12 ms·

Human genetic engineering is coming

58 points by acqbu 4y ago

somewhereoutth 4y ago
The film Gattaca (1997) speaks to this better than I can.
- cntainer 4y ago
  I thought the same before reading the article. After reading it I feel like Gattaca barely scratched the surface. It was actually a pretty tame movie. Some of the points made by the author are far scarier: gene editing startups with VC funding and sociopathic founders or amoral autocratic governments (think N.Korea, Russia, etc)
  - samhyde69 4y ago
- ramraj07 4y ago
  I’d wager that it is the second most accurate and prescient science fiction movie only behind 2001. It’s also better than 2001 because it’s pretty much the only good sci-fi movie I know that didn’t involve a “fantastical” or god-like being/power playing a major role (in that regard tying with Martian).
- pcurve 4y ago
  You're gonna miss your flight Vincent
acadapter 4y ago
This may seem like a controversial opinion, but I think that it's a good development. Some people have lost the "genetic lottery" in ways that make them dependent on medication. And for some, it may block career options, such as color vision deficiencies. We should embrace it, instead of painting dystopian scenarios. At least, we shouldn't stop people from fixing problems that they were unfairly born with.
- UweSchmidt 4y ago
  From the article I learned that there is "somatic gene editing, a therapeutic application of CRISPR administered by injection to consenting subjects", as well as "germline editing, in which changes are made to the DNA of an embryo". The author is concerned by the latter and I think you describe the former.
  - ravi-delia 4y ago
    What OP describes, at least to the extent that I agree with them, is both but mostly germline editing. Most genetic issues aren't really treatable after birth (though we are nowhere near the limit, so in the future who knows). Genes don't really code for traits so much after the embryo develops, most of the effect comes from the manual process of cells bumping against each other
    - dekhn 4y ago
      this is far from the truth in multiple ways. There are a wide range of genetic issues (typically recessive mutations) where somatic engeering would work great. And genes continuous encode for "traits" (really, molecular phenotypes) after development (which ends long after the embryo is born).
  - acadapter 4y ago
    I think I would be okay with germline editing too, in selected cases. It's not like a child is going to say "hey, thanks for not fixing my cancer-causing mutation when you had the chance, mum".
    - UweSchmidt 4y ago
      Then you have less qualms about it than the author of the article, whose career would benefit a lot from a free-for-all. "The social and political implications of gene editing are also huge unknowns, and unfortunately there’s been scant debate among policy makers and the general public."
rajin444 4y ago
The current push for equity combined with the technical ability to genetically engineer humans is frightening. Society has decided we have "incorrect" levels of diversity...though nobody can answer what the correct levels are. Without any question of "how do you know what you're doing is correct" we're changing our environment as much as possible to achieve the "correct" level of diversity. It's pure luck we can only modify our environment because we lack the technical capability to modify our genetics - given our current low standards of evidence, the damage we could do is immense. We really need to come to terms with equity, privilege (nobody earned their genetics), etc. before this is a reality.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Equality?
- UweSchmidt 4y ago
  Maybe instead this stuff will be kept away from the general public and is only accessible to the true upper class, who is above the equity reshuffling of the unwashed masses anyway. Capital and social capital is already giving their offspring an uncatchable advantage on, or outside of levelled playing fields. Genetic engineering could finally cement them into a biological royalty.
  - qgin 4y ago
    Why would anyone do that? It makes a great dystopian novel storyline, but no other medical advancement has ever been treated that way. The elites could easily have everyone dying of simple infections, but I can get antibiotics for $5 at the Walmart pharmacy. The elites could easily have people elderly dying of heart disease at much higher rates but Medicare pays tens of thousands of dollars for heart surgery on senior citizens.
    - UweSchmidt 4y ago
      No one is being evil by trying to harm others. Everyone is just seeing if they can get a reasonable advantage for themselves. All of us are doing it on a scale that's available to us, it's an emergent behaviour, not a conspiracy. "Surely doing wild west genetic engineering would be bad, right? So let's have oversight and laws around it." "But our friends advised us to check out that one clinic when we're in Dubai next time, and their kids are really exceptionally pretty and are doing so well in sports. I want to be careful for our baby since my grandfather had that one condition..."
frontman1988 4y ago
> In my mind, to alter genes that will be passed down from generation to generation is a sacred act There is nothing sacred about it. It's just a biological process. The only problem with GM babies are ethical considerations. But given how humanity as a whole could benefit immensely if these tests are successful, I think it's worth the sacrifice. Like even today we brainwash kids into fighting pointless wars where there is literally no benefit to mankind. On the other hand Genetic engineering can literally carve a new race of humanity. I am pretty sure China is already doing it. Unfortunately the west is too weak to take such tough moral decisions which benefit the community at the expense of the individual. Communism will win over here. Hopefully it takes all of mankind with it rather than some super sino master race.
