3 ms·

In my view, this stuff is similar to firearms. Not unethical per se; only concrete use can be unethical. But if the West collectively and unilaterally decided

In my view, this stuff is similar to firearms. Not unethical per se; only concrete use can be unethical. But if the West collectively and unilaterally decided to reject firearms as such back then, it would likely have been gone by the 17th century.

woodruffw 4y ago
Well, a firearm is a practical thing: it’s a weapon you hold in your arms and potentially use to kill people. I think the Lesenkoism analogy is more appropriate here: our best science demonstrates, at the most, that our strongest attempts to genetically influence general intelligence have weak effects, if any. So it’s not so much latent danger (the way rejecting firearms would have stopped much of Western history) as it is poor science that produces limited value relative to its financial and civic costs.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  First firearms were rather primitive as well. The English famously kept on to bow and arrow until the 16th century or so. I am sure that complexity of genome and epigenome is huge and that we are just at the beginning of the journey. But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. But I disagree with the idea that you can easily measure value of science by its costs, especially short term. Look no further than Katalin Kariko, one of the most important people in mRNA. They demoted her at UPenn in 1997 because they considered her research not valuable... and yes, it actually took 20 years for it to bear fruit.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. Is this an expert opinion, or a lay opinion? Eugenics is one of those fields where there’s a split distribution: experts are generally less confident in the scientific value of eugenics research than the public is. No domain is infallible, and science is by its nature unsettleable. But the fact that a particular academic department was unfair to a particular academic is not especially strong evidence that the scientific community is wrong, as a whole, about eugenics.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      One of the problem is the constant use of the word "eugenics". Whatever will emerge as a result of current and future biological research, is not going to resemble old school eugenics from times when even the DNA wasn't understood. You have a lot of results that are used in practice already today. Embryos in IVF are genetically screened to weed out serious issues, and so are often developing foetuses in natural pregnancies. Certain countries have genetic counseling to reduce frequency of locally important diseases such as Tay-Sachs. Aren't these methods of preventing human suffering valuable?
- concordDance 4y ago
  We haven't really attempted to genetically influence intelligence because the most obvious ways of doing so are horrendously evil. This doesn't mean it cannot or should not be studied as the results could prove useful. E.g. let's say we discover that there's a common defect in a particular gene makes aurul learning harder, then we can raise awareness and get schools to check if struggling students might do better with pictorial learning. Knowing both that this mutation exists and how prevalent it is (and where!) is important for knowing if its worth expending limited school resources on alternative approaches.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Virtually nobody has a problem with individualized genetic treatment. We already have gene therapy, even customized gene therapy. Treating a hearing disorder, even before birth, is not particularly controversial (at least, no more controversial than any hearing treatments). That’s discrete from eugenics as popularly understood, which involves large-scale engineering of the gene pool across generations. There’s general scientific consensus that the latter doesn’t even work, and near universal consensus that it’s unethical.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      > There’s general scientific consensus that the latter doesn’t even work This is completely false to such an extent that I've read it several times to see if I've misunderstood. Humans have been breeding new varieties of plants and animals for millenia. Compare modern bananas to their ancient ancestors[1] or the modern chihuahua to its wolf ancestors. Heck, you can have substantial changes in just a dozen generations if your selective pressure is strong (or even one, if you sterilize every single light skinned person the next generation will be much darker skinned). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type#/media/File%3AInside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type#/media/File%3AInsi...
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        We’re talking about humans, not bananas. Similarly, the implication with eugenics is that we can somehow improve general human intelligence or other desirable traits, not fruit bearing capacity. The scientific consensus is that we don’t even know what general intelligence is, much less which complex of genes produce it. Edit: and, to be clear: the reason we can successfully breed bananas (or dogs) with desirable traits is because we aggressively cull the undesirable traits. I assume you understand what this would imply in human beings, and why this is unacceptable.

woodruffw 4y ago

Well, a firearm is a practical thing: it’s a weapon you hold in your arms and potentially use to kill people. I think the Lesenkoism analogy is more appropriate here: our best science demonstrates, at the most, that our strongest attempts to genetically influence general intelligence have weak effects, if any. So it’s not so much latent danger (the way rejecting firearms would have stopped much of Western history) as it is poor science that produces limited value relative to its financial and civic costs.

inglor_cz 4y ago
First firearms were rather primitive as well. The English famously kept on to bow and arrow until the 16th century or so. I am sure that complexity of genome and epigenome is huge and that we are just at the beginning of the journey. But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. But I disagree with the idea that you can easily measure value of science by its costs, especially short term. Look no further than Katalin Kariko, one of the most important people in mRNA. They demoted her at UPenn in 1997 because they considered her research not valuable... and yes, it actually took 20 years for it to bear fruit.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > But unlike Lysenkoism, I believe that the underlying principles are sound. Is this an expert opinion, or a lay opinion? Eugenics is one of those fields where there’s a split distribution: experts are generally less confident in the scientific value of eugenics research than the public is. No domain is infallible, and science is by its nature unsettleable. But the fact that a particular academic department was unfair to a particular academic is not especially strong evidence that the scientific community is wrong, as a whole, about eugenics.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    One of the problem is the constant use of the word "eugenics". Whatever will emerge as a result of current and future biological research, is not going to resemble old school eugenics from times when even the DNA wasn't understood. You have a lot of results that are used in practice already today. Embryos in IVF are genetically screened to weed out serious issues, and so are often developing foetuses in natural pregnancies. Certain countries have genetic counseling to reduce frequency of locally important diseases such as Tay-Sachs. Aren't these methods of preventing human suffering valuable?
concordDance 4y ago
We haven't really attempted to genetically influence intelligence because the most obvious ways of doing so are horrendously evil. This doesn't mean it cannot or should not be studied as the results could prove useful. E.g. let's say we discover that there's a common defect in a particular gene makes aurul learning harder, then we can raise awareness and get schools to check if struggling students might do better with pictorial learning. Knowing both that this mutation exists and how prevalent it is (and where!) is important for knowing if its worth expending limited school resources on alternative approaches.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Virtually nobody has a problem with individualized genetic treatment. We already have gene therapy, even customized gene therapy. Treating a hearing disorder, even before birth, is not particularly controversial (at least, no more controversial than any hearing treatments). That’s discrete from eugenics as popularly understood, which involves large-scale engineering of the gene pool across generations. There’s general scientific consensus that the latter doesn’t even work, and near universal consensus that it’s unethical.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > There’s general scientific consensus that the latter doesn’t even work This is completely false to such an extent that I've read it several times to see if I've misunderstood. Humans have been breeding new varieties of plants and animals for millenia. Compare modern bananas to their ancient ancestors[1] or the modern chihuahua to its wolf ancestors. Heck, you can have substantial changes in just a dozen generations if your selective pressure is strong (or even one, if you sterilize every single light skinned person the next generation will be much darker skinned). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type#/media/File%3AInside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type#/media/File%3AInsi...
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      We’re talking about humans, not bananas. Similarly, the implication with eugenics is that we can somehow improve general human intelligence or other desirable traits, not fruit bearing capacity. The scientific consensus is that we don’t even know what general intelligence is, much less which complex of genes produce it. Edit: and, to be clear: the reason we can successfully breed bananas (or dogs) with desirable traits is because we aggressively cull the undesirable traits. I assume you understand what this would imply in human beings, and why this is unacceptable.