5 ms·

> The guy that you can see in one of the pictures drinking from a glass recipient was in a Netflix documentary (I can't remember the title from top of my mind)

> The guy that you can see in one of the pictures drinking from a glass recipient was in a Netflix documentary (I can't remember the title from top of my mind) where he was advocating for everyone being able to use genetic engineering for self-improvement, even without any previous knowledge of genetics. You mean the documentary unnatural selection. I have seen it, but I recall something quite different. He did infact advocate that at some point people will use this technology without understanding it. It surely feels like a premature opinion, but in retrospect people use many life changing technologies without understanding them either Does everyone understand what they eat? how electricity works? how their smartphone works? the drugs their doctor prescribes?

GTP 4y ago
>Does everyone understand what they eat? how electricity works? how their smartphone works? the drugs their doctor prescribes? True, but you always have to balance them with the potential issues that could arise. I don't understand how drugs works, and that's why I need a doctor's prescription to take them. Many people don't know much about electricity, and that's why there are laws regulating how electric wirings have to be made and that say that only trained electricians can do wirings in homes. Many people don't understand how smartphones work, but what's the greatest damage that can result from this and how likely is it to happen?
- josalhor 4y ago
  Absolutely agree. And while I don't recommend anyone to try this out on a DIY basis, historically a lot inventions we take for granted and have made our life better came from people literally tinkering around with stuff and slowly figuring out what works.
- gptgpp 4y ago
  I mean... regulations are actually a lot more flexible than you're implying. I was looking to wire up some solar panels to a cottage in the countryside. Since municipal regulations didn't apply, provincial ones did, which were that if you've built the structure for your own occupancy and follow the electrical code, this is completely legal. So the code applies, but it's not restricted to trained electricians in some cases. Same goes for drugs in much of the world. Personally I think it's a little ridiculous people need to get a script for stuff like viagra or tretinoin or finasteride. It becomes almost farcical when online clinics exist which will do a consultation without obtaining medical records or even seeing you via video and write you a script. Or that celebrities can get private doctors who will write them whatever. Or when you consider most countries outside NA and the EU where you can get pretty much whatever you want OTC. Not to mention you can order TONS of different research chemicals and "nootropics", completely legally, online. If you were to pass a regulation that was essentially "only registered genetic engineers can experiment in any way with this" it would be way more restrictive than anything we have for pharmaceuticals, or even domestic electricity. What you're suggesting would be on par with regulations for nuclear technology. IDK seems maybe a bit excessive...
  - GTP 4y ago
    That wasn't what I was suggesting. I think it is reckless to try to persuade people into trying genetic engineering on themselves (one of the examples that the man showed in the documentary, was about injecting into your arm modified cells to make your muscles grow bigger). But I'm fine with people using kits to have fun making a plant that glows in the dark, as long as they take care of not releasing the results of their experiments in the environment.
jerf 4y ago
Broad-scale co-evolution means that if you use your co-evolved common sense on the co-evolved natural world, you will broadly speaking be safe. Even with a bit of experimentation on the fringes. Our technological world has then co-evolved with our common sense, which is why despite the several ways our houses have things running through them which can kill us, they don't manage to do it very often. When you start playing with genetic engineering directly, you're stepping out of your co-evolved "common sense" space into a much more vicious domain, and you get a double-whammy in that not only is this space much more vicious, you are also very very much trying to interact it with intuition built by interactions completely unsuitable for it. No, people do not understand what they eat, how electricity works, or how their smartphone works, but they are co-evolved with all those things. You are not co-evolved with the results of genetic engineering. You are also not co-evolved with raw exposure to the space of all possible drugs, which is why I left that one out of my list. Notice the incredibly more strict protocols our society uses around those than we use for food, electricity, or smartphones, because we are not co-evolved with arbitrary drug chemicals. None of the other three things are unregulated by any stretch of the imagination, but neither are they regulated to the extent that pharmaceuticals are. Genetic engineering has a degree of danger beyond anything you are co-evolved with. I'm not directly arguing very much further than "you can't analogize it with anything you are familiar with"; it's a rich question. From a certain point of view (and a pretty good one at that) my entire point is that the question is exponentially more complicated than you are giving it credit for; I'm not trying to actually answer it, implicitly or otherwise. I mean "exponentially" quite carefully and mathematically; part of the co-evolution is that it selects a much, much smaller subset of possibilities out of the full exponential space, resulting in a much smaller "space of interest".
- cwkoss 4y ago
  It's a lot simpler than that: - it is immoral to genetically experiment on others (especially children) without their consent. - individuals should have the right to attempt to genetically engineer themselves if they wish: if they understand and accept the risk society should not seek to stop them.
  - giantg2 4y ago
Sporktacular 4y ago
Do any of these mature technologies, tested by time, limited by safety standards or implemented by trained experts result in unknown genetic damage passed down to uncountable generations? (please don't say smartphones). These transhuman/biohacker talking points really don't stand up to mild scrutiny.

