Slashdot Mirror
We Risk Programming Inequality into Our DNA (vice.com)
An anonymous reader writes:Imagine having a chip in your brain to boost your concentration, or pumping artificial blood into your veins to improve stamina. With gene editing, this may be possible. Scientists are pioneering the ability to tweak our DNA to wipe out disease and maybe even allow us to choose desirable traits in our unborn children, like height or intelligence. None of these technologies have moved out of the lab, but Americans are already uncomfortable with them. In a survey from Pew Research Center, almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes -- whether it were to combat disease or shop for traits. Nearly 70 percent of survey participants also said they were more worried than enthusiastic about the possibility of synthetic-blood and brain-chip implants. They saw these options as "meddling with nature," even though we've been using technology to enhance our lives for thousands of years.
We've truly hit rock bottom.
EOM
love is just extroverted narcissism
for hundreds of millions of years.
We generally call it "evolution" round these parts.
Huh, the writeup doesn't bring up the "inequality" boogeyman. Wonder how that got inro the title.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
humans have inequality programmed into their DNA. that's why for example average strength of women is less than 2/3 that of men. that's why I can get a sunburn in less than third the time as someone whose ancestors are from some other places, so unfair I demand sunshine time equality!
we have evolved to Trump2016 maybe evolution needs help!!
and if you believe in creationism... the devil is winning and god needs help.
It's he!! Live with it!!
We already have inequality in our DNA, and not just the *ist kind. Some people are inherently susceptible or resistant to certain diseases, more likely to live longer and so on. The very nature of DNA is to be unequal and provide genetic diversity. Species that lack enough diversity in their DNA have a habit of going extinct.
Parents will decide to look out for the best interest of their child and enhance their child's opportunities in life. The body, can and will be hacked, get over it.
Being afraid or even being offended by new technologies is the usual thing to expect. When people heard that they could go 30 mph on a train many insisted that death would be the consequence of moving that quickly. Now we have people scared to death over drones. If you build it they will fear it !
Given "nature's" obvious shortfalls, and the resounding success that our "meddling" has yielded so far -- clothing, farming, animal husbandry, domesticated fire, water purification, and so on -- I find it a bit depressing that the "meddling with nature" trope still gets any traction at all. I rather wish that those who oppose "meddling with nature" would pull themselves away from this globe-spanning communication network and go become wolf food, rather than bothering the rest of us.
I have family histories of both hypertension and arthritis. If it was possible for me to prevent my children from developing these diseases, I would have to think long and hard about it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
We should program all humans to be equal by design. Therefore, all babies since now on should be clones. We just need to find the perfect template.
Is the idea that some people are more susceptable to some diseases than other people, really all that new of a topic? Seriously, we need to vigorously debate something that we have known about for thousands of years?
Ok, fine. Let's start the debate.
Hey, everyone, it looks like we have the tech to choose whether or not our offspring are resistant to certain diseases. Yes, I agree, this is exciting. Yes, yes. Hmm.. there's a guy booing. Maybe he has a point. Let's ask him.
Sir? Sir! You have an objection?
I'm sorry, sir, all I could hear was nonsense mumbling about how it is bad for people to decide things when they can just roll dice instead. Could you please elaborate?
Oh. A crackpot. I see. Anyone else?
Yes? Ma'am?
Oh. Nature is to be revered. We never should have come down from the trees and passed around green papers and worn digital wristwat--pardon?
Ah, yes. Sorry, she doesn't have a mic. For those of you who couldn't hear: Life is only worth living, when you're unsure about whether you're going to freeze to death, starve to death, or die by pestilence. Yes. Ok, anyone else?
Very well. We've had our debate. Thanks to everyone who participated!
we have devolved to Trump2016 maybe evolution needs help!!
While it's a nice thought to say that everyone is equal, in reality some are stronger, some are smarter, some are more persistent, some are more creative, some are more empathic, some are more willing to take risks to improve their condition... and what is even less fair, some of that you can't change much beyond what you were born with. Of course, with more advanced technology it may be possible for people to choose whatever genetics they want for themselves, or at least for their children. But then, some people just don't want that sort of responsibility.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
...and rejecting the birth if the child shows it will be born autistic isn't that much different.
I hate to turn this into an "us vs them" thing... but I think a lot of these folks just realize that the 1% will be the only ones who can ever afford the technology, and that they'll use it whether they're allowed to, or not.
Due to recent improvements in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR, the trend towards engineering ourselves and our children is almost inevitable:
Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever - CRISPR
(Maybe that's exactly what TFA is talking about, but it's blocked for me at work.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
my ass, they can't even treat psychiatric diseases and yet, here some bullshit gene editing news. you will have 4 legs where two of them not working.
We do not have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be directly editing out genome. Just like with so many other technologies, we rush into using them, not thinking far enough ahead, and not paying enough attention to what can go wrong. We barely have scratched the surface of how life even works, let alone even having a fraction of a percent of knowledge of what our own genes, in their totallity, actualy do, yet we already want to 'edit' them, just because we can.. Never mind the possible consequences. Never mind the countless cautionary tales that have been written over the decades, we're more than willing to just push ahead, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. Never mind that the consequences could be dire for the entire human race.
I'll say it again, louder, for the benefit of the usual internet idiots who can't be bothered to read:
We DO NOT have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be editing our own genome! Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
No wait... I meant "Gattaca! Gattaca!"
