9 ms·

I'm interested in this as the only pushback I've heard has been from some Christian folks on YouTube claiming that we're no longer "human" if we hack or mix our

I'm interested in this as the only pushback I've heard has been from some Christian folks on YouTube claiming that we're no longer "human" if we hack or mix our DNA. I tend to look at it more like "right to repair". If I buy an iPhone, I should be able to hack it to my heart's content. I have no idea if that's the angle you're mentioning. I'd be really interested to hear the other potential dangers that others see.

orblivion 6y ago
I'm an atheist more or less and I agree with this sentiment. I'm not fond of transhumanism. But I don't think the mRNA vaccine process fits this description.
- nobleach 6y ago
  Yeah, I certainly didn't intend for it to be a faith/atheism battle. I'm simply stating that so far, all I've seen has been that one perspective. I'm interested in the potential fallout others are predicting.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Quite a bit of our DNA isn't "human" to begin with, never mind our cells themselves. In fact, most of the cells in our bodies are bacterial, as I understand it. (Edit, that's oversimplified and/or inaccurate, see below.)
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    That's highly debatable. Also, obviously 'most' begs the question 'most by what?' if it's just by number, then that seems unlikely but possible. But most by weight, volume, or, more importantly, functionality - not really, that's definitely human cells.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Interestingly, you're right in that the "most of your cells are bacteria" point is a myth. I'm not a specialist, and fell for the pop-sci BS. Apparently the real ratio is closer to 1:1 ( https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells-1.19136 https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bo... ), if we can trust Nature's summary of several recent articles. With regard to functionality, that's a very open question. We're constantly finding that features that didn't seem useful are not just functional but important. This trend can be seen at multiple levels, from gut flora to "junk DNA." As for what fraction of our genome is either shared with other non-human organisms or originated with them, it's tough to find a straight answer on that, but rest assured it's far from zero. See https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/ https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/ . That's been well-understood by everyone other than religious fundamentalists for some time now, and there are countless legitimate sources that can be cited.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        I am no religious fundemantalist (I'm actually an atheist), and care very little for the notion of purity of humanity. The idea of 'human DNA' vs 'non-human DNA' seems suspect to me, as in some trivial sense, anything that is in the genome of a human being is by definition human DNA, and on the other hand, you can find large swaths of human DNA that are identical to most mammals, and probably a few that are common to virtually all eukaryotes. I also know that viruses can leave long-lasting changes to your DNA, that may even be heritable I think. Still, related to the importance of bacteria, while I don't doubt that, as we learn more, we will discover that they have a bigger role than even dreamed 50 years ago, you still can't compare it to the basic roles of human organs. We have actually created microorganism-free mice and other organisms, and while they are not very healthy, they are fully functional (with bad digestion and big immune problems): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ-free_animal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ-free_animal
- wait_a_minute 6y ago
  Why aren't you fond of transhumanism? At some point medicine and technology will advance so much that we can save and improve many lives by replacing bits of ourselves with superior artificial variants. Is that so bad?
  - dsabanin 6y ago
    As with all the progress, along with the good things transhumanism will bring, it will bring a hefty bag of bad things. And if you entertain the thought for a while, those bad things can be really, really bad, on a number of different axis.
    - wait_a_minute 6y ago
