Slashdot Mirror


US Scientist Who Edited Human Embryos With CRISPR Responds To Critics (technologyreview.com)

Facing criticism from fellow scientists, the researcher behind the world's largest effort to edit human embryos with CRISPR is vowing to continue his efforts to develop what he calls "IVF gene therapy." MIT Technology Review: Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, drew global headlines last August when he reported successfully repairing a genetic mutation in dozens of human embryos, which were later destroyed as part of the experiment. The laboratory findings on early-stage embryos, he said, had brought the eventual birth of the first genetically modified humans "much closer" to reality. The breakthrough drew wide attention, including from critics who quickly pounced, calling it biologically implausible and potentially the result of careless errors and artifacts. Today, those critics are getting an unusual hearing in the journal Nature, which is publishing two critiques of the Oregon research as well as a lengthy reply from Mitalipov and 31 of his coworkers in South Korea, China, and the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. The scientific sparring centers on CRISPR's well-known tendency to introduce unseen damage into a cell's DNA.

[...] Mitalipov remains intent on proving that CRISPR can work safely on embryos. In an interview, Mitalipov said he believes it will take five to 10 years before the process is ready to attempt in an IVF center. The revolutionary medical technology being pursued is a way to adjust an embryo's DNA to remove disease risks. It is sometimes called germline gene editing because any DNA fixes a baby is born with would then be passed down to future generations through that person's germ cells, the egg or sperm. For its initial research, the Oregon team recruited women around Portland and paid them $5,000 each to undergo an egg retrieval. With those eggs the team created more than 160 embryos for CRISPR experiments. Mitalipov said his Oregon center continues to obtain eggs in an ongoing effort to confirm his results and extend them in new directions.

68 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. I have an announcement to make as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gentlemen, I give you Khaaaaaaaannnnnnnnn!

    1. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doctor Victor Frankenstein Addresses Panicked Slovenian Village

      "Listen to me! My creation is to better understand life itself."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I was just in a business meeting which had a spreadsheet to assign people roles- and some guy named Khan was listed at the top. It took every bit of willpower not to yell "Khaaaaaaaannnnnn!" in the meeting.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      And what's bad in this type of research?

      Besides, it will be done by bad guys in China (US can't find their ass with both hands these days, Russia prefers different methods). Thus, the rational response is to have good guys do such research in the open, not to demonize it. Just think of resistance to diseases, heightened intelligence, curing genetic defects, etc. Designer babies for cosmetic or bizarre reasons will still happen, and even there you want them to be done in a place that at least has some supervision rather than abroad.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      I think the fear is that you'll screw something up and produce a human with severe defects. There's also the fear that you won't notice the problem until several generations later. Neither one of these problems is new, so I don't really get all the hand wringing. We still allow humans with genetic defects to breed.

      People being afraid of the future and thinking they can stop progress is nothing new. Human reproductive cloning is going to happen. Accept it and move on from there.

    5. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I used to work with a guy whose surname was Khan. He was aware of the film but hadn't seen it. I used to quote lines from the film that people said to Khan to him. He'd look confused, then realise it was just trekkie shit.

    6. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      And what's bad in this type of research?

      Think "Revers" from Firefly.

      Or think of the Clans from Battletech.

      There are always unpredictable unknown consequences and dangers even with every precaution taken because one cannot know fully which/what precautions to take in advance regarding unpredicted and unexpected results. This is especially true if the nation's leadership in which the work is done prioritizes results over an abundance of caution. Think of N. Korea's Un, Russia's Putin, or China's Xi with an army of genetically-enhanced super-soldiers.

      This is very scary territory we are trying to navigate, here. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do urge extreme caution.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:I have an announcement to make as well by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Frankenstein lived in Switzerland - on the shores of Lake Geneva, if I remember rightly.

      It's a good book - well worth reading. Better than the movies.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Re:We are like children ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Literally no one has any idea what the long term effect of this kind of thing is going to be.

    Kinda like them splicing jellyfish DNA into our food source vegetation, eh?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. Re:so wrong on many levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't see anything in the Bible saying that it is wrong to tamper with DNA.

    It isn't in the ten commandments, nor is there anything in there that metaphorically suggests such a thing. And the new testament message is primarily replacing the ten commandments with the singular commandment to love (with some clarification on the particulars of divorce and being slapped in the face).