We may enact some legislation to "prevent" this sort of thing, but it's going to happen anyway, because there will be a demand for it.
Prohibition simply doesn't work, whether it's prohibition of drugs, prostitution, alcohol... or genetic manipulation. One way or another we're going there. Perhaps this is a chance to "get it right" for a change, and educate the public about this emerging technology, rather than the usual FUD tactics.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Internet, cellphones, vaccines, etc. People can either accept progress or get left behind. Things like DNA programming are here now thanks to things like CRISPR. Expect custom babies in your lifetime. I look forward to improvements in my own programming for that matter as I have inherited some baggage and in need of some tweaking.
The main problem with all this DNA 'meddling' will be that its very expensive (at least at first) allowing only the very wealthy to improve their genes but not the rest of us, creating an even bigger divide between the super-rich and the rest of humanity. That is a bad thing.
Prevent individuals, or prevent species drift on the human race? Legislative goalposts usually target macro, not perfection down to every last speck of micro. Ostentatious banners (ZERO TOLERANCE!) notwithstanding.
Frankenstein.
Always come to mind when this sort of technology is brought up.
I've got my pitch fork ready.
While stated in a joking manner, I am actually very against modding humans.
Editing DNA is just too creepy for many people to consider it. BUT..... Selectively choosing sperm and egg for specific properties from a large pool created by the parents (like what was done in Gattaca) is something I could see done. People would simply see it as taking the randomness out and picking the best characteristics from what they (the parents) contribute.
That may very wll be, but it's important to understand that we are not slaves to genetic predispositions. We all have free will, and we are all capable of exercising it in any situation. Though certain predelections may exist genetically, we are always free to form our own beliefs. The notion that anything otherwise is a truth is bad science, bad philosophy, and just plain old bad judgement.
FYI...in Gattaca they did not edit DNA. They simply chose from the pool the parents provided (egg and sperm) the ones they wanted to get the characteristics they desired and then did in-vitro fertilization.
Frankly I do not see why anyone in the world getting Artificially inseminated is not insisting on Dean Karnazes's sperm.
Frankly, I am surprised people aren't hunting him down and getting sperm at gun point. At the age of 54, he can't run very fast, even if he literally does not need to stop EVER.
He once ran for over 80 hour straight, without sleep.
Worse than the Terminator.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If you had some recessive trait that was horrible like Tay-Sachs disease or sickle cell, would you be willing to invest in a little trip off shore for a little help? That is how it will start. How are you going to stop people? How are you going to prove it? Then the process will continue. Some people want their kids to be football stars, others want their kids to be Einsteins. No way to stop it.
They saw these options as "meddling with nature," even though we've been using technology to enhance our lives for thousands of years.
Call me a luddite but comparing the selective breeding we've been doing for thousands of years with livestock, for example, to the ability to insert cat and lizard DNA into a fertilised human egg cell and produce people that can see in the dark and regrow severed limbs is like comparing a stone hand-axe to a chain saw. When you are able to modify the human genome on that level you would be well advised to be agonisingly careful.
There's always a BUT.
There comes the issue of balance. When there's something good, there's something negative/bad to counterbalance it. It happens in every part of our lives. Everything biologically (chemically, physically, electromagnetically) must find balance and is always striving to do so. Heck, that's what the universe operates on with everything we've found so far; something got screwed up and things went BOOM, this way, that way, or didn't...but what's always been observed is energy of all types converting, exchanging, repelling, attracting, you name it. Our entire existence is the result of imbalance and everything trying (unsuccessfully so far) to find balance.
Having said that, it's just plain scary to think that there's even a remote possibility that a genetic change can offer something of awesomeness and not have a major negative to counterbalance it. e.g. "I'm 7'2" tall now and have massive muscles. Downside is that I'm lacking calcium and my center of gravity is off."
To try and meet the demand of maintaining balance, more muscle need to be used. Since the rest of the body's components haven't been accounted for when it comes to an imbalance, it's quite possible that one of those imbalances will destroy or injure other parts of that body. It's a complicated mess (and a beautiful one), but we have become what we are today due to accidents (oops, just had sex with a different species of human, but look how tough my kid is), disasters (big rock hit, make everything cold, body must adapt and pass genes on with adaptations), and so many others. Heck, why do we have butt hair? It doesn't really do anything but get in the way as far as we can tell, but the body hasn't mutated it away over time, so it does something, right?
Back to the topic.. If I volunteer to have my kid (don't have one, just saying) given an advantage in advanced brain development with an emphasis on the pre-frontal cortex, perhaps it will trigger a dormant gene somewhere around the age of 25 that breaks down neural connections and causes brain cells to trigger death so it doesn't, you know, explode. I'm stating something that can be argued to death (no pun), but it's just food for thought.
It comes back to what I said in the beginning - everything finds balance, and usually good is just a swinging level of imbalance from the bad which normally causes something else good to cancel it out, but the extreme bad used to cancel out the good might be TOO MUCH for the good to counteract, hence problem. I don't need to state the obvious about not knowing how bad it is until it happens.
