6 ms·
I don't fear the CRISPR, but most of the points in the article are consequentialist in nature based on how hard it is to apply CRISPR in practice right now. Gen
by SapphireSun 11y ago
I don't fear the CRISPR, but most of the points in the article are consequentialist in nature based on how hard it is to apply CRISPR in practice right now. Genetic technology moves very fast, c.f. CRISPR :P What seemed impossible a few years ago is now almost practical.
The real point one should take away I feel is the idea that parents will act to benefit their children more than they want to create "superhumans" or other mutants. It's pretty clear to me that the way forward is to allow disease oriented research, but debate other uses well in advance of feasibility.
- pmalynin 11y agoWhat's wrong with creating superhumans? That is if we all become superhuman.
- nmrm2 11y agoThere are a lot of risk reduction reasons and also a lot of ethical and moral reasons. These are all legitimate and worth considering, and hopefully another commenter or two can elaborate and point you to resources. But I want to take a moment to highlight the legitimacy of sentimental reasons in this case. Humanity is an important and closely guarded trait, for reasons that some have characterized as "self-evident". One could characterize "civilization" largely as a mechanism for preserving humanness and helping it flourish. When it comes to deciding the genetic fate of the species, these rather sentimental ideals about what makes life worth living are perhaps one of the most important decision criterion.
- meatysnapper 11y agoWhat exactly is humanity? Wiping out as many other species as we can? The Kardashians? Soylent? Hopefully we can leave that behind.
- derefr 11y agoBoredom, laughter, appreciation of art, curiosity, etc. Genetic modifications could theoretically remove all of those things, and give us other things besides, drives we wouldn't recognize in the slightest.
- wowowow 11y agoIt's natural that an intelligent agent would defend against modification to its current primary drives, but the thing about changing your mind about what you want is that once you've done it you no longer care about your previous drive. I find it hard to think of reasons why we'd rationally object to changing our fundamental motivations, since we wouldn't care after we did it. There's no real reason to object other than a craven appeal to self-preservation taken axiomatically.
- derefr 11y agoThe same can be said of suicide.
- vdaniuk 11y agoHumanity is also suffering, pain, despair, hate, agony, torture. Human condition is indivisible from suffering. Such is life they say. For millenias humanity has not made a significant number of its individual members happy or fulffilled. Humanity as something immutable is in its waning years. And I won't mourn for it. The posthumans are coming. Let them come faster.
- Brakenshire 11y agoFrankly, it is precisely because of the human condition that technologies like this are dangerous. What happens when a misogynist wants their daughter to have a reduced sex drive, or a fundamentalist government wants its people to be more religious. If we have this capability, it will not go well.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
- onewaystreet 11y agoIn the end the debate will be pointless. If CRISPR and other techniques advance to the point where a Gattaca-like level of genetic manipulation is possible, they will be used. Banning them means that they will be used by only the elite.