    Nothing, however, about genetic alteration.

    So, if God didn't say it is evil, and it doesn't obviously violate the admonishment to love and forgive one another, then it isn't wrong.

    I will add, curing babies of genetic diseases sounds like a loving thing to do for them.

  4. Re:so wrong on many levels by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    God will not be happy.

    The gods are still pissed about Prometheus giving us fire.

    Every significant advance in human history has been accompanied by moral nattering by naysayers.

  5. More like "Take a child to work day"... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ... though you are the child, and your post is like a five year old evaluating what Daddy is doing in the control room...

    Where do you get off proclaiming careful genetic manipulation is being done without understanding or thought?

    Your post is just another example of fearful luddites refusing to take advantage of what is possible, in part because they cannot understand it themselves and proclaim no-one else possibly could.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:More like "Take a child to work day"... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Where do you get off proclaiming careful genetic manipulation is being done without understanding or thought?

      Manipulation of embryos at this stage is necessarily done without adequate understanding or thought. Too new to use on humans.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:More like "Take a child to work day"... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Too new to use on humans.

      They guy in the article doing the work agrees with this point, which is why he says it's ten years out before using on humans.

      This work is on embryos only, or did you miss that????

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:More like "Take a child to work day"... by meerling · · Score: 1

      You don't have to know everything to do repairs. Do you know how to build a video card? Probably not. Of course, it's pretty easy to replace a known bad video card with a known good one despite that lack of in depth knowledge. Of course you could just assume that since you don't have the level of knowledge to build your own video card you should leave it alone, despite the fact that experience has shown us that a smoking video card eventually bursts into flames and destroys the entire computer long before it would have expired if you had just replaced the bad video card.

    4. Re:More like "Take a child to work day"... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Tinkering with the genome is not akin to sapping a video card, but to rebuilding one while it's running. Pure trial and error is a fine approach, if the cost of errors is low, but we don't even begin to understand what we're doing. We don't even really understand protein folding. Thinking we could predict the unintended side effects of genetic alteration is nonsense - today we're stuck with tinkering and observing the consequences.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:More like "Take a child to work day"... by lgw · · Score: 1

      This work is on embryos only, or did you miss that????

      They weren't catfish embryos.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Breakthrough? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    The breakthrough

    You mean.... a guy doing something that's been done before but to a target no one else has used due to ethical concerns.

    Unless there was some reason to believe CISPR wouldn't have worked on human DNA, this isn't a scientific breakthrough. At best it's a social one. Or possibly an ethical one, right through the floor.

    Personally though, Bring on GATTAGA and super-babies. It will make us better. And worse, but mostly better.

    What's the alternative? This isn't something you can stop, you can do it in a garage. And many people will be very heavily motivated to do it. We couldn't stop people from putting posion into themselves, we've no hope of stopping them from curing their children.

    1. Re:Breakthrough? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Bring on GATTAGA and super-babies. It will make us better. And worse, but mostly better.

      It will bring on elitism in a form and magnitude the world has never seen before. It might be good for the individual, but for society it's a terrible mistake.

    2. Re:Breakthrough? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      No, I'm pretty sure nobility was a thing. "High born". We've been here before. Most of them didn't get their heads chopped off.

      Yeah, it'll cause some social issues. It'll make that worse. But it will make a whole host of people better. It will cure illnesses. It will let the lame walk and the blind see. It will push the edges of what humans are capable of. It will do more good than harm. And it might not be restricted to only the billionaires' babies. It might be common. Imagine if every baby born in Africa could simply be immune to malaria.

    3. Re:Breakthrough? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Well, considering we know how to vaccinate against malaria NOW (not to mention mosquito eradication) and it's not being done...

      Clearly that means that a procedure that's under patent, more technically advanced, not to mention expensive -- will somehow be employed in the areas of the world that need it the most? (and coincidentally are the poorest places on earth?)

      No, I've gotta go wtih my gut that this kind of technology will be limited to the 1% for the foreseeable future.

    4. Re:Breakthrough? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It will bring on elitism in a form and magnitude the world has never seen before. It might be good for the individual, but for society it's a terrible mistake.

      There's nothing "elitist" about you not inheriting a horrible genetic disease that has run in your family. You will in that one particular respect, the one you had a gene edited for, just like everyone else.