So, who wants to sign up as a 100% committed test subject and relieve the testing company from all legal recourse if something goes wrong? I'm not quite there. Need to see more examples where I can ask questions and have the questions answered along with a demonstration of the outcome or a new example with a modification that helps to cancel/counteract something I find wrong. I'm still talking rats at this point. Seeing other humans who have committed to the project and seeing their failures and successes just leads to more questions. I guess I still have something to live for (though I have no idea what it is). I guess it's "I want to see what's gonna happen next".
I don't think a blanket ban would necessarily be a good thing.
If we can eliminate certain diseases and syndromes, that might be beneficial for all of society as well as the individual. Although, care must be taken we don't stifle our genetic diversity too much. Some of our weaknesses might be strengths under certain circumstances (example: sickle cell).
When it comes to "cosmetic" enhancements, that's where we should leave DNA alone (unless it's for things such as eliminating hare-lip or other conditions that make life for the individual harder due to social stigmas).
Other enhancements like "intelligence", "strength", "libido", etc... yeah, it might benefit society to allow boosting those in DNA, but I still have certain ethical qualms against doing so. I do think that it's inevitable they will be allowed eventually regardless of moral qualms. If China produced a society of super-humans, Japan would want to produce a society of super-humans too to not get left behind. That would make Korea and Russia follow suit- and if Russia had super humans, the US and Europe would want them too so Russia wouldn't be able to over-achieve compared to them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You would have to think about it??? Why wouldn't you do it, assuming no side effects?
Well one reason would be that if you have a copyrighted gene sequence in your DNA having kids may mean that you get prosecuted for copyright violation.
The fact that paranoid, credulous, and superstitious people will avoid genetic therapy is a feature, not a bug.
The only real risk is that their numbers become too large and they become an unsustainable burden on society as the human baseline leaves them far behind. Their own sense of entitlement might very well create the sci-fi dystopia they're currently whining about.
almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes
Interestingly enough 46% of Americans believe God created people in his image only a few thousand years ago. I wonder if there's any correlation.
It would be most interesting if natural selection ends up eliminating god.
So TFS mentions gene editing, brain implants... and synthetic blood.
Who the fuck is worried about synthetic blood? What is their concern?
Of course people are hesitant about embracing a "brain chip implant". It stinks of overeager release. People were hesitant about the nascent state of smartwatches for the same reason.
Survey them about "Fourth gen, polished, already-found-to-be-useful implants".
The doubts toward DNA tinkering may be similarly couched. "How do you feel about allowing the population access to predefined, targeted splices for specific (eg disease) conditions? These are contained splices, with well-understood boundaries and well-known effects."
I'd wager the "almost half" of people that wouldn't edit their baby's genes are pretty much only people that have no identifiable genetic defects in their families plus those who are knee-jerk objecting for religious reasons.
The Type I diabetes I gave to my son? (Me, my brother, my son- seems likely genetic.) I don't care how soon they cure it, or perfect an imperceptable prosthetic pancreas, or hone transplant/stem cell technology- I'd rather my grandchildren avoid it entirely.
A zillion years ago, some person had attributes that made them a better hunter. They brought home the best meat and their children ate better, so they got to breed with better mates. These hunting abilities overlapped with fighting abilities, so not only could they get better food, they could neutralize local rivals or lead the fighting against the tribe on the other side of the river.
These people became clan, then tribal leaders. Eventually more formalized class systems enforced these breeding systems and became the aristocracy, which had elaborate rules about who could marry whom.
I'd guess that most of the genetic advantages fell away early on and that later "good breeding" was less about genetics and more about access to high-quality foods during pregnancy and youth which contributed to better development. Later on it was probably even less about nutrition and more about access to material resources, like better weapons, armor or education.
What's funny about the genetic aspect of "good breeding" is that I have a client that is a high-end country club, and in the summer when the pool is open, nearly everyone has a perfect body. What's genetic and what's not, I don't know, but it's hard to escape the feeling that there's not some kind of selection process there.
from the ./ summary:
That is a rather stupid take on the issue for at least two reasons:
First, the situation at present is that humans already have unequal genetic gifts. Genetic engineering will enable us to help those who are deficient, to aid those (or the children of those) who suffer from from lousy genetic makeup. Think of it as eugenics done right; We do not exterminate or sterilize the genetically deficient, instead we enhance the genes of their offspring and let them carry on. That would increase, not decrease equality.
Second, we should be concerned with improved well-being of society as a whole, instead of (as appears the poster to be) obsessed with a perverse desire to make everyone equal. Making just only one person in the world better off is always a Pareto improvement but can either increase or decrease equality.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I don't care about any cosmetic eye-colour changes.
Don't care about intelligence, etc.
I just wish I could have genetically predisposed them to get up off their arses and do some housework.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That was a concession. You don't get that many eggs at a time for IVF; not enough to pick well. It will be a gene editing thing, and it will probably start to happen in my lifetime.
"In a survey from Pew Research Center, almost half said they wouldn't want to edit their baby's genes"
My guess is that they only surveyed Westerners, likely Americans, who've been the subject of heavy social programming for the last 50 years.
Ask the REST of the world, you're going to get a different answer. Hell, in India and China simply knowing your baby's going to be a girl is enough to get her aborted or tossed into the river after birth. Give them the option to *tweak* away the chance to even BE female, much less strong, smart, pretty, and (in most parts of the world) even a little or a lot lighter-skinned, it's going to become endemic.
