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.

10 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Most nonsensical summary/title ever by avandesande · · Score: 3, Insightful

    EOM

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  2. already done by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ...

      Exactly. "Equality" is a social construct.

  3. Risk? by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Always Afraid by JimSadler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 !

  5. "Meddling with nature"? Yes, please. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"Meddling with nature"? Yes, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Generally, I agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we don't have a choice.

      The advent of antibiotics especially, and various other social and economic systems, have effectively halted a large portion of natural selection in humans. There is no more evolution / survival of the fittest happening in the western world. Medicine, vaccines, social support mechanisms, etc are all hugely good and beneficial, but the result will be a long-term problematic build up of genetic material that will weigh down any fundamental genetic evolution.

      So we have to go down the path of genetic engineering. That said, the risks of doing so are far more expansive than natural selection. Subtly screwing up our genetic code will end up far more problematic, since we will be making relatively large changes without the protection of several generations of evolution to vet and confirm that the change is actually a good and stable one.

      If we go down this path, as I think we should, the risks are high. Yes, ethics plays into it at a certain point - but not in this "messing with nature" perspective.

  6. Re:Attica! Attica! by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:People's instincts are correct by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're right -- we don't have enough wisdom and knowledge yet. Wisdom, the ability to make good choices, comes from experience.

    Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.

  8. Re:People's instincts are correct by geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're right -- we don't have enough wisdom and knowledge yet. Wisdom, the ability to make good choices, comes from experience.

    Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.

    Experience comes from making choices, not just bad ones. Wisdom comes from learning not just from your mistakes but the mistakes of others.