- DontMindit 4y ago
  [flagged]
benreesman 4y ago
“I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and “vanity” applications, will become an unfathomably profitable industry in the coming decades. I am open to the possibility that germline editing could be ethically applied in narrowly defined arenas of public health. But the determination of where to draw the lines should not be left up to venture capitalists and self-centred founders, as it was to a large extent with the IT industry. They are already salivating.” I thought I was terrified of this shit before, but that phrasing hits like the doorframe of a Crown Victoria.
- qgin 4y ago
  I love to hate on tech bros as much as the next tech bro, but I've watched so many people suffer with terrible diseases that I'm totally fine if it we end up with 1000 hairloss biotech startups if that also means we get one that prevents Alzheimer's.
  - benreesman 4y ago
    I’m not saying that we should outlaw Cas9 or something. I’m saying that a company with the ethics of Theranos and the leadership of Theranos and the gold-plated, infinite money VC backing of Theranos playing jazz with the human germline is the stuff of nightmares.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    Hair loss cures aren't the problem. But what about a treatment giving unborn children +15 IQ, but affordable only to parents earning $300k/year?
    - Nasrudith 4y ago
      Why would it remain affordable to them only? Economies of scale apply even if just the productivity learning curve. Doing the cost/benefit analysis it may make sense for a government to subsidize or outright provide it for free. It is downright bizzare that people worry about the non-trivial and highly useful applications. What happened to bitching about the spending on baldness cures and penis pill research?
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
epigenetic alterations which is very similar to genetic alterations are already trivial to achieve for anyone right now. It's not that it is coming, it has been there for decades. Despite popular belief, people don't care about transhumanism/gerontology, more generally people can't care about things that require more than their very limited attention span.
- istinetz 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on that? If it's "trivial to achieve for anyone right now", what does that mean? Is there any commercially available service?
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    An epigenetic alteration is a multiplier on the expression of a gene. it can either inhibit its expression or increase its expression, in a continuum like manner, and remarkably, in a tissue/cell specific manner. A complete inhibition is akin to a gene removal, behaviourally speaking and indeed there can be many synergies between multiples altered genes expressions. The effects of an epigenetic alteration usually last 6 month although some consequences of the alteration might in some contextes be permanent. Of course the main drug class for this are peptides. An example being melatonan 2, which activate melanin in a continuous like, dose dependent manner. so you can progressively darken your skin https://alchetron.com/cdn/melanotan-ii-d26dbedd-94fb-434a-8d70-fc290197c63-resize-750.png https://alchetron.com/cdn/melanotan-ii-d26dbedd-94fb-434a-8d... if abused, you can become ultrablack https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/15/04/2B6033FA00000578-0-image-a-7_1439609831113.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/15/04/2B6033FA000005... this change is permanent. now there are much more useful peptides out there, for example: thymalin, the thymus hormone, is revolutionnary as it reverse thymus involution. Thymus involution is the main programmed aging factor, which leads to your death as an evolutionnary advantage. I have discussed this topic enough the last week so I won't go into details here. just so you know thymalin rejuvenate the thymus and increase lymphocite T naive cells production by up to 680% which totally fix immunodepression in the edlerdly and e.g. fix covid since day 1 (would have avoided 15 million deaths were people litterate) or reduce all cause mortality in humans by 410% when coadministarted with epitalon, epitalon allow your cells to bypass the hayflick limit (maximum number of divisions). It also rejuvenate the pineal gland and therefore fix age related sleep issues. BPC-157 significantly accelerate the time it takes for a physical injury to resorb. It is also unique in it's tendon rejenerative properties, its angiogenesis superior to VEGF, neuromodulation and its effect on IBS. cortexin/cerebrosylin are potently nootropics and neuroprotective. Rethinalamin rejuvenate the eyes which can un-blind people in some conditions, e.g. solve glaucoma and macular degeneration. PNC-27 is one of the most interesting peptide, since it is basically the best cure against cancer e.g. https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol13/iss2/7/ https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol13/iss2/7/ there is an unlimited potential for peptides, many "incurable" diseases have seen peptides specifically made for them and acts as effective cures (e.g. multiple sclerosis), however for the most part their potential is untapped, the reason being that this tech is endogenously produced in the human body, which make them unpatentable, which makes them unlucrative and since public research clinical trials are inexistant, you will never see them massively adopted, unless by accident.
istinetz 4y ago