-Styopa
(parkinson class of disorders, not parkinson's disease - very related, not the same) - I chose to not have kids. Bummed my wife out quite a lot, but I told her I was also ok with raising the children of her pick of donors - I even made a few suggestions. Either way, my disease is under study, extremely rare, and currently un-named; it's also dominant-trait, and generally is rather minor in the impact it has on my family members what that have it. Gene editing for disease control? How about we just get screening for it figured out, that's a bit easier and less...dangerous. To edit out my parkinsonian disorder, you'd already have past the screening step, so...just toss the embryos that have the disorder, keep the others, all set. Tada! Easy editing that solves the stated goal without causing the stated concerns. That said, my condition could very likely be solved some day by some sort of blood nanites, since control of my disease is actually somewhat simple enough already (albeit manual) of self-monitoring of dopamine levels, and then taking sinemet as-needed...so the other thing poster talked about that isn't gene-editing, that could be useful too. Risk to humanity? Probably. (ps, rambling is a sign I need to take a pill...ha! thanks for letting me know earlier than I would have, slashdot!)
All religions and political systems use eugenics to breed supporters of the administration. The track record of this has been extinction, as nature breeds better humans than priests or politicians.
True, but there is no god or equivalent to stop us. The cold-war had so many armageddon close calls that it's beyond scary and makes me suspect Anthropic Principle is at play. Climate change or run-away AI may be the next Great Filter.
Humans always plow face-first into new tools & weapons. It's their nature.
Further, if another nation edits genes and becomes a military threat, or even an economic threat, because of it, then the USA may fill obligated to "keep up with the edited Joneses" and participate also.
We'll make a bunch of gun-loving Elvises (Elvi?) with IQ's of 230 (excluding Wisdom IQ).
Table-ized A.I.
Nearly 70 percent of survey participants also said they were more worried than enthusiastic about the possibility of synthetic-blood and brain-chip implants.
Future Apple enthusiasts will get brain-chip implants and ditch their ears -- to make themselves more water resistant.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If we do not risk we do not succeed and that is the only failure. In the future there will be two types of humans: those who change and those who are left behind.
The no dinner until X is done works wonders. The thing is you have to actually enforce it and then only let them eat the next morning. I only had to do that once and they know I am serious and will follow through. They still whine and bitch about how they hate having to pickup their toys, my response now is that I hate having to feed them. They both know that means they won't get dinner until the mess is picked up and will stop bitching about it.
Time to offend someone
These comments do not make sense as the real problem is reduction of genetic diversity and reduced risk taking. Nobody wants to take a risk and try new combinations leading to similar genes when everybody want the best genes and do not want to take risks.
Whether it's Monsanto and RoundUp-resistant weeds, or bananas and Panama disease : Nature adapts, while man-made genes don't. If humans modify their genes, the "most-popular genes" will become a larger and larger portion of the population, leading to a lack of genetic diversity, making for a wonderful opportunity for some disease to conquer them all, or some natural change to make it difficult for that portion of the population to adapt. As it's been said before, "Nature finds a way."
It's a taboo to speak of, but human breeds(races) are not created equal, significant differences in intelligence, temperment, fitness, disease resistant exist despite the popularly pushed view that we are all 'equal'.
This could be a way to create true equality in a phenomenally superior form of human. No parent in their right mind would not want augmentation once the advantages are apparent... Maybe we can pick a new skin color for the augments ;p
I could easily see this actually decreasing inequality. There is already a very significant genetic factor to aptitude in most areas. It's a major source of inequality, not necessarily between groups/races, but definitely between individuals. If genetic enhancement is widely available and superior to most levels of natural genetic advantage, then I think genetic enhancement might bring us up to a higher, more equal, playing field.
Of course, there's the possibility that genetic enhancement will be very expensive, and so lock poor people out of it. There are a number of possible solutions to this issue, but the most obvious seems to me to perform arbitrage between a family's current state of poverty and the future wealth their child will gain by virtue of their enhancements.
From the public sector, this would look like a tax on the population to pay for poor families to get genetic enhancement. The government would then regain the money they spent through the increased taxes that the genetically enhanced person would pay as a result of their increased income.
From the private sector, this would look like a corporation that would pay for a poor family's children to get genetic enhancements in exchange for, say, 2.5% of the child's lifetime earnings. Assuming genetic enhancement will improve your lifetime earnings by more than 2.5% (which you kind of have to in order to believe enhancement has the power to impact inequality in a major way), this is beneficial to the child. If we assume yearly earnings of $28,000 (from Wikipedia's Personal Income in the United States) and working for 40 years, this gives us $1,120,000 of lifetime income, which is enough to fund a $20,000 procedure and still have a corporate profit margin of $8000 per person.
Ultimately, the only way genetic enhancement has the possibility to influence income inequality levels is if it can increase the lifetime earnings potential of the people who receive it. Once you grant that premise, you create an investment opportunity where people with money now can get more money in the future by paying for other people to get enhanced, in exchange for a small amount of the enhanced person's future earnings. I doesn't matter if the person with the money now is a corporation or the government. The investment opportunity still exists.
The only possible world in which this doesn't work is if the cost of the procedure is very close to the increase in income that enhancement grants. But even here, genetic enhancement doesn't change inequality much because the people who are enhanced would benefit almost as much from just having the money given to them, so it's not possible for rich people to become unassailable super-rich by genetic enhancement. They loose almost as much by paying for the procedure as they gain afterwards.
