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.

19 of 367 comments (clear)

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

    EOM

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  2. Natures been doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for hundreds of millions of years.

    We generally call it "evolution" round these parts.

    1. Re:Natures been doing this by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shout it out: "I want a Monsanto kid!"

  3. We program our ideology into our story titles by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Huh, the writeup doesn't bring up the "inequality" boogeyman. Wonder how that got inro the title.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  4. 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.

  5. edit away by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

    we have evolved to Trump2016 maybe evolution needs help!!

    and if you believe in creationism... the devil is winning and god needs help.

    1. Re:edit away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      the devil is winning and god needs help.

      But recent polls indicate her lead is evaporating. So maybe there is a god.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 !

  8. "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 avandesande · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being eaten by wolves generally reduces your lifespan.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  9. I'd consider it by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3

    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
  10. 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
  11. The future belongs to the bold by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. We Risk Programming Inequality into Our DNA? by Jodka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    from the ./ summary:

    We Risk Programming Inequality into Our DNA ...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.

    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.
  14. 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.

  15. Re:Attica! Attica! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.