It is coming, but too slowly. Everyone, including people itt, gesture vaguely towards "ethical considerations", without being able to specify what they are and how they outweigh the massive ethical benefits. >I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and “vanity” applications, will become an unfathomably profitable industry in the coming decades. The most important application, by far, dwarfing both therapeutic and vanity, is improvements to intelligence.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I've long wondered what the result of superintelligence would be. Mostly artificial but human superintelligence would be interesting too.
- glerk 4y ago
  This. Problems like preserving life on earth, and expanding to other planets are something that our descendants will have to solve. Increasing the intelligence of future generations is not only ethical, it is our duty.
- adamcharnock 4y ago
  Intelligence really doesn’t seem like the solution to any of our big problems. I’ve heard this argument before (and probably made this argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be a bit smarter and/or more informed. But I don’t think this is true at all. If it was then smart people would agree, but they don’t. There is another line of thinking (often seen in science fiction) that suggests all problems are solvable if only you are smart enough. But they are not, some problems simply don’t have a reachable satisfactory solution. There is a reason these science fiction stories often come with a ‘benevolent’ dictator to impose the smart fix on everyone, because taking away free will is the only way to solve some of the hardest problems. I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence, worldliness, and empathy though.
  - istinetz 4y ago
    >Intelligence really doesn’t seem like the solution to any of our big problems. Why not? >I’ve heard this argument before (and probably made this argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be a bit smarter and/or more informed. I don't want the next generation to agree with me. I want them to be on the next level. >I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence, worldliness, and empathy though. If you have a society of monkeys, no matter how worldly, emotionally intelligent they are - they are not creating astrolabes to travel the oceans, they are not domesticating animals, they are not writing plays, they are not building huts, even. Similarly, if you create a society of humans with a higher average intelligence, we will likewise experience a phase shift and access new wonders of culture and science that are simply inaccessible or extremely impractical right now. I cannot tell you what these wonders will be, but I am certain they exist. And in my humble opinion, we have already started to hit a wall in terms of what areas of intellectual achievement are possible with our current 'hardware' limitations. There are already areas of math, of physics, of biology that maybe 10-20 people on the whole Earth are capable of working in. We struggle to come up with any satisfying macro economic theory with testable predictions. Religious thought has very obviously stalled as well.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Freestyler_3 4y ago
I think for future space travel we need genetic modifications.
Animats 4y ago
Why is low-risk minor gene editing such a big deal? Much higher-risk breeding is allowed. Parents with genetic defects likely to produce rejects are allowed to breed, and the babies are not culled. It's not like humans have a breeding quality control program.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  Some subpopulations do genetic screening for high risk inbred genetic flaws, I thought, including before marrying. https://www.jscreen.org/learn-more/lifestyle-and-planning/family-planning/first-time-parents/ https://www.jscreen.org/learn-more/lifestyle-and-planning/fa...
ghghjgkhgjh768 4y ago
It is.
samhyde69 4y ago
rapjr9 4y ago
This seems very similar to computer security and privacy concerns. Everyone says "someone should do something about this!" yet very few people, businesses, or governments do anything. After decades of lax security the US gets involved in a war with Russia and now tells business that they better be prepared for being hacked. Right, close all those unknown zero day holes right away! Be prepared to dump your 3rd party software when your vendors get hacked! The author says she suspects there are business and government groups already working on implementations and that this is a worldwide issue, not to be solved by any one country. The chances of getting world agreement on anything seem close to zero. I think she's right and it's going to be a free-for-all scenario. Historically people in China during One-Child sometimes aborted females because everyone wanted their one child to be male. Being able to choose genetic features seems likely to be extremely popular (and will make things like skin color a choice.) On the other hand, do we even really know how genes work? I thought I read that what we thought were transcription boundaries are not actually boundaries at all, so that greatly increases the number of possible interactions with the genome. And the "junk" dna actually does something. Also, a great many traits and diseases seem to be associated with many more than one gene, which implies interactions between genes which also makes figuring out what happens when you alter specific genes much more complex. The case where one gene is tied to one trait seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And then there is the question of the influence of mitochondrial DNA from the mother, and the recent research showing that certain chemicals can determine which organ stem cells will turn into (which genes control those chemicals? What happens if they get altered?) I'm not convinced scientists really know what they are doing here, which likely means some rather bad experimental outcomes. We can't predict what small evolutionary changes in the coronavirus do, and we're going to precisely control the process that makes a human? I don't think so.

