3 ms·

Here is one. Humans suck at predicting stuff. What makes you think you know what is better for your off-springs than random chance? I consider diseases and hu

by Ygg2 13y ago

Here is one. Humans suck at predicting stuff. What makes you think you know what is better for your off-springs than random chance? I consider diseases and human frailties a great part of what makes us humans. If we all had sharp teeth and powerful bite, we wouldn't drive cars, we'd chase furry animals and bite them with our powerful jaws. Occasionally stopping to hang around in the trees and eat fruits.

PeterisP 13y ago
There a bunch of cases where we definitely know that it is significantly different than random chance. There are embryos whose expected lifespan (because of their genome) is, say, a year, or who are expected to die soon after or before birth; and it is definitely not a great part of what makes us humans. We can do better, and eliminate a lot of suffering for families.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  Your points are all good ones. The likely problem is the potential for increased suffering for future generations, not necessarily to the child to be immediately born. There are genes that a usually superior when heterogenous. Sickle cell is the classic example. But it is quite possibly true that Tay-Sachs is also heterogeneous superior -- there is circumstantial evidence that it has been positively selected for. If people feel it is necessary to make the smartest children possible, the grandchildren will risk immense unnecessary suffering, unless they are brought into this world under the loving care of a genetic counselor.
mayanksinghal 13y ago
> Humans suck at predicting stuff. But surely humans beat randomness at many if not most tasks. This argument is not as much about whether we get sharper teeth or not, as it is about possibly saving a kid about a genetically inherited disorder. You may consider human suffering to be what defines humanity, but those who suffer most certainly don't.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Good point, but evolution works on larger timescale. Are we any good at building bridges that can last more than millenia? How about two? How about twenty five? I'm just saying humans tend to optimize for the short term. Suffering is essential because without suffering, there is no empathy. I'm reminded of the episode http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Masterpiece_Society_%28episode%29 http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Masterpiece_Society_%28e... in which a technology created to help blind, helps crew to save the society, which couldn't conceive it because it was too perfect.
- crpatino 13y ago
  The article explicitly mention that this is not the case. If anything, it poses the question of how much genetic engineering is too much. And about betting randomness... I recall sometime reading about this certain ethnic group, which is taboo to single out and which has a disproportionate amount of Nobel prize winners (amongst other interesting features). The work describe how this people had both, compared to baseline population, higher than average IQ and higher than average propensity to some rare autoimmune disease that affects the brain. It turns out they had a higher incidence of several genetic mutations that each individually made you smarter (thus adaptive), but when found in the same individual made him sick. Now, extrapolate this to a bunch of helicopter parents, micromanaging optimization to this or that characteristics in their own kids genotype. To me it sounds to much like a bunch of script kiddies merging commits to an arcane, critical, undocumented legacy system.
JoshuaDavid 13y ago
> What makes you think you know what is better for your off-springs than random chance? The same thing that makes me think that I am better at building a bridge than random chance -- while the correlation between my predictions of the results of my actions and the actual results of my actions is not perfect, it is definitely greater than zero (which is what the correlation would be from random chance). > If we all had sharp teeth and powerful bite, we wouldn't drive cars, we'd chase furry animals and bite them with our powerful jaws. Occasionally stopping to hang around in the trees and eat fruits. [citation needed] Humans already are better long-distance runners than just about any other animal [1]. As a general rule, we don't spend all day running, despite the fact that we probably could. [1] http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us

by Ygg2 13y ago

PeterisP 13y ago

There a bunch of cases where we definitely know that it is significantly different than random chance. There are embryos whose expected lifespan (because of their genome) is, say, a year, or who are expected to die soon after or before birth; and it is definitely not a great part of what makes us humans. We can do better, and eliminate a lot of suffering for families.

comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
Your points are all good ones. The likely problem is the potential for increased suffering for future generations, not necessarily to the child to be immediately born. There are genes that a usually superior when heterogenous. Sickle cell is the classic example. But it is quite possibly true that Tay-Sachs is also heterogeneous superior -- there is circumstantial evidence that it has been positively selected for. If people feel it is necessary to make the smartest children possible, the grandchildren will risk immense unnecessary suffering, unless they are brought into this world under the loving care of a genetic counselor.

mayanksinghal 13y ago

> Humans suck at predicting stuff. But surely humans beat randomness at many if not most tasks. This argument is not as much about whether we get sharper teeth or not, as it is about possibly saving a kid about a genetically inherited disorder. You may consider human suffering to be what defines humanity, but those who suffer most certainly don't.

Ygg2 13y ago
Good point, but evolution works on larger timescale. Are we any good at building bridges that can last more than millenia? How about two? How about twenty five? I'm just saying humans tend to optimize for the short term. Suffering is essential because without suffering, there is no empathy. I'm reminded of the episode http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Masterpiece_Society_%28episode%29 http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Masterpiece_Society_%28e... in which a technology created to help blind, helps crew to save the society, which couldn't conceive it because it was too perfect.
crpatino 13y ago
The article explicitly mention that this is not the case. If anything, it poses the question of how much genetic engineering is too much. And about betting randomness... I recall sometime reading about this certain ethnic group, which is taboo to single out and which has a disproportionate amount of Nobel prize winners (amongst other interesting features). The work describe how this people had both, compared to baseline population, higher than average IQ and higher than average propensity to some rare autoimmune disease that affects the brain. It turns out they had a higher incidence of several genetic mutations that each individually made you smarter (thus adaptive), but when found in the same individual made him sick. Now, extrapolate this to a bunch of helicopter parents, micromanaging optimization to this or that characteristics in their own kids genotype. To me it sounds to much like a bunch of script kiddies merging commits to an arcane, critical, undocumented legacy system.

JoshuaDavid 13y ago

> What makes you think you know what is better for your off-springs than random chance? The same thing that makes me think that I am better at building a bridge than random chance -- while the correlation between my predictions of the results of my actions and the actual results of my actions is not perfect, it is definitely greater than zero (which is what the correlation would be from random chance). > If we all had sharp teeth and powerful bite, we wouldn't drive cars, we'd chase furry animals and bite them with our powerful jaws. Occasionally stopping to hang around in the trees and eat fruits. [citation needed] Humans already are better long-distance runners than just about any other animal [1]. As a general rule, we don't spend all day running, despite the fact that we probably could. [1] http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us