3 ms·

I think you vastly overestimate our ability to understand genetics. The genome (any species' genome) evolved so haphazardly and with such deep and interconnecte

I think you vastly overestimate our ability to understand genetics. The genome (any species' genome) evolved so haphazardly and with such deep and interconnected causal spiderwebs I think it's going to take centuries to understand it to the extent that we'll be able to intentionally influence it more than genetic drift and selection currently do. NINJA EDIT: Regardless, the certainty with which you seem to regard your claims is hardly justified (unless you've got some concrete evidence you can share). If you're wrong, we'll have wished we were thinking about these things all along.

tomkin 15y ago
> I think it's going to take centuries to understand it to the extent that we'll be able to intentionally influence it more than genetic drift and selection currently do If this process can be understood mathematically, computers at ever-increasing speeds can come to these understandings for us.
- nollidge 15y ago
  Unless we come up with a way to completely simulate genetic chemistry and embryonic development in order to link phenotypes with genotypes, I don't see how it's a computable problem.
mattmanser 15y ago
Given that we're doing it right now to plants and animals right now I think you're very wrong.
- angersock 15y ago
  Strictly speaking, we've been doing it to plants and animals--in one way or another--for hundreds if not thousands of years. That's an entirely different problem than engineering humans.
- refurb 15y ago
  What we're doing now is a pretty haphazard introduction of non-nature genes into plants and animals often with unexpected effects. Look up histone acetylation and DNA methylation. We're barely scratching the surface of how gene expression works. To say we're going to rebuild the human genome in the next 100 years is a little fanciful. Reminds me of the "trains to the moon" that Popular Mechanics said we would all be riding in the 1980s.
- nollidge 15y ago
  You mean like engineering Roundup-resistant crops, inadvertently (but quite effectively) selecting for Roundup-resistant weeds in the process [0]? We're infants with building blocks right now. [0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/07/147656157/farmers-face-tough-choice-on-ways-to-fight-new-strains-of-weeds http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/07/147656157/farmer...
Dn_Ab 15y ago
People tend to overestimate the change that can happen in 50 years and underestimate the change that can happen in 10 years. The overestimation is an interesting one, it is an overestimation of how consistent future trends will be with current. It is impossible to know in detail what the future of engineering and science will entail. It is possible to know the general outline of the next 10 years but it is impossible to know which of those changes will start an exponential cascade of changes and which things will be left to grow polynomially.

tomkin 15y ago

> I think it's going to take centuries to understand it to the extent that we'll be able to intentionally influence it more than genetic drift and selection currently do If this process can be understood mathematically, computers at ever-increasing speeds can come to these understandings for us.

nollidge 15y ago
Unless we come up with a way to completely simulate genetic chemistry and embryonic development in order to link phenotypes with genotypes, I don't see how it's a computable problem.

mattmanser 15y ago

Given that we're doing it right now to plants and animals right now I think you're very wrong.

angersock 15y ago
Strictly speaking, we've been doing it to plants and animals--in one way or another--for hundreds if not thousands of years. That's an entirely different problem than engineering humans.
refurb 15y ago
What we're doing now is a pretty haphazard introduction of non-nature genes into plants and animals often with unexpected effects. Look up histone acetylation and DNA methylation. We're barely scratching the surface of how gene expression works. To say we're going to rebuild the human genome in the next 100 years is a little fanciful. Reminds me of the "trains to the moon" that Popular Mechanics said we would all be riding in the 1980s.
nollidge 15y ago
You mean like engineering Roundup-resistant crops, inadvertently (but quite effectively) selecting for Roundup-resistant weeds in the process [0]? We're infants with building blocks right now. [0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/07/147656157/farmers-face-tough-choice-on-ways-to-fight-new-strains-of-weeds http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/07/147656157/farmer...

Dn_Ab 15y ago

People tend to overestimate the change that can happen in 50 years and underestimate the change that can happen in 10 years. The overestimation is an interesting one, it is an overestimation of how consistent future trends will be with current. It is impossible to know in detail what the future of engineering and science will entail. It is possible to know the general outline of the next 10 years but it is impossible to know which of those changes will start an exponential cascade of changes and which things will be left to grow polynomially.