58 points by acqbu 4y ago

somewhereoutth 4y ago

The film Gattaca (1997) speaks to this better than I can.

cntainer 4y ago
I thought the same before reading the article. After reading it I feel like Gattaca barely scratched the surface. It was actually a pretty tame movie. Some of the points made by the author are far scarier: gene editing startups with VC funding and sociopathic founders or amoral autocratic governments (think N.Korea, Russia, etc)
- samhyde69 4y ago
ramraj07 4y ago
I’d wager that it is the second most accurate and prescient science fiction movie only behind 2001. It’s also better than 2001 because it’s pretty much the only good sci-fi movie I know that didn’t involve a “fantastical” or god-like being/power playing a major role (in that regard tying with Martian).
pcurve 4y ago
You're gonna miss your flight Vincent

acadapter 4y ago

This may seem like a controversial opinion, but I think that it's a good development. Some people have lost the "genetic lottery" in ways that make them dependent on medication. And for some, it may block career options, such as color vision deficiencies. We should embrace it, instead of painting dystopian scenarios. At least, we shouldn't stop people from fixing problems that they were unfairly born with.

UweSchmidt 4y ago
From the article I learned that there is "somatic gene editing, a therapeutic application of CRISPR administered by injection to consenting subjects", as well as "germline editing, in which changes are made to the DNA of an embryo". The author is concerned by the latter and I think you describe the former.
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  What OP describes, at least to the extent that I agree with them, is both but mostly germline editing. Most genetic issues aren't really treatable after birth (though we are nowhere near the limit, so in the future who knows). Genes don't really code for traits so much after the embryo develops, most of the effect comes from the manual process of cells bumping against each other
  - dekhn 4y ago
    this is far from the truth in multiple ways. There are a wide range of genetic issues (typically recessive mutations) where somatic engeering would work great. And genes continuous encode for "traits" (really, molecular phenotypes) after development (which ends long after the embryo is born).
- acadapter 4y ago
  I think I would be okay with germline editing too, in selected cases. It's not like a child is going to say "hey, thanks for not fixing my cancer-causing mutation when you had the chance, mum".
  - UweSchmidt 4y ago
    Then you have less qualms about it than the author of the article, whose career would benefit a lot from a free-for-all. "The social and political implications of gene editing are also huge unknowns, and unfortunately there’s been scant debate among policy makers and the general public."