There are many possible issues with genetic enhancement, but I don't think inequality is one of them. (That is, unless the government outlaws the private sector method I described and also fails to implement a public solution. Then things could get bad...)
It's an interesting question; where should we draw the line? Obviously, if your embryo/fetus is destined for cystic fibrosis, we would all cheer for a genetic intervention. But if you just think it would be cool if you kid would glow in the dark, it may be quite reasonable for the rest of us to resist allowing those "imported" genes into our collective gene pool.
I think a key concept to consider in all genetic modifications is the difference between vertical gene transfer and horizontal gene transfer. The former is manipulation of genes within the same family tree, whereas the latter involves importation of exogenous genes from other species.
If you ask me where I would draw the line, in terms of legislation, this is it: endogenous (vertical) vs. exogenous (horizontal) gene transfer. Do whatever you want within the human genome, but don't import any genes from any other genome.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
By no means shall those uncomfortable be forced to do it — although I'd like the Social Justice Worriers to explain, how these gene-modifications and implants are different in principle from vaccinations, which, according to the same folks, must be mandatory.
But let's not stop the minority comfortable and enthusiastic about the technology from using it to better (or worsen) their lives — and kill this talk of the Third Prohibition before it settles.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, it is normal to be cautious of new things with unknown effects, especially when we know the effects will be significant, but we don't know what they'll be. The reason that's normal is because it makes sense; most people are smart enough to be careful.
Most animals avoid putting unknown substances in their mouth until they first look at it, smell it, then they have a small lick to taste it. There is one exception ...
There is a certain group of people who follow one of these two patterns of thinking:
Pattern A:
No real thinking, just "hey that's new, let's try it and see what happens" (typically teenagers). Or "hey that's new (even though it's not), let's mandate that everyone must do it and see what happens" (typically these people call themselves 'liberals').
Pattern B:
We need to do -something- about X.
Y is -something-.
Therefore we need to do Y - without any thought about the detrimental effects of Y.
Most people (and animals) are like that, the approach unknown things with caution, looking and listening for the dangers.
About 90% of the women who learn their child will have Down's syndrome choose to have an abortion. Very few will say much if anything at all about it out of respect for the other 10% and those who didn't have the test at all. Maybe we won't do designer babies but at least remove genes strongly corrolated with bad medical conditions, because ultimately nobody wants their kid to have potential heart/lung/liver/kidney diseases, be predisposed for cancer and whatnot. But the implied critique against other parents who didn't have their kids screened means it's going to be an extremely touchy subject. Particular if you insult mom, accusations of being deadbeat dads don't seem to carry the same weight but tell a mom she's a bad parent then all hell will come raining down on you.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You'll be against 'augmentation' until an augmented kid beats your kid in a math contest.(i.e. getting into college)
You'll be against 'augmentation' until you get a preventable cancer.
You'll be against it until you see it hurts -YOUR- outcome.
This will pass.
I don't see what all the fuss is about, and apparently up to half the population agree with me. The half that don't want to are probably the same half that think that the main selection criteria on animal diversity was Noah's Ark, and maybe we can just leave them behind. (YAY!)
It's an interesting question; where should we draw the line?
Most people want to "draw the line" just a little past what they are used to, so "the line" slowly creeps forward. Back in 1978, the first test tube baby was born, and people worried that we were playing God, and whether the resulting creatures would even be accepted as "human". Today IVF is mainstream, and no one gives it a second thought.
A decade from now, it will be common to correct genetic disorders in embryos, and it may even be considered child abuse to refrain from doing so. Today's moral handwringing will be long forgotten.
Sometimes referred to as 'eugenics'. The idea that one group of people, due to some inherent superiority, should rule over others. Don't we all want to be in that group? Don't we fear that we are in the other group?
Robert Klark Graham, founder of the Nobel Sperm Bank, was fond of placing advertisements in various publications (particularly Mensa publications) that simply said "The smarter you are, the more children you should have."
On the surface, that seems a fine and sensible sentiment. But underlying it is the hidden opposite, unspoken "stupid people should not have children". In this century, no sensible person will speak this aloud, though they may think it.
Some might note that humanity has reversed the 'survival of the fittest' concept that is universal among other living organisms, by going to great lengths to protect and preserve the least fit among us. And allowing them to reproduce. The DNA pool of the human race now carries more disease and dysfunction than would have occurred had nature prevailed.
But soon we can begin to correct that. We need a bit more research, more investment, more government encouragement. When we begin modifying the DNA of individuals, there will be some 'test animal' humans, and after proven success the wealthy will be beneficiaries.
Then we face the reality that some may be able to enhance their bodies, minds, lifespan and that of their children according to their ability to pay, and others will continue to live in increasingly shabby circumstances. Are we approaching an even more extreme social imbalance?
...omphaloskepsis often...
"Almost half" also means "less than half."
Slashdot is now SJW Central.
The gene editing aside, it seems we could come up with a "thinking cap" smart hat, or ear piece, that could enhance our mental abilities without risking brain surgery to implant a chip! I'm not talking about google glass or something like that either, but something external that would serve the same function as an implant. It also has the benefit of being easily removed. For instance, in the event the tech gets hacked. You know it will.