GTP 4y ago

>Does everyone understand what they eat? how electricity works? how their smartphone works? the drugs their doctor prescribes? True, but you always have to balance them with the potential issues that could arise. I don't understand how drugs works, and that's why I need a doctor's prescription to take them. Many people don't know much about electricity, and that's why there are laws regulating how electric wirings have to be made and that say that only trained electricians can do wirings in homes. Many people don't understand how smartphones work, but what's the greatest damage that can result from this and how likely is it to happen?

josalhor 4y ago
Absolutely agree. And while I don't recommend anyone to try this out on a DIY basis, historically a lot inventions we take for granted and have made our life better came from people literally tinkering around with stuff and slowly figuring out what works.
gptgpp 4y ago
I mean... regulations are actually a lot more flexible than you're implying. I was looking to wire up some solar panels to a cottage in the countryside. Since municipal regulations didn't apply, provincial ones did, which were that if you've built the structure for your own occupancy and follow the electrical code, this is completely legal. So the code applies, but it's not restricted to trained electricians in some cases. Same goes for drugs in much of the world. Personally I think it's a little ridiculous people need to get a script for stuff like viagra or tretinoin or finasteride. It becomes almost farcical when online clinics exist which will do a consultation without obtaining medical records or even seeing you via video and write you a script. Or that celebrities can get private doctors who will write them whatever. Or when you consider most countries outside NA and the EU where you can get pretty much whatever you want OTC. Not to mention you can order TONS of different research chemicals and "nootropics", completely legally, online. If you were to pass a regulation that was essentially "only registered genetic engineers can experiment in any way with this" it would be way more restrictive than anything we have for pharmaceuticals, or even domestic electricity. What you're suggesting would be on par with regulations for nuclear technology. IDK seems maybe a bit excessive...
- GTP 4y ago
  That wasn't what I was suggesting. I think it is reckless to try to persuade people into trying genetic engineering on themselves (one of the examples that the man showed in the documentary, was about injecting into your arm modified cells to make your muscles grow bigger). But I'm fine with people using kits to have fun making a plant that glows in the dark, as long as they take care of not releasing the results of their experiments in the environment.

jerf 4y ago

Broad-scale co-evolution means that if you use your co-evolved common sense on the co-evolved natural world, you will broadly speaking be safe. Even with a bit of experimentation on the fringes. Our technological world has then co-evolved with our common sense, which is why despite the several ways our houses have things running through them which can kill us, they don't manage to do it very often. When you start playing with genetic engineering directly, you're stepping out of your co-evolved "common sense" space into a much more vicious domain, and you get a double-whammy in that not only is this space much more vicious, you are also very very much trying to interact it with intuition built by interactions completely unsuitable for it. No, people do not understand what they eat, how electricity works, or how their smartphone works, but they are co-evolved with all those things. You are not co-evolved with the results of genetic engineering. You are also not co-evolved with raw exposure to the space of all possible drugs, which is why I left that one out of my list. Notice the incredibly more strict protocols our society uses around those than we use for food, electricity, or smartphones, because we are not co-evolved with arbitrary drug chemicals. None of the other three things are unregulated by any stretch of the imagination, but neither are they regulated to the extent that pharmaceuticals are. Genetic engineering has a degree of danger beyond anything you are co-evolved with. I'm not directly arguing very much further than "you can't analogize it with anything you are familiar with"; it's a rich question. From a certain point of view (and a pretty good one at that) my entire point is that the question is exponentially more complicated than you are giving it credit for; I'm not trying to actually answer it, implicitly or otherwise. I mean "exponentially" quite carefully and mathematically; part of the co-evolution is that it selects a much, much smaller subset of possibilities out of the full exponential space, resulting in a much smaller "space of interest".

cwkoss 4y ago
It's a lot simpler than that: - it is immoral to genetically experiment on others (especially children) without their consent. - individuals should have the right to attempt to genetically engineer themselves if they wish: if they understand and accept the risk society should not seek to stop them.
- giantg2 4y ago

Sporktacular 4y ago

Do any of these mature technologies, tested by time, limited by safety standards or implemented by trained experts result in unknown genetic damage passed down to uncountable generations? (please don't say smartphones). These transhuman/biohacker talking points really don't stand up to mild scrutiny.