- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 28,609
- Reaction score
- 6,367
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sunday’s bombshell reports by MIT Technology Review and the Associated Press — that renowned Chinese scientist He Jiankui said he had used the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing tool to create the world’s first two genetically modified human babies — led to headlines around the world.
The birth of the first genetically tailored humans would be a stunning medical achievement, for both He and China. But it will prove controversial, too. Where some see a new form of medicine that eliminates genetic disease, others see a slippery slope to enhancements, designer babies and a new form of eugenics.
Did anyone think gene-engineering humans would remain "no man's land?"
The concern should be that other nations will embrace it and avail themselves of it to create "better" specimens than the US produces via traditional means.
And, no, it's not a "Pandora's Box," at least not IMO. Indeed, were I able to have engineered my kids to bigger, stronger, smarter, faster and more resistant and/or impervious to physiological maladies, I would have in a "NY minute"...the doctors would only have had to tell me how much it cost.
Why even give humans the choice to breed? Why not let the government select your mate for you based on genetics? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and prevent a lot more undesirable humans?
Why even give humans the choice to breed? Why not let the government select your mate for you based on genetics? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and prevent a lot more undesirable humans?
Why even give humans the choice to breed? Why not let the government select your mate for you based on genetics? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and prevent a lot more undesirable humans?
Red:
Because there's simply no need to do that. Individuals who want children can, when they are ready to have them, simply engineer their kid's genetics and that's that.
Blue:
The outcome -- "custom tailored" kids -- would be the same, but the government's involvement would irk some people. There's no point in doing that if one doesn't need to...And if one doesn't need to and yet does it, no, it's not easier.
Did anyone think gene-engineering humans would remain "no man's land?"
The concern should be that other nations will embrace it and avail themselves of it to create "better" specimens than the US produces via traditional means.
And, no, it's not a "Pandora's Box," at least not IMO. Indeed, were I able to have engineered my kids to bigger, stronger, smarter, faster and more resistant and/or impervious to physiological maladies, I would have in a "NY minute"...the doctors would only have had to tell me how much it cost.
You and I have very different takes on gov't officials (that is, the non-political ones; the SES folks and their direct reports), academicians, scientists and private sector researchers.Maybe I'm senile, but I don't think so. I never see gov't or educational institutions, or scientists trustworthy with anything that has the potential to be tainted with Big Money. It's just like AI with huge upside potential, but implemented by morons. Predictable results, much like AGW.
/
Slippery slope to "super-soldiers" and other "superior beings."
The problem being manifold; including gene war, slave models, hierarchies based on genetic pecking orders.
It's one thing to develop genetics that rejuvenate or heal...another to design beings who might decide they are better than "normals" and act on it.
Doesn't anyone read science fiction? :unsure13:
Why even give humans the choice to breed? Why not let the government select your mate for you based on genetics? Wouldn't that be a lot easier and prevent a lot more undesirable humans?
Slave humans. Chinese have 100’s of millions of those already.
Sex humans. Yeah. I wouldn’t wanna do it with a Chinese girl either.
Military humans. All the Nungs now fight on our side.
Slippery slope to "super-soldiers" and other "superior beings."
The problem being manifold; including gene war, slave models, hierarchies based on genetic pecking orders.
It's one thing to develop genetics that rejuvenate or heal...another to design beings who might decide they are better than "normals" and act on it.
Doesn't anyone read science fiction? :unsure13:
Did anyone think gene-engineering humans would remain "no man's land?"
The concern should be that other nations will embrace it and avail themselves of it to create "better" specimens than the US produces via traditional means.
And, no, it's not a "Pandora's Box," at least not IMO. Indeed, were I able to have engineered my kids to bigger, stronger, smarter, faster and more resistant and/or impervious to physiological maladies, I would have in a "NY minute"...the doctors would only have had to tell me how much it cost.
You and I have very different takes on gov't officials (that is, the non-political ones; the SES folks and their direct reports), academicians, scientists and private sector researchers.
In my 30+ years of being at least two of those and working with folks of each classification, I've never come by a situation that mimics "AI implemented by morons" (AIIM) because my professional career hasn't been peppered with morons. What I have occasionally seen is very bright and capable individuals thrust into, and occasionally soliciting, situations for which they are ill or sub-optimally suited and, as a result, delivering merely mediocre results.
I'm not going to say the circumstance you've described (AIIM) doesn't occur, for it must. I'm saying that in may "place" in the world, an "up or out" place populated by high performers (even the ones who are forced out before reaching a the point where it's no longer up-or-out are high performers), it's not at all the norm. What is the norm is that folks rise to the occasion and meet or exceed expectations, personally and professionally.
FWIW, as a footnote, if you will, while there are some academicians, scientists and SES (and whatever is the equivalent in state/local gov't) who are the "worst of the best," even they can't rightly be described as "morons," or even generally inept. I think "disappointing," in a relative context, is a fitting way to classify them. Accordingly, I don't think it's apt to use the AIIM analogy to describe the "it," whatever "it" may be, you mentioned.
Slave humans. Chinese have 100’s of millions of those already.
Sex humans. Yeah. I wouldn’t wanna do it with a Chinese girl either.
Military humans. All the Nungs now fight on our side.
Gene editing on humans, as in humans that is already living and using the technology to increase longevity or cure a disease. That I understand. But to make gene edited babies, or even gene edit a twin babies? Why? What's their purpose of doing this? And this is not even the real kicker here. China said they will stop this research, but there are scientists from other countries that says they will continue doing this. Again. Why? Why "create" a baby?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...enetic-engineering-babies-20181128-story.html
We will see a new subspecies of human development. Slave humans. Fighting Humans. The price humanity will pay is steep.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?