There's a little scifi film, that makes the point in essence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDIWnX8KapQ The bad guy has nano-machine super powers, with the caveat that his superiors can control his brain if they choose. He compares his nanotech to the "good guy's" gun, which is also a form of tech to gain advantage. The good guy says something to the effect of, I tell my gun what to do, and it has no control over me. That idea of the external tech that can be put down is worth noting. I'd like the super powers, but I still want to be in control, and to discard the tech for a newer model without complication. It reminds me of OnStar in the GM vehicles where the police can have them turn off your engine if you try to run from them. Everything's great until you are on the wrong side of a jam. Put another way, we'll give you a free OS, just submit to collection of all your data, and we can change the terms anytime we want and brick your system.
It's not like inequality is already programmed into our DNA. We can ALL swim like Michael Phelps. If you can't, you're just not trying hard enough. Yes this is sarcasm. No man is created equal. Which doesn't mean that a level playing field for all is a bad concept.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Essentially, this is still evolution. The queasy, moral folks will breed themselves out in the long run.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
If the "gene pool" is your concern, and not the person altered, then make it legal, with the one constraint that "altered" people are forbidden to reproduce, and that chemical and surgical means will be used to enforce that. Then we can have altered people, and not pollute the gene pool, that you gave as the only reason to resist.
Learn to love Alaska
I haven't seen it since the theaters, but I recall the clinic scene making it sound like they construct an embryo from the parents, then implant it. They don't screen natural eggs/sperm to make the best of, but splice from both parents to make the best of. But then, that was many years ago, so I don't recall the details, just my impression of the scene.
Learn to love Alaska
I will let someone else be on the bleeding edge of that technology. We can't get the basics done right, I'm not gonna be the 1st to see what can go wrong when editing the most convoluted / interconnected information passing packet system in 'our' known sphere of existence. So yes, lemmings please go first. To the winner go the spoils to the loser goes not the spoils.
Ya, that will survive a constitutional challenge
What in the Constitution would have a problem with that? If you can make genetic modification illegal or regulate it in the first place would face a harder Constitutional battle, but if you can make it illegal and regulated, the details of the regulation would be immaterial.
Learn to love Alaska
Inequality is already in my DNA, in the form of epigenetic changes caused by my ability to afford a certain lifestyle. I can afford to shop at the organic grocery store. I can afford a gym membership. I can afford time to meditate because I don't have 3 jobs. I can afford to relax when I want. Instead of punishing people who can achieve something, lets plan to help the ones who can't achieve what they need, for whatever reason. I'd rather have a conversation about how to make genetic fixes available to the poor too, instead of screaming that the rich ought to suffer with the rest of us. The rich will have this anyway. Someone, somewhere else, will perfect the technology, and people who can afford to travel will have it.
why would i willingly avoid doing everything i can to make my legacy the best it could be? Because someone else couldnt afford it? I file that under not my problem lol. Sure i have seen all the sci fi movies but you know what the unaugmented somehow always ends up saving the day anyway.
Constitutionality? ... Ok, let's assume we can do all this in the "cutting" room... bring in our "desirable" traits while also rendering the offspring infertile. We're not talking about a lab mouse here, it's a sentient human being...
Yes, there are circumstances wherein a fetus may be viable but not fertile, but to do this deliberately? That strikes me as unnecessarily cruel.
I don't deny that it may happen someday, but I would be comfortable with keeping this beyond the "prohibition" line, and thus relegate it to the black market. But now we're back to square one again. How do you simultaneously prevent the deliberate creation of circus freaks while also allowing reasonable prophylactic measures and enhancements for people who just want a healthy child?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
I think the main issue people have with gene editing is not so much inequality in genes but wealth inequality. As in only the wealthy will be able to afford it which will give them an unfair advantage over the working stiff... AGAIN. "I'm not mad that you can edit your (or your progeny's) genes. I'm mad because I probably won't be able to afford it". It is a legitimate concern. Human nature being what it is, most people WILL do what ever they can to put them selves ahead of the pack, fairness be damned.
"They saw these options as "meddling with nature," even though we've been using technology to enhance our lives for thousands of years." Not only is this insulting, it's a straw man argument. The objection isn't to technology. The objection is to technology controlled by by secrecy in backroom deals. Did you know your cellphone can track you everywhere you go even after you turned it off? Did you know your cellphone can record everything you say even after you turned it off? Secretly-controlled technology is tyranny.
Don't stop where the ink does.
First they will edit the genes of embryos with a high risk of some terrible sickness. That will be accepted because poor kids.
Then they will edit some less terrible sicknesses. That will generate a heated debate, with stern posturing and unbreakable red lines.
Then the Chinese will start editing their embryos massively for higher intelligence and all kind of sickness resistance, and everybody will panic.
Some things are meant to be, and this is one of this. There is no sense in arguing about it, when the tech is ready, the people will follow the tech, or follow the Neanderthal.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Let the eugenics wars commence!
That's what poor people are for: taking the risks and exploring new genes. They could even be paid for that while rich people pay to get the good genes the poor found.
That's what I call the progressive fallacy, though. Clearly, it will be better to do this because in the future it will be different, and everything is always better in the future. Because future.
