5 ms·

I’m not sure what you’re picturing it’s used for. It’s not to create genetic super heroes, it’s to cure genetic diseases like sickle cell.

virmundi 6y ago
Now. There is nothing stopping a rogue country or person from using it to develop super soldiers. Or better bio weapons.
- excalibur 6y ago
  Nothing except biology, chemistry, and physics.
  - virmundi 6y ago
    I don’t think that we can produce a Homelander. We could have people that start producing designer babies. With enough time and low regard for collateral damage, we could have people designed to be highly intelligent. We could have children edited to be male or female. We could have children edited to not manifest African phenotypes regardless of parentage. The sky is the limit.
    - mattkrause 6y ago
      You don’t need CRISPR for sex selection—-it can already be done as part of the preimplantation screening for IVF. For the other things, the best editing technique in the world is useless without a known and well-defined target. Intelligence is certainly partly heritable, but it’s not like there’s a single switch that needs to be toggled: genome-wide association studies find hundreds or thousands of linked genes—-and many of them likely have multiple functions. I would bet over-expressing any single one of them leads to many, many more problems than it solves.
      - virmundi 6y ago
        Very possible in the early stages. Given time we can probably improve. The only way to know is to experiment.
- ebiester 6y ago
  Super soldiers? Were that the issue, we could take LeBron James, Brian Shaw, or any number of intelligent athletes with various advantages and ask for sperm samples. You could have a couple thousand kids to mold from birth. It turns out, as a society we haven't done that already, and neither has any other society. Conceptually, it's interesting to think an adult could have their genetics changed, but we have cheaper ways and we haven't even exploited those.
tprice7 6y ago
Even if it could be used to create genetic super heroes, there's nothing inherently compulsory about it, in contrast to eugenics.
- memling 6y ago
  what if everyone uses it (or other genetic treatments) for augmentation or design? there is a critical mass when compulsory loses its meaning, I think. you don't have to eliminate cash by law for example if no business will take it.
  - tprice7 6y ago
    I think there is an essential difference between "you have to do X because it is mandated" and "you practically have to do X in order to keep up". For one, the latter scenario is essentially more democratic than the former, it first requires some critical mass of people voluntarily (in the strongest sense of the word) deciding that they are better off with X, whereas the former may only require a decision from a relatively small number of authorities. This puts strong restrictions on what X could possibly be: for example, you would never have people sterilizing themselves because some critical mass of other people are sterilizing themselves. I will also point out that your argument applies to technological progress in general and is not specific to gene editing. EDIT: I may have misunderstood you, I interpreted your comment to be about the hypothetical scenario where most people have genetically modified themselves into being "super heroes" and now the people who haven't can't keep up with the rest of society, so it becomes a practical necessity without being legally required. On second reading though I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
- drilldrive 6y ago
  A "non-binding eugenics guideline" has been considered highly unethical regardless, so no a non-compulsory solution here fails as well.
  - tprice7 6y ago
    Could you please clarify what you are referring to by "non-binding eugenics guideline" and whom you are quoting? Also, could you explain directly why gene editing is unethical without making a vague analogy to eugenics? If the analogy is sound then you should be able to.

virmundi 6y ago

Now. There is nothing stopping a rogue country or person from using it to develop super soldiers. Or better bio weapons.

excalibur 6y ago
Nothing except biology, chemistry, and physics.
- virmundi 6y ago
  I don’t think that we can produce a Homelander. We could have people that start producing designer babies. With enough time and low regard for collateral damage, we could have people designed to be highly intelligent. We could have children edited to be male or female. We could have children edited to not manifest African phenotypes regardless of parentage. The sky is the limit.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    You don’t need CRISPR for sex selection—-it can already be done as part of the preimplantation screening for IVF. For the other things, the best editing technique in the world is useless without a known and well-defined target. Intelligence is certainly partly heritable, but it’s not like there’s a single switch that needs to be toggled: genome-wide association studies find hundreds or thousands of linked genes—-and many of them likely have multiple functions. I would bet over-expressing any single one of them leads to many, many more problems than it solves.
    - virmundi 6y ago
      Very possible in the early stages. Given time we can probably improve. The only way to know is to experiment.
ebiester 6y ago
Super soldiers? Were that the issue, we could take LeBron James, Brian Shaw, or any number of intelligent athletes with various advantages and ask for sperm samples. You could have a couple thousand kids to mold from birth. It turns out, as a society we haven't done that already, and neither has any other society. Conceptually, it's interesting to think an adult could have their genetics changed, but we have cheaper ways and we haven't even exploited those.

tprice7 6y ago

Even if it could be used to create genetic super heroes, there's nothing inherently compulsory about it, in contrast to eugenics.

memling 6y ago
what if everyone uses it (or other genetic treatments) for augmentation or design? there is a critical mass when compulsory loses its meaning, I think. you don't have to eliminate cash by law for example if no business will take it.
- tprice7 6y ago
  I think there is an essential difference between "you have to do X because it is mandated" and "you practically have to do X in order to keep up". For one, the latter scenario is essentially more democratic than the former, it first requires some critical mass of people voluntarily (in the strongest sense of the word) deciding that they are better off with X, whereas the former may only require a decision from a relatively small number of authorities. This puts strong restrictions on what X could possibly be: for example, you would never have people sterilizing themselves because some critical mass of other people are sterilizing themselves. I will also point out that your argument applies to technological progress in general and is not specific to gene editing. EDIT: I may have misunderstood you, I interpreted your comment to be about the hypothetical scenario where most people have genetically modified themselves into being "super heroes" and now the people who haven't can't keep up with the rest of society, so it becomes a practical necessity without being legally required. On second reading though I'm not sure if that's what you meant.
drilldrive 6y ago
A "non-binding eugenics guideline" has been considered highly unethical regardless, so no a non-compulsory solution here fails as well.
- tprice7 6y ago
  Could you please clarify what you are referring to by "non-binding eugenics guideline" and whom you are quoting? Also, could you explain directly why gene editing is unethical without making a vague analogy to eugenics? If the analogy is sound then you should be able to.