4 ms·

Oh man are you going to be upset when we regulate all that out of existence I guess you're being sarcastic, but it's not that I fear progress will stop. What

by crusso 13y ago

Oh man are you going to be upset when we regulate all that out of existence I guess you're being sarcastic, but it's not that I fear progress will stop. What I see instead is a great deal of needless friction that prevents efficiency. When you consider how innovations and businesses build on one another over the years - any friction in the process compounds the amount of time for "the future" to be here. I doubt anyone here on HN doesn't realize that in the future our genetic code will be understood and manipulated like we do with computers and software today. Will this golden age of genetic self determination be 50 years from now or 500 years from now? Roadblocks we put in front of progress now will mean many decades of delay for the advances down the road that are dependent upon today's advances and the intervening thousands of others. law that was passed with tremendous public support Doesn't at all make it right, good, or mean I won't bitch about it.

rayiner 13y ago
> I guess you're being sarcastic, but it's not that I fear progress will stop. I'm not being sarcastic. Any technology that tries to correlate genetic markers with behavioral characteristics will be regulated out of existence. I'm not taking a position one way or the other as to whether this is a good idea, but I'd bet money on it being the outcome. > Doesn't at all make it right, good, or mean I won't bitch about it. Sure. But what it does mean is that it's an intended consequence, rather than an unintended consequence as your characterization suggested.
- crusso 13y ago
  Any technology that tries to correlate genetic markers with behavioral characteristics will be regulated out of existence I'm sure that there are those who would like to make all such pursuits illegal. Such a slippery slope, though. Where will that line be drawn? Which 23AM style correlation question should be illegal for inclusion in their correlation determination system? 1. Do brussel sprouts taste bitter and unpleasant? 2. Are you more active in the mornings? 3. Do you prefer blondes to brunettes? 4. Do you carry debt on your credit cards month-to-month or pay them off? 5. Did you graduate college? 6. Do your joints ache after rigorous exercise? 7. Have you ever been arrested for a felony? 8. Are people with a great deal of money more lucky than clever? 9. Does hard work tend to lead to financial success?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    4, 5, and 7, obviously.
    - marris 13y ago
      not obvious
      - Intermernet 13y ago
        Fairly obvious: 4, 5 & 7 request factual answers. The rest are asking for opinions.
        nickff 13y ago
        Strictly speaking, the others are not opinions, they are subjective.
anigbrowl 13y ago
any friction in the process compounds the amount of time for "the future" to be here You're one of those people that rides bicycles without any brakes then, I take it.
- crusso 13y ago
  You're one of those people who sees "needless friction" in the previous sentence and tries to make an out-of-context argument against a position that I obviously don't hold.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It's hard to tell what position you hold, since the kernel of your argument seems to be that 23AM is a low-cost democratizing alternative to existing licensed medical technology, and should therefore be free to market itself without FDA approval. Do you also believe that of the companies who sell apricot pits as a cancer cure? I doubt it, but the logic you use sustains both arguments.
    - crusso 13y ago
      Where oh where did I say anything about "alternative to existing licensed medical technology"? Where has 23AM indicated such a thing whereby I'm supporting that argument by proxy? Where did I or 23AM indicate that they had a cure for anything whatsoever? The answers are "nowhere", "nowhere", and "nowhere".
      - tptacek 13y ago
        This is disingenuous. The FDA doesn't claim 23AM markets a "cure" either.
        crusso 13y ago
        Nobody said anything about a cure until you brought up apricot pits as being analogous.
douglee650 13y ago
there have definitely been, uh, attempts at eugenics in the past. less sophisticated, overt attempts, but you can not remove the smell of certain things, no matter the scientific veneer pasted over them.

by crusso 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> I guess you're being sarcastic, but it's not that I fear progress will stop. I'm not being sarcastic. Any technology that tries to correlate genetic markers with behavioral characteristics will be regulated out of existence. I'm not taking a position one way or the other as to whether this is a good idea, but I'd bet money on it being the outcome. > Doesn't at all make it right, good, or mean I won't bitch about it. Sure. But what it does mean is that it's an intended consequence, rather than an unintended consequence as your characterization suggested.

crusso 13y ago
Any technology that tries to correlate genetic markers with behavioral characteristics will be regulated out of existence I'm sure that there are those who would like to make all such pursuits illegal. Such a slippery slope, though. Where will that line be drawn? Which 23AM style correlation question should be illegal for inclusion in their correlation determination system? 1. Do brussel sprouts taste bitter and unpleasant? 2. Are you more active in the mornings? 3. Do you prefer blondes to brunettes? 4. Do you carry debt on your credit cards month-to-month or pay them off? 5. Did you graduate college? 6. Do your joints ache after rigorous exercise? 7. Have you ever been arrested for a felony? 8. Are people with a great deal of money more lucky than clever? 9. Does hard work tend to lead to financial success?
- rayiner 13y ago
  4, 5, and 7, obviously.
  - marris 13y ago
    not obvious
    - Intermernet 13y ago
      Fairly obvious: 4, 5 & 7 request factual answers. The rest are asking for opinions.
      - nickff 13y ago
        Strictly speaking, the others are not opinions, they are subjective.

anigbrowl 13y ago

any friction in the process compounds the amount of time for "the future" to be here You're one of those people that rides bicycles without any brakes then, I take it.

crusso 13y ago
You're one of those people who sees "needless friction" in the previous sentence and tries to make an out-of-context argument against a position that I obviously don't hold.
- tptacek 13y ago
  It's hard to tell what position you hold, since the kernel of your argument seems to be that 23AM is a low-cost democratizing alternative to existing licensed medical technology, and should therefore be free to market itself without FDA approval. Do you also believe that of the companies who sell apricot pits as a cancer cure? I doubt it, but the logic you use sustains both arguments.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Where oh where did I say anything about "alternative to existing licensed medical technology"? Where has 23AM indicated such a thing whereby I'm supporting that argument by proxy? Where did I or 23AM indicate that they had a cure for anything whatsoever? The answers are "nowhere", "nowhere", and "nowhere".
    - tptacek 13y ago
      This is disingenuous. The FDA doesn't claim 23AM markets a "cure" either.
      - crusso 13y ago
        Nobody said anything about a cure until you brought up apricot pits as being analogous.

douglee650 13y ago

there have definitely been, uh, attempts at eugenics in the past. less sophisticated, overt attempts, but you can not remove the smell of certain things, no matter the scientific veneer pasted over them.