      Right, but just because bad things have come from science and technology doesn't mean that we get rid of science and technology. It means we have to be more vigilant about doing good things with our tools.
  - talentedcoin 6y ago
    You first. More seriously, this is one of those situations where the short-term pluses are plain to see, but the long-term risks are vague. Why not employ the precautionary principle here?
    - wait_a_minute 6y ago
      Instead of simply alluding to long-term risks, can you be more specific about what exactly you're concerned about? What kind of precautions are you advocating? At some point medical technology will give us organs that are far superior to biological organs - should we not make these available to people?
      - talentedcoin 6y ago
        It really depends what we're talking about here. Specific to your comments I can think of a couple things: 1) In terms of organ replacement, I agree it's a great opportunity -- but, we really won't or can't know the full spectrum of risks right away. Thalidomide, for example, was (for the most part) believed to be safe in the mid-50s, and it wasn't until the early 60s that awareness of the issues began to set in. So I am being a bit facetious when I say "you first" -- if it suits your risk tolerance or if you are in exigent circumstances, sure thing, who am I to judge? But it doesn't suit my personal risk tolerance at this point in my life. (Maybe ask me in a few years when I'm old and sick ...) 2) In terms of "transhumanism" more generally ... I see great dangers and I fear what a society of transhumans combined with humans would be capable of (if we haven't started down that road already). If transhumans really become vastly superior to humans, what will the relationship between them and the old-stock humans look like? Yuval Noah Hariri said something to the effect of, the only model for this version of the world we have is the current relationship between humans and animals -- the track record there is not exactly great ... So, it's partially the risks from the tech itself, and partially the downstream consequences for society.
mnw21cam 6y ago
The vaccine doesn't "hack or mix our DNA". Heck, it's trying to get the body to get rid of viruses. One particular type of virus (retroviruses) do "hack or mix our DNA".
- bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
  The astrozenecca vaccine does!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - QuercusMax 6y ago
    You might get fewer downvotes if you a) spelled AstraZeneca properly and b) included a link to back up your claim.
  - orblivion 6y ago
    I'm interested in unpopular opinions here. Do you have a source or details on this?
    - projektfu 6y ago
      AZD1222, the AstraZeneca covid vaccine, uses an adenoviral vector to deliver DNA to human cells that then produce the desired viral proteins to present to the immune system. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
      - orblivion 6y ago
        This is a bit much for me to read without the right background. I'll focus on your claim, though. "Sending mRNA to human cells to produce viral proteins" describe how all of the other vaccines work. You're saying that this one uses DNA. I don't know if that's a typo or if that's an important difference. However from what I understand, the two other vaccines people are talking about don't change any of the genetic material in your cells. They just send other genetic material that makes use of the translation equipment in some of your cells. It sits next to your existing genetic material, and then (I'm guessing?) just goes away.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_greim_ 6y ago
My understanding is these vaccines either inject RNA into the cell (Pfizer), where it's executed like machine code causing growth of proteins which trigger an immune response, or it injects DNA into the cell nucleus (Moderna), where it triggers creation of RNA, which does the same. So, in a sense it kind of does "hack or mix" DNA. Really strikes me as a sci-fi kind of thing. [edit] To clarify, it doesn't alter DNA, so much as co-opt DNA/RNA replication mechanisms. Does this cross some kind of "trans-human" threshold? I think so, but I also think clothing, reading glasses, and cell phones do the same. I see no reason to draw some kind of line in the sand here.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Christian folks on YouTube claiming that we're no longer "human" if we hack or mix our DNA So, if we get a virus, we aren't human?