      When we get to the point of improving on the existing normal, you can more honestly claim elitism. But once we do get to that point, the enhancements people will worry most about will be exactly the ones everyone wants to have.

    5. Re:Breakthrough? by DesertNomad · · Score: 1

      Well, considering we know how to vaccinate against malaria NOW (not to mention mosquito eradication) and it's not being done...

      Um, not according to the CDC, at https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/ma...

      "Although progress has been made in the last 10 years toward developing malaria vaccines, there is currently no effective malaria vaccine on the market."

      While that page was from 2015, there's still no vaccine.

    6. Re:Breakthrough? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, thank you.

  7. An important point to keep in mind... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the summary (this being Slashdot, I can't be bothered to actually read TFA), the criticism is all based on the researchers methodology and statistical rigour when analysing the resultant data. Not the ethics or morality of such experiments. For the record, I have no ethical problem with experiments of this nature, provided the embryos are terminated before a certain point in their development. In my opinion, that is before the sixth week, so that the spinal cord and brain haven't properly developed yet. In my opinion, it is our brains that make us human and until the developing collection of cells has developed a brain complex enough to react to stimuli, it isn't a human being.

    That being the case, I think this is crucial research with enormous potential for good (as with any new tech, balanced by potential for harm). One of my children has a severe genetic defect, once that confines him to a wheelchair and will condemn him to a slow, lingering death sometime in his twenties. CRISPR is the leading candidate for treating his condition, but the odds are that it won't be ready for clinical use in time to save his life. His defect can already be detected in vivo and fixing it in in vitro is an important step before treating embryos in vivo that are intended to be brought to term. Saying we're five years away from clinical use of this technology and technique is the same as saying we are five years away from eliminating a whole host of crippling genetic defects.

    I do understand and share the concerns about designer babies, eugenics and unknown long term effects of such medically unnecessary tinkering. But given the parsimonious approach the medical profession has to using new techniques, I think we'll see a well established track record of treating birth defects long before the industry embraces those techniques for selecting desirable traits.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    1. Re:An important point to keep in mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, that is before the sixth week, so that the spinal cord and brain haven't properly developed yet. In my opinion, it is our brains that make us human and until the developing collection of cells has developed a brain complex enough to react to stimuli, it isn't a human being.

      Its a rationalization for you to believe there is such a thing as "living human" if a fetus manages to survive a certain number of weeks before "birth delivery". There's no way to prove a fetus is "human" after X weeks. Society can only make an arbitrary legal distinction when a fetus is "human life". Frankly, the only reasonable, workable, legal definition for "human baby" is when it can be birthed from its host mother and sustain its autonomic functions (breathing, circulation) without medical intervention. More legal problems are caused by defining late term abortions as "living humans".

    2. Re:An important point to keep in mind... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      They're a lot more human by age 3 when they start talking. Before that they're mostly pooping footballs that you don't want to drop.

    3. Re:An important point to keep in mind... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      What about a skin sample?

      It has a full set of human DNA. It's alive, for a while. How's your "fundamental level of genetics" working out for you there?

      It's so adorable to hear people try to talk about nearly ANYTHING in biology in absolute terms. We can't even clearly define what a species is. I get what you're saying. It's not a bad cut-off point to have. It's just not very practical for a good swath of the human condition. And any time you get into de-humanizing people it's usually scary stuff. History is full of that sort of bad mojo. But still, pooping footballs...

  8. Re:We are like children ... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Literally no one has any idea what the long term effect of this kind of thing is going to be.

    No, there are a lot of people who have some idea of what this sort of tinkering will do. We call them geneticists, and they generally don't advocate tinkering around with human DNA on ethical grounds.

    The specific effects are.... a lot like mutations. Mostly bad. Sometimes good. Sometimes even then there's bad side effects. Anything you put in a gam

    If you want to know more about the current state of just what we know "Herding Hemingway's Cats" is a decent read. Thick, but insightful. I think it's a good read for programmers just due to the number of parallels between source code and programming, and DNA and genetics.

  9. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Funny

    oh shit, don't let him see what we've done to dogs.

  10. We Are So Perfect by JimSadler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering the mess that most people are already just why would anyone not want the species to be altered? When you read our history books what you see is war, invasions, thefts. rapes and all manner of crime and depravity. And now we have a scientists that hopes to make a few adjustments.

