4 ms·

Western religions (various forms of Christianity) formed under hundreds of years of virtual and real slavery conditions. The Roman empire wasn't exactly the fri

Western religions (various forms of Christianity) formed under hundreds of years of virtual and real slavery conditions. The Roman empire wasn't exactly the friendliest place to live if you were an outsider. Therefore a big part of the belief system is the value of the individual. IIRC, Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people: up until then, "people" was just part of whichever clan you were in. Other folks were sub-human. So the real question in regards to both abortion and embryo hacking is how much value we place on other humans -- humans of a different color, humans that are babies, humans that disagree with us. Do we treat them as we would want to be treated? Or are they basically disposable? I'm not a religious person, and the theology gets very complicated, but it's not simply a matter of "religion says this must be bad, so I will reject all science and progress!" Folks on both sides of this discussion tend to over-simplify the positions of the others. Didn't believe you were doing that, but I felt the discussion could use a little more clarification.

EvaK_de 12y ago
Sometimes Hacker News feels like a really cold place. Today is one of those days - and the tone of this discussion is why I'm shuddering. Please tell me that you at least so much as hesitated an instant before you typed "embryo hacking", please?
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  My purpose was to draw the contrast between what we do as technologists and what kinds of people we are. "Embryo hacking" did that quite nicely. It was jarring, and it was supposed to be jarring.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    It's jarring because it's wrong. Hacking DNA is nothing like hacking code. Genes are not code. Genes are visible elements in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands. So by hacking embryos you're guaranteeing there will be unexpected results and outright defects. Does anyone have the right to create embryos that are defective? I don't think they do, and I don't think the ethical issues are particularly fuzzy.
    - scarmig 12y ago
      I agree with your last sentence, but: Any particular bit of code is a visible element in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands. The issue with hacking human embryos is that it's like working on a four billion year old legacy code base, written by toddlers smashing keys on a keyboard, in a language with no abstraction and where all variables are globally scoped. And the only testing you can do is to watch embryos die quickly or develop into people to die new and uniquely grisly deaths.
    - xkcd-sucks 12y ago
      >unexpected results and outright defects. This seems pretty close to the original meaning of "hacking," before "hacker" became a synonym for "Dilbert with VC funding"
userbinator 12y ago
So the real question in regards to both abortion and embryo hacking is how much value we place on other humans -- humans of a different color, humans that are babies, humans that disagree with us. Do we treat them as we would want to be treated? Or are they basically disposable? This gets particularly interesting when we consider that most people would be absolutely horrified at the idea of killing humans which are "imperfect" in some way, yet as one of the sibling comments says: Its perfectly fine to take an active hand in evolution by selective breeding through marriage, thus "remove "bad" genes from a family tree and potentially adding "good" ones. Presumably the creation of the embryo would've involved some degree of selection already, so "embryo hacking" seems more like patching bugs before birth... and this process is basically on the border between controversial abortion and widely-accepted selection before conception. I suppose your opinion on it rests on some deep notion of what you think humans and life is/should be. Also non-religious and ambivalent about this - if only for the fact that governments and corporations are likely going to eventually figure out how to use this tech to their own advantage...
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > This gets particularly interesting when we consider that most people would be absolutely horrified at the idea of killing humans which are "imperfect" in some way, yet as one of the sibling comments says: >> Its perfectly fine to take an active hand in evolution by selective breeding through marriage, thus "remove "bad" genes from a family tree and potentially adding "good" ones. Eugenics got itself a bad name early in the 20th century, but if you discard that cultural meme, the basic idea of purposefully improving genetic traits does make quite a lot of sense. It's that meme that makes people discard the concept wholesale.
  - AlexeyBrin 12y ago
    Eugenics got a bad name because they've tried to play god by sterilizing people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization . There is no cultural meme here.
    - 12y ago
srean 12y ago
> IIRC, Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people Do you mean that literally or was it intended to describe Abrahamic religion ? No flame bait here, genuine question.
- pitt1980 12y ago
  I'm probably not the right person to answer this but it seems that Christianity distinctly less tribal than Judism its seems that the Old Testament, is essentially the story of 'God's people' in contrast, especially the stuff concerning Paul, alot of the New Testament is about the Gentile's relation to God again, I'm not the right expert to answer this question
jqm 12y ago
Buddhism is older than Christianity. It (as far as I'm aware) isn't tribalistic and espouses benevolent treatment for all other humans.
hackuser 12y ago
> Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people: up until then, "people" was just part of whichever clan you were in. Other folks were sub-human. I disagree: Many people, including Christians, have used religion to justify treating others as sub-human. Consider slavery in the United States, often justified by religion, and treatment of people of different sexual orientations today. Many other horrible things have been done in Christianity's name (which again is true of all religions). Many religions emphasize treatment of strangers (and guests). I would bet all religions say that, and in other places all religions justify killing the sub-human, apostate 'other'. Religious scriptures (at least those I've read) are self-contradictory, vague documents; subject to wide ranges of interpretations; written by many people over long periods of time. Often people interpret whatever they want to see; perhaps that's necessary if your religion is going to appeal to millions or billions of people, across cultures and eras.
- amyjess 12y ago
  > Many people, including Christians, have used religion to justify treating others as sub-human I assume Daniel was talking about the early days of Christianity, when Jesus and the Apostles were alive. At that time, they actually meant the whole concept of "God loves everyone individually". Eventually, and especially when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, that changed, but during the early days, that tenet made Christianity revolutionary and dangerous to the Roman elite.