If you have a moral problem with something, the best way to deal with is simply define new morality and wait for everyone to die or get sidelined who is in favor of the status quo. I mean, isn't that what progressive basically means? We have moved on from something to something else, and because we have "progressed", it is now better. I feel great, and I have a new iPhone, and gene therapy cured the cystic fibrosis that allowed my cousin to live to the age of 25 so he could then become a drug addict, beat his girlfriend, and steal money from his parents from their social security payments.
And if you don't think it is better, it's child abuse. Just like those people who actually dare let their children leave their sight and do things on their own. Thank goodness someone is there to call the cops on those assholes and make sure they end up in a nice safe foster home.
This is very poorly or intentionally miss-leading:
"Americans are already uncomfortable with them"
No, I'm not uncomfortable with these improvements and taking evolution under control. I do this sort of thing all the time. I do plant and animal breeding. I'm a farmer. I have my own genetic lines on my farm adapted to my climate and needs. This is standard fare for the last 6,000 years, at least!
The author should have written something like:
"Some Americans are already uncomfortable with them"
or
"This author is uncomfortable with them"
But the author should not generalize to all Americans. Some of us are scientists and take a progressive approach. The cited article supports "Some" or "a majority" but not "Americans" which implies all.
The author is biasing the article to fit their agenda or simply sloppy and incompetent.
You're just the kind of person in need of some gene therapy. Finding and removing your asshole and piece of shit human being genes will be difficult but we can do it!
We may not be able to ban the technology out right and for good reasons. However maybe we should just curtail the legal human rights of those who choose to get the procedure, after all you chose to become non-human. As an example, say you want to live to see 200 years, you are free to do so, but the trade off might be that you no longer have the right to reproduce, or more extremely you are no longer consider human but an animal(property to be owned). This would keep the modifications from leaking into the gene pool. I'm sure society would decide to allow for some minor modifications as time goes on, for example genetic disease erratication.
Well it's better than the current crop of babies who aren't resistant to peanuts or dust mites. We're breeding environmental weakness into our children. That means spending money everyday to keep them alive, when a century ago, they would've died from contamination. Should a city collapse and people have to live in the dirt, many of them will die because they can't fight the tiny threats that are almost everywhere.
If we can do good, let's do it. There is no "nature wants ...". Nature doesn't want anything, if you want to antropomorphize it, you may say it's watching whats happening.
And inequality? Why not? Let one be the best runner and one be the best thinker ... not everybody needs to have the same abilities. For more diverse abilities.
Roughly 90-95% of prenatal testing for down syndrome results in abortion.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I used to be of the opinion that putting a microchip or editing DNA was "unnatural" and messing with nature. Is it really that bad?! I bet a few thousand years from now (if humans do not ruing humanity first) people will laugh at the stupid "stone age" guys who did not remove the diseases when they had the chance due to some bizarre ideas.
Putting a microchip in your brain is perfectly natural. Cutting open people and inserting screws to join broken bones is accepted , but also that is "editing" a human being that would otherwise die out. If the human being are not bright enough to avoid breaking his/her bones natural selection would imply they sooner or later die out in competition with those of us who never have broken any bone.
Microchips come from nature too, they are made by natural substances - why? because the natural substances are made by machines who again are made of natural substances - everything here on earth has to be created from earthly things unless you are a conspiracy theorist :)
I actually think that at some point humans will move their consciousness from the biological brain and into a very small microchip that runs a simulation. Perhaps we will eventually merge to one consciousness at some point too. May that is why it is so hard to find life out in the universe , simply because all advanced civilization with millions of beings have moved on to a small microchip of atomic size and stay protected safely inside a little rock or perhaps even as space dust. Sounds safer than to build on and terraform planets, A super small but powerful computer sounds so much more efficient. :)
Those for the idea will be the only one's who survive.
This is atomic-scale stuff. Do you really think that the number of errors by gene-splicers will be so low that diversity is reduced?
There are a great number of risk-takers in the world who would be willing to experiment with their children.
Year after year more diseases are discovered that are caused by genetic flaws that have no plausible compensating advantages. This aspect of "genetic diversity" is in no way an advantage for humanity. It lowers lifespan, reduces quality of life, and places a burden on those who help the sufferers.
-
There is and will be a wide range of opinion about what the best genes are. Consider those perverted blind parents who want their children to be blind also.
Tetrachromacy in women, arguably a genetic advantage, is correlated with color blindness in men. Where does that stand in the ordering of "best genes"?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The still relevant issue is about dicarded embyros though. According to some, they should have full human rights and that hasn't gone away.
Neonatal Retinas will be grown separately and grafted onto the fetus at the appropriate stage of development. The article and most of these comments aren't even trying to think outside the box.
Every Western country will ban it completely. There will be much debate about medical cases and, eventually, that will be allowed -- and at-risk parents will get help via socialised medicine. But it won't be germline alteration. It will be embryo gene therapy.
There may be some non-religious govts that embrace it. Rich parents will fly out to get inseminated. It may start off with medical cases but it will soon be designer babies, with or without your line in the sand.
In the West, public attitudes will be very important. The US may be the last to adopt designer babies, though if China or Russia start breeding genetically-engineered soldiers, it will become a national security issue.
I suspect it will be 20-30 years before most Western countries allow more than embryo gene therapy.
Khan was an asshole. Granted.