rajin444 4y ago

The current push for equity combined with the technical ability to genetically engineer humans is frightening. Society has decided we have "incorrect" levels of diversity...though nobody can answer what the correct levels are. Without any question of "how do you know what you're doing is correct" we're changing our environment as much as possible to achieve the "correct" level of diversity. It's pure luck we can only modify our environment because we lack the technical capability to modify our genetics - given our current low standards of evidence, the damage we could do is immense. We really need to come to terms with equity, privilege (nobody earned their genetics), etc. before this is a reality.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Equality?
UweSchmidt 4y ago
Maybe instead this stuff will be kept away from the general public and is only accessible to the true upper class, who is above the equity reshuffling of the unwashed masses anyway. Capital and social capital is already giving their offspring an uncatchable advantage on, or outside of levelled playing fields. Genetic engineering could finally cement them into a biological royalty.
- qgin 4y ago
  Why would anyone do that? It makes a great dystopian novel storyline, but no other medical advancement has ever been treated that way. The elites could easily have everyone dying of simple infections, but I can get antibiotics for $5 at the Walmart pharmacy. The elites could easily have people elderly dying of heart disease at much higher rates but Medicare pays tens of thousands of dollars for heart surgery on senior citizens.
  - UweSchmidt 4y ago
    No one is being evil by trying to harm others. Everyone is just seeing if they can get a reasonable advantage for themselves. All of us are doing it on a scale that's available to us, it's an emergent behaviour, not a conspiracy. "Surely doing wild west genetic engineering would be bad, right? So let's have oversight and laws around it." "But our friends advised us to check out that one clinic when we're in Dubai next time, and their kids are really exceptionally pretty and are doing so well in sports. I want to be careful for our baby since my grandfather had that one condition..."

frontman1988 4y ago

> In my mind, to alter genes that will be passed down from generation to generation is a sacred act There is nothing sacred about it. It's just a biological process. The only problem with GM babies are ethical considerations. But given how humanity as a whole could benefit immensely if these tests are successful, I think it's worth the sacrifice. Like even today we brainwash kids into fighting pointless wars where there is literally no benefit to mankind. On the other hand Genetic engineering can literally carve a new race of humanity. I am pretty sure China is already doing it. Unfortunately the west is too weak to take such tough moral decisions which benefit the community at the expense of the individual. Communism will win over here. Hopefully it takes all of mankind with it rather than some super sino master race.

DontMindit 4y ago
[flagged]

benreesman 4y ago

“I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and “vanity” applications, will become an unfathomably profitable industry in the coming decades. I am open to the possibility that germline editing could be ethically applied in narrowly defined arenas of public health. But the determination of where to draw the lines should not be left up to venture capitalists and self-centred founders, as it was to a large extent with the IT industry. They are already salivating.” I thought I was terrified of this shit before, but that phrasing hits like the doorframe of a Crown Victoria.

qgin 4y ago
I love to hate on tech bros as much as the next tech bro, but I've watched so many people suffer with terrible diseases that I'm totally fine if it we end up with 1000 hairloss biotech startups if that also means we get one that prevents Alzheimer's.
- benreesman 4y ago
  I’m not saying that we should outlaw Cas9 or something. I’m saying that a company with the ethics of Theranos and the leadership of Theranos and the gold-plated, infinite money VC backing of Theranos playing jazz with the human germline is the stuff of nightmares.
- michaelt 4y ago
  Hair loss cures aren't the problem. But what about a treatment giving unborn children +15 IQ, but affordable only to parents earning $300k/year?
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
    Why would it remain affordable to them only? Economies of scale apply even if just the productivity learning curve. Doing the cost/benefit analysis it may make sense for a government to subsidize or outright provide it for free. It is downright bizzare that people worry about the non-trivial and highly useful applications. What happened to bitching about the spending on baldness cures and penis pill research?