    1. Re:We Are So Perfect by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      I'm very conservative, if not precautionary about the intentional genetic alteration of humans precisely for the reason you apparently find it so appealing. (Unless you're trolling or joking, not sure about that.) Serious medical reasons make sense to me but political and moral opinions and world views are the pretty much the worst reasons I could imagine for fundamentally altering human DNA.

    2. Re:We Are So Perfect by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Considering the mess that most people are already just why would anyone not want the species to be altered? When you read our history books what you see is war, invasions, thefts. rapes and all manner of crime and depravity. And now we have a scientists that hopes to make a few adjustments.

      What's more, many of great accomplishments came at a massive cost in lives. The ancient civilizations that set ventured onto the Mediterranean from Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome sent many sailors to their deaths. This continued well into the Age of Sail. The first aviators suffered the same, as did the first astronauts.

      Those that venture into new areas are always stalked by death. To imagine that we can do so with no risk is foolish. Will CRISPR kill or maim? Most definitely. Should we abandon it? Most definitely not.

    3. Re:We Are So Perfect by citylivin · · Score: 1

      because the society you then create is much worse than the one you are running away from. Weeding people out genetically has basically never gone over well...

      Ref, as always, black mirror did it. men against fire

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    4. Re:We Are So Perfect by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are two main objections.

      1. This will only be available to the wealthy, whose children already have a huge advantage in life and are now going to be super healthy, super intelligent and maybe even super sociopathic.

      2. Do we trust this guy to get it right? Making edits to someone who potentially has to live with them for 80+ years is something you do very carefully and with a great deal of oversight.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    So he's shit at making people AND he sucks at deleting a repo branch? I mean, we're still here. And BOY OH BOY do I have a few things to say at his code review. Do we really want to leave the code-base in the hands of someone with such a long history of fuckups? And at this point I'm pretty sure it's abandonware.

  12. Lets be honest here by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    since we can genetically modify DNA someone/corporation/entity/group/government will do it. Like AI, Robotics, etc Genetic modifications will be done. We all need to accept that.
    It is also true no one has any idea where this will all go. And what the unforeseen consequences might be.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Lets be honest here by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      Me bad
      "since we can genetically modify DNA"
      should have been
      "since we can modify DNA"

    2. Re:Lets be honest here by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      Not only will it be done, it has to be done so there would be any hope of surviving as a species long term. Simple matter is, that as great as modern medicine is, it's also royally mucking up our collective gene pool. Take premature babies for example, in a normal course of things any genetic traits that cause premature birth would be instantly removed from gene pool. Modern medicine saves these lives, but as a downside these genetic defects get passed on. As a species we are collecting genetic defects like trophies, it has to be dealt with eventually. If we don't fix our gene pool ourselves, then eventually nature will do it for us, accumulating problems will become so severe that conventional medicine will be unable to do anything about it.

  13. Re:Can we get rid of the appendix? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    Wisdom teeth. The Superior laryngeal nerve which loops around the Aorta for no reason. Cells that off themselves sounds pretty terrible, but when they refuse to die cancer kinda sucks. All the security holes that allow virus's to make us sick. Removing the code virus's have inserted into our DNA might be a good idea, but of course by this point we might be making use of it. (Yeah, btw, we've already been genetically altered). That thing were every cell division snaps off telomeres and leads to all the effects of ageing kinda sucks. I for one would like to be young forever. Hair loss, vision loss, joints wearing out. Pretty much everything that happens after 50. Hangnails, scar tissue, acme. I dunno about you but puberty could have gone smoother. I know it made sense back in the day, but parts of me really don't need to be THAT hairy. Really kind of a pain. While we're at it, I'm no longer hunting and gathering and don't really need this ring of fat around my belly. There's not days between meals.

    Could we have some sort of bugzilla list with a bounty system? I'd really prefer the super-babies of the future to be open source rather than proprietary. Someone us don't want kids with mandatory apple logo birthmarks.

  14. Re:so wrong on many levels by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just the Tower of Babel, the Tree in the garden, and every other time man tried to play God.

    We played God when we took out the first diseased appendix. Now we are going on to far greater things.

  15. Re:so wrong on many levels by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    I don't see anything in the Bible saying that it is wrong to tamper with DNA.

    It isn't in the ten commandments...

    Side note: there are many more than 10 commandments in the Torah. The generally accepted count is 613.

