5 ms·

> I'm squeamish about genetic research Can you elaborate on what makes you squeamish about research?

yitianjian 4y ago
Not OP, but something just feels unnatural and unsettling about changing humans, and especially for changing yourself. It feels like the uncanny valley where it just doesn't feel right. I'm agnostic so it's not for a particularly religious reasons, and it's purely an emotional response for me that's not grounded in logic at all, so I also just describe it as squeamish for no reason.
- sinenomine 4y ago
  Thank you for a honest response. I think this is an underexplored topic - how many of our broad social policies were shaped mostly on the basis of sufficiently broadly shared visceral feeling. Should we base ultimately coercive society-wide regulatory framework on mere "squeamishness", appropriately rationalized, or should we instead embrace a non-discriminatory, laissez-faire approach in this domain?
  - quesera 4y ago
    > how many of our broad social policies were shaped mostly on the basis of sufficiently broadly shared visceral feeling All of them? I'm struggling to think of a counterexample.
    - vcxy 4y ago
      Yeah, I'd say the phrases "broadly shared visceral feelings" and "broad social policies" point to nearly the same concept.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  When I have these thoughts, I remind myself that typhoid is natural and penicillin is artificial. A big part of progress is fighting and defeating the natural. That said, not all genetic manipulation will end well.
biophysboy 4y ago
Not the OP, but I think there are ethical concerns about genetic manipulation that do not amount to catastrophizing (e.g. 20th century eugenics is back!).
- mcculley 4y ago
  Maybe the conflation is the problem for me. I don’t see how research or even consensual application necessarily leads to “20th century eugenics”.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    I don't see how it doesn't. Look at human history.
    - mcculley 4y ago
      I remain unconvinced that the inevitable existence of e.g., designer babies will inevitably lead to forcing people to have them.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        Forcing no, but those who could afford to do it would engineer superior children, and society would rather quickly devolve into a caste-type social system or worse.
        mcculley 4y ago
        It is inevitable that more people will be able to exert more control over their reproduction. I agree that this is likely to amplify the human tribalism that already causes so many problems. I still don't see how that inevitably leads to “20th century eugenics” nor why we should discourage or fear research.
        Nasrudith 4y ago
        You haven't had children, have you? They don't neatly fit into plans or develop to top down desires.Thinking the children will be superior is extreme arrogance even if it all works out and they are born immune to cancer. It puts too much faith in one advantage determining all. Under that catastrophic social model the elite should have been descendants of the elite from before the Bronze Age collapse, and heavy cavalry should have maintained their combat effectiveness over the masses even during the Infantry Revolution.
javajosh 4y ago
>Can you elaborate on what makes you squeamish about research? Yes, I for one can't imagine why editing the genes of humans would cause alarm. After all, who wouldn't want to have children that are smarter, more docile, and healthier? Or, for other people's children, who have qualities that make you uncomfortable and can't be edited out, like dark skin or homosexuality, you have the option to edit their reproductive ability so that such qualities can come to an end humanely, without violence. In the same way, I can't understand are those people against longevity research. Who wants to die? Not me, and certainly not those in power. You know, the people in power earned their positions, they are good at it, and mortality just means someone new and inexperienced will fumble around at the job. For continuity and safety, immortal leaders will do a better job and keep us safe. I don't see why anyone would consider this a bad thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
- mcculley 4y ago
  I am, of course, aware of these tropes. If you have any sincere objections to research, please enlighten us.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    You think that sincerity is incompatible with satire?
    - last_responder 4y ago
      When it is mixed with the stupidity you spouted , yes.
    - mcculley 4y ago
      Of course not. Satire can be done very well and sincerely.
    - rfrey 4y ago
      I'm not sure how satire is relevant to this exchange.
hotpotamus 4y ago
Have you ever tried making changes to a large, incredibly complex codebase with zero comments? Sometimes the changes you make don't have the expected results.
- mcculley 4y ago
  That sounds like an argument in favor of research.
- dalmo3 4y ago
  Also, stateful code, no staging environment, no undo commit, prone to fatal runtime errors...
- svnt 4y ago
  You’ve never made a change to such a codebase that was generated by a massively parallel evolutionary computer running for billions of years. You could just as easily make the argument that there is probably no body of data more stable than existing genomes.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
Some people are interpreting that more broadly than I intended it. I'm squeamish about this kind of medical gene editing in specific. There is a genetic disorder that runs in my family. I used to be on a bunch of email lists for the condition. People with the condition routinely volunteer for drug studies in a desperate attempt to get help that current medical science can't provide them and/or to get free care for a condition that's very medically expensive. People with serious medical conditions are all too often treated like lab rats whose lives don't really matter. Treating people like me humanely isn't a real high priority. Quality of life is not much part of the discussion. Keeping us alive a little longer is the only metric that seems to count and horrifying things get done in the name of it.