orblivion 6y ago

I'm an atheist more or less and I agree with this sentiment. I'm not fond of transhumanism. But I don't think the mRNA vaccine process fits this description.

nobleach 6y ago
Yeah, I certainly didn't intend for it to be a faith/atheism battle. I'm simply stating that so far, all I've seen has been that one perspective. I'm interested in the potential fallout others are predicting.
CamperBob2 6y ago
Quite a bit of our DNA isn't "human" to begin with, never mind our cells themselves. In fact, most of the cells in our bodies are bacterial, as I understand it. (Edit, that's oversimplified and/or inaccurate, see below.)
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  That's highly debatable. Also, obviously 'most' begs the question 'most by what?' if it's just by number, then that seems unlikely but possible. But most by weight, volume, or, more importantly, functionality - not really, that's definitely human cells.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Interestingly, you're right in that the "most of your cells are bacteria" point is a myth. I'm not a specialist, and fell for the pop-sci BS. Apparently the real ratio is closer to 1:1 ( https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-more-bacteria-than-human-cells-1.19136 https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bo... ), if we can trust Nature's summary of several recent articles. With regard to functionality, that's a very open question. We're constantly finding that features that didn't seem useful are not just functional but important. This trend can be seen at multiple levels, from gut flora to "junk DNA." As for what fraction of our genome is either shared with other non-human organisms or originated with them, it's tough to find a straight answer on that, but rest assured it's far from zero. See https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/ https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/ . That's been well-understood by everyone other than religious fundamentalists for some time now, and there are countless legitimate sources that can be cited.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      I am no religious fundemantalist (I'm actually an atheist), and care very little for the notion of purity of humanity. The idea of 'human DNA' vs 'non-human DNA' seems suspect to me, as in some trivial sense, anything that is in the genome of a human being is by definition human DNA, and on the other hand, you can find large swaths of human DNA that are identical to most mammals, and probably a few that are common to virtually all eukaryotes. I also know that viruses can leave long-lasting changes to your DNA, that may even be heritable I think. Still, related to the importance of bacteria, while I don't doubt that, as we learn more, we will discover that they have a bigger role than even dreamed 50 years ago, you still can't compare it to the basic roles of human organs. We have actually created microorganism-free mice and other organisms, and while they are not very healthy, they are fully functional (with bad digestion and big immune problems): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ-free_animal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ-free_animal
wait_a_minute 6y ago
Why aren't you fond of transhumanism? At some point medicine and technology will advance so much that we can save and improve many lives by replacing bits of ourselves with superior artificial variants. Is that so bad?
- dsabanin 6y ago
  As with all the progress, along with the good things transhumanism will bring, it will bring a hefty bag of bad things. And if you entertain the thought for a while, those bad things can be really, really bad, on a number of different axis.
  - wait_a_minute 6y ago
    Right, but just because bad things have come from science and technology doesn't mean that we get rid of science and technology. It means we have to be more vigilant about doing good things with our tools.
- talentedcoin 6y ago
  You first. More seriously, this is one of those situations where the short-term pluses are plain to see, but the long-term risks are vague. Why not employ the precautionary principle here?
  - wait_a_minute 6y ago
    Instead of simply alluding to long-term risks, can you be more specific about what exactly you're concerned about? What kind of precautions are you advocating? At some point medical technology will give us organs that are far superior to biological organs - should we not make these available to people?
    - talentedcoin 6y ago
      It really depends what we're talking about here. Specific to your comments I can think of a couple things: 1) In terms of organ replacement, I agree it's a great opportunity -- but, we really won't or can't know the full spectrum of risks right away. Thalidomide, for example, was (for the most part) believed to be safe in the mid-50s, and it wasn't until the early 60s that awareness of the issues began to set in. So I am being a bit facetious when I say "you first" -- if it suits your risk tolerance or if you are in exigent circumstances, sure thing, who am I to judge? But it doesn't suit my personal risk tolerance at this point in my life. (Maybe ask me in a few years when I'm old and sick ...) 2) In terms of "transhumanism" more generally ... I see great dangers and I fear what a society of transhumans combined with humans would be capable of (if we haven't started down that road already). If transhumans really become vastly superior to humans, what will the relationship between them and the old-stock humans look like? Yuval Noah Hariri said something to the effect of, the only model for this version of the world we have is the current relationship between humans and animals -- the track record there is not exactly great ... So, it's partially the risks from the tech itself, and partially the downstream consequences for society.

mnw21cam 6y ago

The vaccine doesn't "hack or mix our DNA". Heck, it's trying to get the body to get rid of viruses. One particular type of virus (retroviruses) do "hack or mix our DNA".

bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
The astrozenecca vaccine does!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- QuercusMax 6y ago
  You might get fewer downvotes if you a) spelled AstraZeneca properly and b) included a link to back up your claim.
- orblivion 6y ago
  I'm interested in unpopular opinions here. Do you have a source or details on this?
  - projektfu 6y ago
    AZD1222, the AstraZeneca covid vaccine, uses an adenoviral vector to deliver DNA to human cells that then produce the desired viral proteins to present to the immune system. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - orblivion 6y ago
      This is a bit much for me to read without the right background. I'll focus on your claim, though. "Sending mRNA to human cells to produce viral proteins" describe how all of the other vaccines work. You're saying that this one uses DNA. I don't know if that's a typo or if that's an important difference. However from what I understand, the two other vaccines people are talking about don't change any of the genetic material in your cells. They just send other genetic material that makes use of the translation equipment in some of your cells. It sits next to your existing genetic material, and then (I'm guessing?) just goes away.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

_greim_ 6y ago

My understanding is these vaccines either inject RNA into the cell (Pfizer), where it's executed like machine code causing growth of proteins which trigger an immune response, or it injects DNA into the cell nucleus (Moderna), where it triggers creation of RNA, which does the same. So, in a sense it kind of does "hack or mix" DNA. Really strikes me as a sci-fi kind of thing. [edit] To clarify, it doesn't alter DNA, so much as co-opt DNA/RNA replication mechanisms. Does this cross some kind of "trans-human" threshold? I think so, but I also think clothing, reading glasses, and cell phones do the same. I see no reason to draw some kind of line in the sand here.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Christian folks on YouTube claiming that we're no longer "human" if we hack or mix our DNA So, if we get a virus, we aren't human?