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

epigenetic alterations which is very similar to genetic alterations are already trivial to achieve for anyone right now. It's not that it is coming, it has been there for decades. Despite popular belief, people don't care about transhumanism/gerontology, more generally people can't care about things that require more than their very limited attention span.

istinetz 4y ago
Can you elaborate on that? If it's "trivial to achieve for anyone right now", what does that mean? Is there any commercially available service?
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  An epigenetic alteration is a multiplier on the expression of a gene. it can either inhibit its expression or increase its expression, in a continuum like manner, and remarkably, in a tissue/cell specific manner. A complete inhibition is akin to a gene removal, behaviourally speaking and indeed there can be many synergies between multiples altered genes expressions. The effects of an epigenetic alteration usually last 6 month although some consequences of the alteration might in some contextes be permanent. Of course the main drug class for this are peptides. An example being melatonan 2, which activate melanin in a continuous like, dose dependent manner. so you can progressively darken your skin https://alchetron.com/cdn/melanotan-ii-d26dbedd-94fb-434a-8d70-fc290197c63-resize-750.png https://alchetron.com/cdn/melanotan-ii-d26dbedd-94fb-434a-8d... if abused, you can become ultrablack https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/15/04/2B6033FA00000578-0-image-a-7_1439609831113.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/15/04/2B6033FA000005... this change is permanent. now there are much more useful peptides out there, for example: thymalin, the thymus hormone, is revolutionnary as it reverse thymus involution. Thymus involution is the main programmed aging factor, which leads to your death as an evolutionnary advantage. I have discussed this topic enough the last week so I won't go into details here. just so you know thymalin rejuvenate the thymus and increase lymphocite T naive cells production by up to 680% which totally fix immunodepression in the edlerdly and e.g. fix covid since day 1 (would have avoided 15 million deaths were people litterate) or reduce all cause mortality in humans by 410% when coadministarted with epitalon, epitalon allow your cells to bypass the hayflick limit (maximum number of divisions). It also rejuvenate the pineal gland and therefore fix age related sleep issues. BPC-157 significantly accelerate the time it takes for a physical injury to resorb. It is also unique in it's tendon rejenerative properties, its angiogenesis superior to VEGF, neuromodulation and its effect on IBS. cortexin/cerebrosylin are potently nootropics and neuroprotective. Rethinalamin rejuvenate the eyes which can un-blind people in some conditions, e.g. solve glaucoma and macular degeneration. PNC-27 is one of the most interesting peptide, since it is basically the best cure against cancer e.g. https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol13/iss2/7/ https://touroscholar.touro.edu/sjlcas/vol13/iss2/7/ there is an unlimited potential for peptides, many "incurable" diseases have seen peptides specifically made for them and acts as effective cures (e.g. multiple sclerosis), however for the most part their potential is untapped, the reason being that this tech is endogenously produced in the human body, which make them unpatentable, which makes them unlucrative and since public research clinical trials are inexistant, you will never see them massively adopted, unless by accident.

istinetz 4y ago

It is coming, but too slowly. Everyone, including people itt, gesture vaguely towards "ethical considerations", without being able to specify what they are and how they outweigh the massive ethical benefits. >I expect that human genetic engineering, both therapeutic and “vanity” applications, will become an unfathomably profitable industry in the coming decades. The most important application, by far, dwarfing both therapeutic and vanity, is improvements to intelligence.