EvaK_de 12y ago

Sometimes Hacker News feels like a really cold place. Today is one of those days - and the tone of this discussion is why I'm shuddering. Please tell me that you at least so much as hesitated an instant before you typed "embryo hacking", please?

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
My purpose was to draw the contrast between what we do as technologists and what kinds of people we are. "Embryo hacking" did that quite nicely. It was jarring, and it was supposed to be jarring.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  It's jarring because it's wrong. Hacking DNA is nothing like hacking code. Genes are not code. Genes are visible elements in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands. So by hacking embryos you're guaranteeing there will be unexpected results and outright defects. Does anyone have the right to create embryos that are defective? I don't think they do, and I don't think the ethical issues are particularly fuzzy.
  - scarmig 12y ago
    I agree with your last sentence, but: Any particular bit of code is a visible element in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands. The issue with hacking human embryos is that it's like working on a four billion year old legacy code base, written by toddlers smashing keys on a keyboard, in a language with no abstraction and where all variables are globally scoped. And the only testing you can do is to watch embryos die quickly or develop into people to die new and uniquely grisly deaths.
  - xkcd-sucks 12y ago
    >unexpected results and outright defects. This seems pretty close to the original meaning of "hacking," before "hacker" became a synonym for "Dilbert with VC funding"

userbinator 12y ago

So the real question in regards to both abortion and embryo hacking is how much value we place on other humans -- humans of a different color, humans that are babies, humans that disagree with us. Do we treat them as we would want to be treated? Or are they basically disposable? This gets particularly interesting when we consider that most people would be absolutely horrified at the idea of killing humans which are "imperfect" in some way, yet as one of the sibling comments says: Its perfectly fine to take an active hand in evolution by selective breeding through marriage, thus "remove "bad" genes from a family tree and potentially adding "good" ones. Presumably the creation of the embryo would've involved some degree of selection already, so "embryo hacking" seems more like patching bugs before birth... and this process is basically on the border between controversial abortion and widely-accepted selection before conception. I suppose your opinion on it rests on some deep notion of what you think humans and life is/should be. Also non-religious and ambivalent about this - if only for the fact that governments and corporations are likely going to eventually figure out how to use this tech to their own advantage...

TeMPOraL 12y ago
> This gets particularly interesting when we consider that most people would be absolutely horrified at the idea of killing humans which are "imperfect" in some way, yet as one of the sibling comments says: >> Its perfectly fine to take an active hand in evolution by selective breeding through marriage, thus "remove "bad" genes from a family tree and potentially adding "good" ones. Eugenics got itself a bad name early in the 20th century, but if you discard that cultural meme, the basic idea of purposefully improving genetic traits does make quite a lot of sense. It's that meme that makes people discard the concept wholesale.
- AlexeyBrin 12y ago
  Eugenics got a bad name because they've tried to play god by sterilizing people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization . There is no cultural meme here.
  - 12y ago

srean 12y ago

> IIRC, Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people Do you mean that literally or was it intended to describe Abrahamic religion ? No flame bait here, genuine question.

pitt1980 12y ago
I'm probably not the right person to answer this but it seems that Christianity distinctly less tribal than Judism its seems that the Old Testament, is essentially the story of 'God's people' in contrast, especially the stuff concerning Paul, alot of the New Testament is about the Gentile's relation to God again, I'm not the right expert to answer this question

jqm 12y ago

Buddhism is older than Christianity. It (as far as I'm aware) isn't tribalistic and espouses benevolent treatment for all other humans.

hackuser 12y ago

> Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people: up until then, "people" was just part of whichever clan you were in. Other folks were sub-human. I disagree: Many people, including Christians, have used religion to justify treating others as sub-human. Consider slavery in the United States, often justified by religion, and treatment of people of different sexual orientations today. Many other horrible things have been done in Christianity's name (which again is true of all religions). Many religions emphasize treatment of strangers (and guests). I would bet all religions say that, and in other places all religions justify killing the sub-human, apostate 'other'. Religious scriptures (at least those I've read) are self-contradictory, vague documents; subject to wide ranges of interpretations; written by many people over long periods of time. Often people interpret whatever they want to see; perhaps that's necessary if your religion is going to appeal to millions or billions of people, across cultures and eras.

amyjess 12y ago
> Many people, including Christians, have used religion to justify treating others as sub-human I assume Daniel was talking about the early days of Christianity, when Jesus and the Apostles were alive. At that time, they actually meant the whole concept of "God loves everyone individually". Eventually, and especially when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, that changed, but during the early days, that tenet made Christianity revolutionary and dangerous to the Roman elite.