4 ms·

> I think society settled on a response of "yeah, but we shouldn't actively do anything about it as a group." I hope there comes a day when humanity is respons

by feoren 4y ago

> I think society settled on a response of "yeah, but we shouldn't actively do anything about it as a group." I hope there comes a day when humanity is responsible enough to handle precise gene-tailoring of humans without it devolving into a cliche Sci-Fi dystopia. Until then, I'm glad that humanity has settled on "Eugenics could theoretically work but we know we're not responsible enough to do it right, so let's not". It feels like a very enlightened stance: better than pretending selective breeding would literally not work, and certainly better than doing it badly. Why could we come to such a sensible consensus on this topic but fail to do so on so many others? All that being said, I still want to see what would happen if Michael Phelps and Katie Ledecky had a child together. You know. For science.

TimTheTinker 4y ago
> I hope there comes a day when humanity is responsible enough to handle precise gene-tailoring of humans without it devolving into a cliche Sci-Fi dystopia. Power itself is a bit of a paradox - having some is essential to a free society, but too much ends up corrupting its holders and results in human suffering. The power you describe falls in the latter category, IMHO.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
IMO, the reason it feels enlightened is that we don't clearly perceive the negative consequences of not doing it. If societal IQ was as pervasively tracked as global temperature, "let's not" might feel as enlightened as "let's not mess with climate engineering."
- feoren 4y ago
  > If societal IQ was as pervasively tracked as global temperature Part of the reason we're not ready for it is that any notion of "societal IQ" is simply not as mature, well-understood, proven, or even useful as our understanding of climate science. Scientists who studied the topic understood the greenhouse effect and the potential for CO2 emissions to result in global warming over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, nobody can agree on whether the Myers-Briggs personality test means anything at all. We just don't have a way to "rate" humans in a general sense, nor is it obvious that increasing their "rating" would even be a good thing. Selecting for humans with the highest IQ would be like selecting for crops that grow the tallest. Sure, sometimes that's a good measure of general health, but it's so blunt compared to the intricate nuances of how DNA works and the huge variety of outcomes we'd like from our crops. Besides, it's just a weird stance to want to create a "superior human". Why do we want to do that? So they can solve humanity's problems (no pressure!)? So we can have sex with them? So we can "purify our gene pool" (shudder)? So they can live a happier life and avoid disease? Some of those reasons are much better than others. Yes, messing with the climate has risks, but global climate is a lot less complicated than the DNA of a single human. And we know our climate is headed for disaster if we do nothing, so the risk of not messing with it is much higher. Similarly, we know people with certain genes are doomed to a die young or doomed to have certain major disabilities. Those will (and should) be our first targets of human gene editing, because the risks of not doing anything are higher. And of course we already are practicing a light form of selective breeding at IVF clinics during embryo selection. Mostly they look for chromosomal abnormalities, but I'd guess there are clinics out there that offer more advanced gene selection (if not now, then soon).
sdxkid 4y ago
> Why could we come to such a sensible consensus on this topic but fail to do so on so many others? I would argue that it took thousands of years of history and one of the darkest episodes of humanity in the 20th century to truly realize this.

by feoren 4y ago

TimTheTinker 4y ago

> I hope there comes a day when humanity is responsible enough to handle precise gene-tailoring of humans without it devolving into a cliche Sci-Fi dystopia. Power itself is a bit of a paradox - having some is essential to a free society, but too much ends up corrupting its holders and results in human suffering. The power you describe falls in the latter category, IMHO.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

IMO, the reason it feels enlightened is that we don't clearly perceive the negative consequences of not doing it. If societal IQ was as pervasively tracked as global temperature, "let's not" might feel as enlightened as "let's not mess with climate engineering."

feoren 4y ago
> If societal IQ was as pervasively tracked as global temperature Part of the reason we're not ready for it is that any notion of "societal IQ" is simply not as mature, well-understood, proven, or even useful as our understanding of climate science. Scientists who studied the topic understood the greenhouse effect and the potential for CO2 emissions to result in global warming over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, nobody can agree on whether the Myers-Briggs personality test means anything at all. We just don't have a way to "rate" humans in a general sense, nor is it obvious that increasing their "rating" would even be a good thing. Selecting for humans with the highest IQ would be like selecting for crops that grow the tallest. Sure, sometimes that's a good measure of general health, but it's so blunt compared to the intricate nuances of how DNA works and the huge variety of outcomes we'd like from our crops. Besides, it's just a weird stance to want to create a "superior human". Why do we want to do that? So they can solve humanity's problems (no pressure!)? So we can have sex with them? So we can "purify our gene pool" (shudder)? So they can live a happier life and avoid disease? Some of those reasons are much better than others. Yes, messing with the climate has risks, but global climate is a lot less complicated than the DNA of a single human. And we know our climate is headed for disaster if we do nothing, so the risk of not messing with it is much higher. Similarly, we know people with certain genes are doomed to a die young or doomed to have certain major disabilities. Those will (and should) be our first targets of human gene editing, because the risks of not doing anything are higher. And of course we already are practicing a light form of selective breeding at IVF clinics during embryo selection. Mostly they look for chromosomal abnormalities, but I'd guess there are clinics out there that offer more advanced gene selection (if not now, then soon).

sdxkid 4y ago

> Why could we come to such a sensible consensus on this topic but fail to do so on so many others? I would argue that it took thousands of years of history and one of the darkest episodes of humanity in the 20th century to truly realize this.