  16. Re:We are like children ... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    [5th generation, in the wild] That's where it starts to get to the 'no body knows' kind of territory.

    Noooooo, we STILL have some idea of what could happen. You know, dogs. Broccoli. Starlink corn. We've got way more experience with things like this than you're letting on. I think you just need to browse wikipedia a bit. Or read a book on the subject. It's interesting stuff.

    We don't even really understand how much of human 'junk DNA' is actually junk

    Turns out there's more to DNA than protein-coding genes. All the... if-else statements around the driver API calls are also important. But yeah, I agree, epigenetics are weird and not well understood. And my GOD do the "scientific journalists" not help in that regard.

    Not that all the effect will be bad, but they sure won't all be good.

    Agreed.

  17. Re:so wrong on many levels by meerling · · Score: 1

    Yes, but most of the people screaming that it's wrong and against their religion despite there not being a single condemnation of genetic alteration or healing the sick in their holy book(s) are christians, not jews.

    For me, I think any god that's so incompetent and cruel to have genetically based diseases around deserved to be abolished to the dustbin of rejected despots.

  18. Re:so wrong on many levels by meerling · · Score: 1

    As well as Raven and Coyote.
    (Depends on the tribes which of those two stole fire to help mankind. I like the Coyote one myself.)

  19. Re:so wrong on many levels by meerling · · Score: 1

    LoL :D

  20. Re:Can we get rid of the appendix? by meerling · · Score: 1

    There's a lot more to submitted to the how incompetent of a bioengineer, errr, bugs list along with more than a few suggestions for improvements.

  21. Re:We are like children ... by meerling · · Score: 1

    Well we sure as heck know the misery and death those genetic based diseases will cause, so I'd rather risk a new programming error to fix an obvious show stopper than to let the damn thing slip through QA & Testing.

  22. Re:so wrong on many levels by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    God will not be happy.

    Slashdot readers will not be happy either.

    The embryos were edited with CRISPR.

    About half of Slashdot readers will argue that the embryo should have been edited with vi.

    The other half will argue that it should have been edited with emacs.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  23. Re:so wrong on many levels by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

    If what we've done to dogs is a preview of what we're going to do to ourselves, let's just drop the nukes now and get it over with.

  24. Re:so wrong on many levels by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 2

    We have never played God; we play human because we are human.

    If we weren't supposed to use our abilities to do these things, then we wouldn't have them. It's like complaining that birds are playing God by flying.

  25. Re:We are like children ... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 2

    Literally no one has any idea what the long term effect of this kind of thing is going to be.

    And how is that any different from normal breeding? Two healthy adults can produce a less than healthy child.

    Children are born all the time with genetic defects. Some defects with minor impacts might go undetected for many generations. So what's the difference between a "natural" defect and one that occurs due to intentional genetic engineering? Besides, if we find a problem six generations down the line can't we just correct it then?

  26. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    (Nobody tell him, maybe he won't rat us out to the boss)

  27. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Of course not, it'd be more like

    Where the hell were you!? Jesus CHRIST so much shit went on down there. Slavery, Childhood bone cancer, do you know how wasps lay their eggs? It's god-damned nightmare fuel. You made one scary motherfucking place you crazy asshat! You realize that you have to be responsible for the Assyrians too? Did you just forget about those guys and how they conquered others? Of course where you DID show up, it lead to the fall of civilization and centuries of genocide..... So maybe it's probably for the best you stayed away or only showed up in toast.

    Naw, don't bother with the halo and stuff, I know hell was only invented by the new kids and it was originally just anywhere "outside of heaven".

    Unless you've changed stuff over the years. Obviously, I guess, as we're standing in heaven which only came about from Hellenistic religions' influence. I guess this whole godhood thing must have been an iterative process eh? Real learning experience? Well the latest trend of scientific materialism seems pretty alright. Are they your current "chosen people"? You know you're gonna catch shit for this stuff for an eternity right?

    But seriously, Alzheimers? What were you thinking? That's just cruel.

  28. making taxidrivers? by houghi · · Score: 2

    If they make the babiies to be the perfect taxi driver, will they be called an Ubermensch?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  29. Re:We are like children ... by rfengr · · Score: 1

    Nah, lawn grass is a pain to maintain. My lawn is taken over by that weed that grows even in concrete cracks. Put it in a true weed and it will replicate like crazy.

