4 ms·

Wild times. The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge. Are we really ready for designer genetics at scale?

rvz 1y ago
> The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge. They [0] will do it anyway. Ethics, risks and morals be damned. Dystopia capitalism is highly profitable. [0] https://mynucleus.com/ https://mynucleus.com/
JohnFen 1y ago
If there are two things SV tends not to care about, they are ethics and long-term risks.
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."
gavinray 1y ago
> The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge. Do they? If we have the ability to screen embryos to determine which ones are likely to have the least health problems, and to live as fulfilling and successful a life of possible, do we not then have a moral imperative to do this? Supposing it were free: to choose NOT to do it, would be to say, "I don't care if I bring avoidable pain and suffering into the world."
- culopatin 1y ago
  Every time I talk to my gf about this we get to the “where do we draw the line” question. You can keep expanding the list of filters until you have people with money taking off not only in opportunity but now also genetically.
  - trod1234 1y ago
    Also, lets not forget the key concept of counter-party risk. What assurances and real resolutions do you have that what they market is actually true; and the baby your gf is carrying isn't in fact a mini-musk with no related DNA from you. Like a cuckoo bird. Interestingly the term cuckold, referring to a man whose wife was unfaithful, originates from the Cuckoo bird, where the bird is tricked into raising children biologically not their own; as happens with brood parasitism. These advances bring into question long-term fitness and survivability. We know mono-cultures die out quite easily. Before long we might have a "Surface" event, like what happened in that TV show. There are things that cannot be undone, and there are blind people more than willing to ensure those things are full steam ahead.
mc32 1y ago
The soviets had been thinking about this at least since their socialist revolution with the idea of the new soviet man[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man
bithive123 1y ago
Even absent ethical or practical risks, it seems presumptuous to assume that we know what direction our evolution should take. The inferior beings that need improvement are the same beings that will do the improving? That would imply an implausible level of knowledge about the future and what characteristics will be desirable.
- ben_w 1y ago
  > That would imply an implausible level of knowledge about the future and what characteristics will be desirable. Why? The default is evolution doing the same thing by randomly mutating each of us a little bit and seeing what sticks. It also doesn't have a plan, or insight into the future conditions we might encounter or create.

rvz 1y ago

> The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge. They [0] will do it anyway. Ethics, risks and morals be damned. Dystopia capitalism is highly profitable. [0] https://mynucleus.com/ https://mynucleus.com/

JohnFen 1y ago

If there are two things SV tends not to care about, they are ethics and long-term risks.

red-iron-pine 1y ago
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders."

gavinray 1y ago

> The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge. Do they? If we have the ability to screen embryos to determine which ones are likely to have the least health problems, and to live as fulfilling and successful a life of possible, do we not then have a moral imperative to do this? Supposing it were free: to choose NOT to do it, would be to say, "I don't care if I bring avoidable pain and suffering into the world."

culopatin 1y ago
Every time I talk to my gf about this we get to the “where do we draw the line” question. You can keep expanding the list of filters until you have people with money taking off not only in opportunity but now also genetically.
- trod1234 1y ago
  Also, lets not forget the key concept of counter-party risk. What assurances and real resolutions do you have that what they market is actually true; and the baby your gf is carrying isn't in fact a mini-musk with no related DNA from you. Like a cuckoo bird. Interestingly the term cuckold, referring to a man whose wife was unfaithful, originates from the Cuckoo bird, where the bird is tricked into raising children biologically not their own; as happens with brood parasitism. These advances bring into question long-term fitness and survivability. We know mono-cultures die out quite easily. Before long we might have a "Surface" event, like what happened in that TV show. There are things that cannot be undone, and there are blind people more than willing to ensure those things are full steam ahead.

mc32 1y ago

The soviets had been thinking about this at least since their socialist revolution with the idea of the new soviet man[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

bithive123 1y ago

Even absent ethical or practical risks, it seems presumptuous to assume that we know what direction our evolution should take. The inferior beings that need improvement are the same beings that will do the improving? That would imply an implausible level of knowledge about the future and what characteristics will be desirable.

ben_w 1y ago
> That would imply an implausible level of knowledge about the future and what characteristics will be desirable. Why? The default is evolution doing the same thing by randomly mutating each of us a little bit and seeing what sticks. It also doesn't have a plan, or insight into the future conditions we might encounter or create.