand, I kinda agree with you. On the other hand, I usually stop and inspect myself whenever my reasoning that something is bad is not because it hurts me, but because I can't accept to see others improve. Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right. How does a rich family violate poor family's right by making their rich baby better?
  - idrios 8y ago
    > Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right. On the micro-economics scale, I would not only agree with you, but argue that a successful society depends on it. Just as you should be allowed to participate in whatever harmless recreational activities you like at your own home, so should you be able to keep for yourself anything you've made or earned. Without these freedoms, people lose their incentives to be productive members of society. However, this breaks down on the macro scale when feedback loops get out of control. Monopolies, duopolies and the like are pretty accepted as bad for economic growth because they have the resources to crush competition and have total control over markets. But monopolies are often just the result of a company that was first to market, had economies of scale, entrenched themselves through legislation, maintained an established brand, and had other feedback loops to strengthen themselves. Just as we break up monopolies to give competition a chance, we should be working hard to break feedback loops that enforce hierarchy of classes so we can give everyone a chance to be successful or fail on their own. The parent comment is correct that genetically engineered babies would likely be a mechanism for the socio-economically powerful to entrench their status further. It's not necessarily an argument for outright banning CRISPR babies, but giving more power to rich families absolutely does harm poor families by putting the poor families at a competitive disadvantage.
    - chosenbreed37 8y ago
      > Just as we break up monopolies to give competition a chance, we should be working hard to break feedback loops that enforce hierarchy of classes so we can give everyone a chance to be successful or fail on their own. Mmm...with respect to enforced/entrenched class hierarchies you argue that we should break them up. That looks good on paper but when it comes down to it many parents/families who are smart do their utmost to give their children a leg up. Is this not legitimate? Isn't this, generally speaking, how families that have retained status/prosperity across generations?

Puer 8y ago

In an alternate universe where Apple produces babies, they'll eventually become so thin they'll snap and bend if you look at them funny.

jcoffland 8y ago
And they are full of bugs that Apple refuses to fix.

zavi 8y ago

I'm 26 right now and I'm not planning to have kids until I'm 35 for this exact reason. I don't want my kid to say: "Daddy, why do other kids have disease resistance and I don't? Do you not love me? Or were you one of those stupid anti-CRISPRers who don't believe in science (the anti-vaxxers of the next decades)?" I'd rather wait for 5-10 years to make sure I don't make a lifelong mistake.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Don’t wait too long, reproductive tissue begins to degrade in your 30s.
- p1esk 8y ago
  Source?
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3536609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3536609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253726/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253726/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
patrickthebold 8y ago
I did the same thing with my last computer. I waited years because something better was just around the corner.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
Every year you wait, your sperms carry more and more mutations.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  That's easily fixed: freeze your sperms. A bit pricey, but not nearly as much as a baby, CRISPR or otherwise.

duxup 8y ago

I wonder if a new version, new advancement would be a terror for everyone else. They'd drop a social step, can't do things, less needed, etc. The movie Gattaca explored this a bit. People in the film are heavily defined by their engineering. They might not BE just engineered, but being superior, or inferior is all encompassing. It becomes all they are. In the film it is a bit of a curse even for the best. Jerome failed (got a silver medal) at something and can't recover. His medal only turns to gold at the very end.

jobigoud 8y ago
Many people have trouble communicating with the younger generation because they have their own ways and use technology more intuitively. Now imagine the generational gap if the youth is 20% smarter than their parents.
imtringued 8y ago
Gattaca didn't explore actual superiority of genetically engineered humans. It was mostly about a guy cheating his way through through a surveillance state that openly discriminates against humans with inferior genes. The scary aspect was that everyone blindly trusted the gene scanner to be infallible (proven wrong by the protagonist). Whether the scanner was based on genetics, machine learning or your eye color didn't actually matter to the story.
- misnome 8y ago
  Perhaps I’m misremembering the film, but I don’t think anything was proven wrong in the film? ISTR it was always understood that the genetic evaluation gave a measured “chance” of this or that, but that society had decided that people with bad chances weren’t even worth the risk of being a bad investment.
- macos_finder 8y ago
  > The scary aspect was that everyone blindly trusted the gene scanner to be infallible (proven wrong by the protagonist). It's been a while since I've seen the movie but the protagonist didn't prove that the gene scanner could fail. He just cheated his way through it by using a health person's DNA evidence. In fact, the final(?) scene of the movie proved the exact opposite of your claim. Again, it's been a while, but I believe the protagonist was just about to board the rocket when he was surprised by one final DNA scan and as he didn't expect it to be there he knew he couldn't cheat through it. It was heavily implied, if not told to us, that the person who operated the scanner saw the scan report and should have turned him away if he followed protocol, but he let the protagonist through anyway. I wanna say the scanner person quipped about how the protagonist must have been qualified if he could go through the training program with his non-GMO'd genes. The movie isn't about a surveillance state. It was about a hypothetical future where nobody was conceived naturally anymore. Everybody was conceived with pre-selected genes which I imagine improved physical and mental prowess while also eliminating deadly diseases and defects. The protagonist was naturally conceived and as a consequence he had eyesight problems and I want to say asthma as well. I had the impression that they didn't want to accept astronauts with say asthma because they would rather just not have to deal with that problem to begin with.

anonytrary 8y ago

That wouldn't be this scientists fault. We shouldn't blame the researchers, but should blame the people who wield the technology. We can't blame the guy who invented the firearm for every death related to firearms. Plus, he explicitly states here how he is against that future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0vnOmFltc&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0vnOmFltc&app=desktop Whether or not humans are responsible to equip technology is not really a concern to people who are advancing science, and maybe it shouldn't be.