  30. Re:so wrong on many levels by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    I don't see anything in the Bible saying that it is wrong to tamper with DNA.

    Shit happens.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  31. Re:so wrong on many levels by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    I don't think you understand agency.

    If you have a son who goes out and kills people, does that make you a criminal?

    Sounds like some kind of exhibit from the Geneva or 9th circuit circus judiciary.

  32. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    If your son is 5 and he got a hold of your gun? Yes, that's negligence. You are responsible for your son and your gun and you failed those responsibilities.

    Even if he's older and has more agency but still a dependent, then it's a judgement call. It might make you a shitty parent. If you raised him up to be a pscyho killer, yes, some of the blame is at your feet and you will criminally charged.

    Even if they make it to 18, if you kept them locked in a basement, psychologically abusing them, and threatening fire and brimstone and an eternity of suffering if they ever say your name, eat shellfish, or like the wrong type of genitalia, then you can still be held accountable.

    If you make a machine that's responsible for other people lives, and it goes out and kills people, even if it was the product of some crazy machine learning, you're still responsible for it. Likewise, if you genetically engineer a plague upon the world, even if you weren't really sure how it would play out, you're still responsible for it.

    I don't think you understand design.

    Is your god all powerful? All knowing? If he can't foresee the results of his actions and what his creations will do, then he's not all powerful and doesn't know what's going to happen. He's just some shmuck with more resources then me.

    Did he write the rules of physics? Decide how atoms decay? Can he know both the exact position and velocity of electrons? Then he SHOULD be able to foresee why people make decisions and free will is a myth. Either he's not really a god, or he's incompetent or negligent when it comes to certain individuals.

  33. Re:so wrong on many levels by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    It's like complaining that birds are playing God by flying.

    What about the pigs? What are they playing?

    *oink* *flap* *oink* *flap* *oink* *flap*

  34. Re:Can we get rid of the appendix? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Hangnails, scar tissue, acme.

    Ah yes, the troubles of adolescent acme: the condition wherein large round black bombs with fuses sticking out of them appear by courier service every day. Not to mention the anvils. Can't forget the anvils. Also an odd prevalence of skis, for a desert climate. Not sure what that's about. Definitely a terrible affliction, acme.

  35. Improvements?! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    CRISPR human beings may not get soggy in milk as fast!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  36. Re:so wrong on many levels by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    You've got a lot of hypothetical stuff in here.

    E.G.: "Even if they make it to 18, if you kept them locked in a basement, psychologically abusing them, and threatening fire and brimstone and an eternity of suffering if they ever say your name, eat shellfish, or like the wrong type of genitalia, then you can still be held accountable."

    Is that what your life is like? Or was like? Most people don't live under these circumstances but they are seething with evil thoughts and desires.

    You presuppose determinism and blame God ... Foreknowledge does not mean God caused it. If you want to say that because God knew what they were going to do and set up the world knowing they would proceed with it ... that's just like the FBI knowing the bad guys are going to commit some crime and letting them go through with it for a better opportunity (to catch them or stop other crimes or whatever).

  37. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    yes, that's how "if" statements work. Welcome to slashdot.

    Is that what your life is like?

    No, but then again I haven't murdered anyone so me and my pa aren't really in the running.

    Most people don't live under these circumstances

    Hoooooly shit dude, that whole line was a dig at Leviticus. Come on, shellfish? If you're going to preach at least know the bible.

    Foreknowledge does not mean God caused it.

    RIGHT! I know that. Hence: "or he's ... negligent when it comes to certain individuals." If he has foreknowledge, and chooses to do nothing, that's NEGLIGENCE. Because this is your metaphor where you're talking about "your son". God would be the metaphorical "father figure" letting his son shoot a motherfucker. IF he knows that's gonna happen, and he lets that happen, then he is a negligent father and his kid should be taken away.

    See? "IF" statements. They're useful as fuck.

    that's just like the FBI knowing the bad guys are going to commit some crime and letting them go through with it for a better opportunity (to catch them or stop other crimes or whatever).

    Oh great. Your god is setting people up to cast them down into a DEEPER level of hell. Super. Hell of a god you've got going there. Really.... graceful.

  38. Re:so wrong on many levels by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    You know what is also very common on slashdot? Unhappiness. Consider how closely you want your life to align with peers like these.