hotpotamus 4y ago
I've long wondered what the result of superintelligence would be. Mostly artificial but human superintelligence would be interesting too.
glerk 4y ago
This. Problems like preserving life on earth, and expanding to other planets are something that our descendants will have to solve. Increasing the intelligence of future generations is not only ethical, it is our duty.
adamcharnock 4y ago
Intelligence really doesn’t seem like the solution to any of our big problems. I’ve heard this argument before (and probably made this argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be a bit smarter and/or more informed. But I don’t think this is true at all. If it was then smart people would agree, but they don’t. There is another line of thinking (often seen in science fiction) that suggests all problems are solvable if only you are smart enough. But they are not, some problems simply don’t have a reachable satisfactory solution. There is a reason these science fiction stories often come with a ‘benevolent’ dictator to impose the smart fix on everyone, because taking away free will is the only way to solve some of the hardest problems. I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence, worldliness, and empathy though.
- istinetz 4y ago
  >Intelligence really doesn’t seem like the solution to any of our big problems. Why not? >I’ve heard this argument before (and probably made this argument at some point too), and it seems to boil down to thinking that people would agree with me if they would just be a bit smarter and/or more informed. I don't want the next generation to agree with me. I want them to be on the next level. >I think there is a strong argument for emotional intelligence, worldliness, and empathy though. If you have a society of monkeys, no matter how worldly, emotionally intelligent they are - they are not creating astrolabes to travel the oceans, they are not domesticating animals, they are not writing plays, they are not building huts, even. Similarly, if you create a society of humans with a higher average intelligence, we will likewise experience a phase shift and access new wonders of culture and science that are simply inaccessible or extremely impractical right now. I cannot tell you what these wonders will be, but I am certain they exist. And in my humble opinion, we have already started to hit a wall in terms of what areas of intellectual achievement are possible with our current 'hardware' limitations. There are already areas of math, of physics, of biology that maybe 10-20 people on the whole Earth are capable of working in. We struggle to come up with any satisfying macro economic theory with testable predictions. Religious thought has very obviously stalled as well.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Freestyler_3 4y ago

I think for future space travel we need genetic modifications.

Animats 4y ago

Why is low-risk minor gene editing such a big deal? Much higher-risk breeding is allowed. Parents with genetic defects likely to produce rejects are allowed to breed, and the babies are not culled. It's not like humans have a breeding quality control program.

jjtheblunt 4y ago
Some subpopulations do genetic screening for high risk inbred genetic flaws, I thought, including before marrying. https://www.jscreen.org/learn-more/lifestyle-and-planning/family-planning/first-time-parents/ https://www.jscreen.org/learn-more/lifestyle-and-planning/fa...

ghghjgkhgjh768 4y ago

It is.

samhyde69 4y ago

rapjr9 4y ago

This seems very similar to computer security and privacy concerns. Everyone says "someone should do something about this!" yet very few people, businesses, or governments do anything. After decades of lax security the US gets involved in a war with Russia and now tells business that they better be prepared for being hacked. Right, close all those unknown zero day holes right away! Be prepared to dump your 3rd party software when your vendors get hacked! The author says she suspects there are business and government groups already working on implementations and that this is a worldwide issue, not to be solved by any one country. The chances of getting world agreement on anything seem close to zero. I think she's right and it's going to be a free-for-all scenario. Historically people in China during One-Child sometimes aborted females because everyone wanted their one child to be male. Being able to choose genetic features seems likely to be extremely popular (and will make things like skin color a choice.) On the other hand, do we even really know how genes work? I thought I read that what we thought were transcription boundaries are not actually boundaries at all, so that greatly increases the number of possible interactions with the genome. And the "junk" dna actually does something. Also, a great many traits and diseases seem to be associated with many more than one gene, which implies interactions between genes which also makes figuring out what happens when you alter specific genes much more complex. The case where one gene is tied to one trait seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And then there is the question of the influence of mitochondrial DNA from the mother, and the recent research showing that certain chemicals can determine which organ stem cells will turn into (which genes control those chemicals? What happens if they get altered?) I'm not convinced scientists really know what they are doing here, which likely means some rather bad experimental outcomes. We can't predict what small evolutionary changes in the coronavirus do, and we're going to precisely control the process that makes a human? I don't think so.