Not OP, but something just feels unnatural and unsettling about changing humans, and especially for changing yourself. It feels like the uncanny valley where it just doesn't feel right. I'm agnostic so it's not for a particularly religious reasons, and it's purely an emotional response for me that's not grounded in logic at all, so I also just describe it as squeamish for no reason.

sinenomine 4y ago
Thank you for a honest response. I think this is an underexplored topic - how many of our broad social policies were shaped mostly on the basis of sufficiently broadly shared visceral feeling. Should we base ultimately coercive society-wide regulatory framework on mere "squeamishness", appropriately rationalized, or should we instead embrace a non-discriminatory, laissez-faire approach in this domain?
- quesera 4y ago
  > how many of our broad social policies were shaped mostly on the basis of sufficiently broadly shared visceral feeling All of them? I'm struggling to think of a counterexample.
  - vcxy 4y ago
    Yeah, I'd say the phrases "broadly shared visceral feelings" and "broad social policies" point to nearly the same concept.
BurningFrog 4y ago
When I have these thoughts, I remind myself that typhoid is natural and penicillin is artificial. A big part of progress is fighting and defeating the natural. That said, not all genetic manipulation will end well.

biophysboy 4y ago

Not the OP, but I think there are ethical concerns about genetic manipulation that do not amount to catastrophizing (e.g. 20th century eugenics is back!).

mcculley 4y ago
Maybe the conflation is the problem for me. I don’t see how research or even consensual application necessarily leads to “20th century eugenics”.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  I don't see how it doesn't. Look at human history.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    I remain unconvinced that the inevitable existence of e.g., designer babies will inevitably lead to forcing people to have them.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Forcing no, but those who could afford to do it would engineer superior children, and society would rather quickly devolve into a caste-type social system or worse.
      - mcculley 4y ago
        It is inevitable that more people will be able to exert more control over their reproduction. I agree that this is likely to amplify the human tribalism that already causes so many problems. I still don't see how that inevitably leads to “20th century eugenics” nor why we should discourage or fear research.
      - Nasrudith 4y ago
        You haven't had children, have you? They don't neatly fit into plans or develop to top down desires.Thinking the children will be superior is extreme arrogance even if it all works out and they are born immune to cancer. It puts too much faith in one advantage determining all. Under that catastrophic social model the elite should have been descendants of the elite from before the Bronze Age collapse, and heavy cavalry should have maintained their combat effectiveness over the masses even during the Infantry Revolution.

javajosh 4y ago

>Can you elaborate on what makes you squeamish about research? Yes, I for one can't imagine why editing the genes of humans would cause alarm. After all, who wouldn't want to have children that are smarter, more docile, and healthier? Or, for other people's children, who have qualities that make you uncomfortable and can't be edited out, like dark skin or homosexuality, you have the option to edit their reproductive ability so that such qualities can come to an end humanely, without violence. In the same way, I can't understand are those people against longevity research. Who wants to die? Not me, and certainly not those in power. You know, the people in power earned their positions, they are good at it, and mortality just means someone new and inexperienced will fumble around at the job. For continuity and safety, immortal leaders will do a better job and keep us safe. I don't see why anyone would consider this a bad thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

mcculley 4y ago
I am, of course, aware of these tropes. If you have any sincere objections to research, please enlighten us.
- javajosh 4y ago
  You think that sincerity is incompatible with satire?
  - last_responder 4y ago
    When it is mixed with the stupidity you spouted , yes.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    Of course not. Satire can be done very well and sincerely.
  - rfrey 4y ago
    I'm not sure how satire is relevant to this exchange.

hotpotamus 4y ago

Have you ever tried making changes to a large, incredibly complex codebase with zero comments? Sometimes the changes you make don't have the expected results.

mcculley 4y ago
That sounds like an argument in favor of research.
dalmo3 4y ago
Also, stateful code, no staging environment, no undo commit, prone to fatal runtime errors...
svnt 4y ago
You’ve never made a change to such a codebase that was generated by a massively parallel evolutionary computer running for billions of years. You could just as easily make the argument that there is probably no body of data more stable than existing genomes.

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Some people are interpreting that more broadly than I intended it. I'm squeamish about this kind of medical gene editing in specific. There is a genetic disorder that runs in my family. I used to be on a bunch of email lists for the condition. People with the condition routinely volunteer for drug studies in a desperate attempt to get help that current medical science can't provide them and/or to get free care for a condition that's very medically expensive. People with serious medical conditions are all too often treated like lab rats whose lives don't really matter. Treating people like me humanely isn't a real high priority. Quality of life is not much part of the discussion. Keeping us alive a little longer is the only metric that seems to count and horrifying things get done in the name of it.