But suppose, just hypothetically, Khan hadn't repaid Captian Kirk's hospitality by attempting to steal his ship and murder him. Would you hate him then?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Gattaca isn't a realistic story anyway.
Genetic perfection doesn't get the printer to work.
Well, at least you had Sharon Osbourne stumping and voting for you, and that Prime Minister gig, so there's that. But The Doctor and his companions still managed to fix things in the end.
Didn't Larry Niven do a story where everybody became idiots and defectives due to a technological crash and the failure of medications and prosthetics?
So when, where, and what time am I fucking your fat ass? The constitution doesn't limit my ability to ass fuck people so it's good to go. It specifically says I have a right to happiness and nothing would excite me more than to ass fuck conservatives.
The right of people to castrate others? What right is the Constitutional trigger?
Learn to love Alaska
There's nothing in the constitution that prevents people from being cruel to other people. The Constitution is a restriction on the government, and usually then, only the federal government.
What is the constitutional issue?
Learn to love Alaska
I wanted my baby to be born with Down Syndrome, even though it's easy to fix it, because that's the way God wanted it, dagnabbit!
Amirite?
Only half of your genes get passed on to your kids. There could be serious consequences to having your improvements missing a few key parts.
"Every Western country will ban it completely."
Thereby falling even farther behind Asia. Eventually the only industry we will have left will be entertaining tourists.
And so, the truth is told! Who would have thought a Progressive would be in favor of breeding dissent out of the gene pool?
We can force white parents to have black children and correct 300 years of social injustice.
My family has a history of clinical depression in about 1 out of 3 people. Removing that from future generations? In. A. Heartbeat.
A person that isn't considered beautiful, smart, healthy, and so forth can live a rich and happy life without much trouble. For a person with clinical depression, being happy is a never ending, draining, and time consuming task... even if they're brilliant, great looking, have an amazing and supportive family, and perfect health. I've watched helplessly as a family member who had seemed to overcome this broke down. A tech innovator (and one of the most intelligent people I have ever met), handsome, with a beautiful wife that adored him and two amazing kids, committed suicide because he had everything he ever dreamed of and it solved nothing.
There's no such thing as inequality. A genetic condition makes you prone to chemical imbalances, and then every day will be an upward climb for all your life, rendering things like "the ability to walk" minor in comparison. In the long term, physical disabilities have been proven to not adversely change the level of satisfaction and joy in your life. Mental ones can, and do. I want my children to be happy, not suffer misery their entire life in order to maybe one day feel satisfied. I think every parent wants that. How tall the kids are is irrelevant if they're happy with it. How they look, their grades, and so on... that's more for the parents' ego than anything else.
Harrison Bergeron
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
If the article's bias was the other way, instead of saying "almost half" don't like it, they'd say "a majority" was not against it...
More than half either don't care or said yes. It's disingenuous how they spin on the negative when people are looking forward. When superior humans are engineered the naysayers will just be bred out, unable to compete with people bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, better looking, and able to forgo sleep. Stick with inferiority and you lose. Might take a few decades but it will happen, their genetic lines will die out. So they can stick to their guns, for a little while, but progress will happen one way or the other.
Down's Syndrome, even with gene therapy wouldn't be easy to fix, since you're not changing a gene, you actually have to change the number of chromosomes.
There are clearly beneficial things that gene therapy can do. You could probably do some beneficial things for the human genome by doing plain old selective breeding.
The problem is when you push that through by not addressing the moral or ethical questions head-on, but simply pushing a new morality and waiting for opposition to die off.
Sort of like the old arguments against usury. Yes, our current world is, in part, based on the ability to be lent money with the ability for people to get interest. This increases the number of people willing to lend money and improves the economy.
Of course, we also see that it allows for a corrosive effect on poorer people who, instead of getting help from the community, are pushed into loans as the solution to their problems. Not to mention those people who push poorer people to buy more than they can pay for by getting loans with high rates.
Are loans a good thing? Debatable, but certainly have some positives. Can they destroy lives and have a corrosive influence on whole groups of people? Very much so. And yet we consider the old morality against "usury" to be quaint.
It looks to me like a more liberal type came up with that headline, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story.
I'm tired of coming here to get my daily dose of liberal news. What happened to the practice of journalism in this country? Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite?
Everyone capable of rational thought.
People are not born equal. Why can people not understand this?
We all deserve equal rights, but that does not mean that we are all equal.
We never were equal in the first place. It only says we should be -treated- equally. Not forced to be -made- equal.
That is actually my worry about "genetic engineering", that some politician would try to make us all exactly the same.
Down's Syndrome, even with gene therapy wouldn't be easy to fix, since you're not changing a gene, you actually have to change the number of chromosomes.
When given both prenatal screening and access to abortion, about 90% of mothers choose to abort a fetus with Down's Syndrome. Sarah Palin famously chose to keep hers, but she is in a small and shrinking minority. With better and earlier screening, it is likely even more would chose to abort.
You can kill dreams. You can kill innocents. You can kill freedom. But you can't kill progress.
If you rejects genetic enhancements, it simply means the research will move to other countries and left you behind.
We already have Inequality in our DNA....Its called tribalism. We are animals with base instincts. Family, community and education are the ways to evolve out of discrimination and cultural boundaries.
"Diversity society will fail" --Putnam;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.boston.com/news/glo...
Casteism