    Keeping people locked in the basement is not a Leviticus thing (nor a normal person experience), and a judge is only going to hold the dad liable for that and not what the kid does with it.

    You really don't understand agency. This whole "shared guilt" thing is a crime against justice.

    Colorful language and drama just makes it look like you're trying to overcome a lack of persuasive evidence or perhaps you don't believe your own depictions.

  39. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    You know what is also very common on slashdot? Unhappiness.

    Careful with all that projection. I mean... you ARE here after all. Whom else would you be talking about?

    and a judge is only going to hold the dad liable for that and not what the kid does with it.

    ...Hold up. You think that.... if a father abuses his kid for years, who then goes out and commits murder because he's a psychological mess from all that abuse, and all that abuse comes to light and the father is facing trial..... you think that a judge won't take THE MURDER into account? Ha. Ok kiddo. Whew boy, you've never dealt with the courts have you?

    "The basement" is a euphemism for "hell". Dear god you suck at this whole symbolism thing. Are you some sort of bible literalist? John 10:9, Is Jesus literally a door?

    You really don't understand agency. This whole "shared guilt" thing is a crime against justice.

    You really don't understand responsibility. Maybe you will when you have kids. And I hope you don't own any guns.

    perhaps you don't believe your own depictions.

    Oh no, I believe with full conviction that our genome is crufty as all fucking get out. Seriously, have you ever looked at this thing? It has all the hallmarks of machine generated source code. If this was designed, that code-monkey seriously needs some code review.

  40. Re:so wrong on many levels by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Hmm ... you think of yourself as a happy person. How carefully have you considered this?

    You seem to want to present yourself favorably here ... and that's fine and natural ... but keep in mind it's just us wee two here following this thread at the moment.

    Do people who are happy toss around obscenties and dial the drama up to an eleven?

    Do happy people talk like this: "Dear god you suck at ..."

    "I believe with full conviction that our genome is crufty as all"

    You are clearly a software developer. I am not being sarcastic. Developers, the elite ones who are think of themselves as connoisseurs of their craft, have a bunch of ways to break down their evaluation of code that ultimately turns into: "Did I write that? No? Then it is trash."

    That's exactly how you are thinking here.

    Be totally honest ... if you had the chance to re-write your DNA, would you do it? I'm not asking so as to put you down: I wouldn't take the chance to write my DNA.

    I think your understanding about your happiness and capabilities designing life are hasty.

    You have a lot to be thankful for and if you continue to overlook the deceptive promises of being held in esteem here will hang like dark clouds over you.

    Instead of choosing to be someone you are not, choose yourself !

  41. Re:so wrong on many levels by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    you think of yourself as a happy person.

    Now just where did you get that? You appear to be delusional and creating a strawman you can beat up. Please, I know it's hard, but try to stay in reality.

    No, I'm quite unhappy with how crufty our genome is. Could be way better.

    Do people who are happy toss around obscenties

    Fuck yeah I do! Especially when I'm happy. You know, now that I think about it, you've got a weird sort of.... worldview that there's a fundamental happiness scale and people's whole disposition resides on it. People are happy sometimes. People are sad sometimes. It probably averages out to about zero in the long run unless you've got some sort of clinical disorder.

    You are clearly a software developer.

    SW engineer. I work with expensive shit. But no, you're not psychically seeing into my brain, and no you don't know how I'm thinking here. To presume you know my thoughts better than I do is insulting. There are real tangible and objective measurements for code. Namely, why the fuck do we have impacted wisdom teeth!? Are you seriously defending this? Or Downs Syndrome. Or bone cancer. Or Alzheimers. In what bizarro world is that a good idea?

    if you had the chance to re-write your DNA, would you do it?

    Fuck yeah! But the kits are like... oh hey, $150!. Awww, but they're way on backorder....

    But let me guess, you're also against tattoos and piercings? Is dying your hair too much? I mean, you think people who swear casually are sad. Just... wow.

    Instead of choosing to be someone you are not, choose yourself !

    Listen, I don't really appreciate you trying to be some sort of.... "life coach" or whatever it is you're trying to do. Kindly fuck off with that nonsense. You started this whole thing off with an insult claiming I don't understand agency, so you're not really running high on reverence or respect and you're going to get the same in return.

    Instead of choosing some logically inconsistent skywizard and a collection of fan-fiction written by the kids of a religious cult, choose reality!