Hacker News Reader

Comment by rm_-rf_slash | Hacker News Reader

Let's say a generation of humans is born from perfect genetic combinations. Wouldn't natural children from that generation keep the same strong genes?

What about epigenetics? If some proto-übermensch were afforded - due to automization and superior talents - to live a far more leisurely life than our own, and spend it with drugs, food, and entertainment, wouldn't that cause genetic regression?

I think the problem with Gattaca is that the movie was so damn good at tackling the issue it's made itself the sole narrative that we understand, even though science has advanced tremendously in concepts such as epigenetics and the microbiome. We need a new narrative to understand our new situation.

View on HN

"Wouldn't natural children from that generation keep the same strong genes?"

They'd drift if it wasn't maintained. Mutations would always be slipping in.

And how would we know which mutations are broadly beneficial or not? What if humans of a future earth or larger society have needs we couldn't imagine, like radiation resistance or anti-autoimmune protections?

Besides, sometimes there are trade offs with no clear winning picture. Sub-Saharan Africans with sickle cell syndrome are also more resistant to malaria. What's worse? What's more necessary? How do we know malaria won't be a bigger problem tomorrow?

>how would we know which mutations are broadly beneficial or not?

In general terms we know what a good specimen looks like and the specific traits that they have. We can only build to that because:

>sickle cell syndrome are also more resistant to malaria

This is evolution by process of elimination, and unfortunetaly elimination means lack of breeding from disadvantaged phenotypes. We've largely uncoupled reproduction from evolutionary advantages anyway, and just like humans are so dedicated to controlling the world in they inhabit, we'll insist on controlling the finest details of reproduction too.

Not just mutations. The MUCH bigger factor would be a child whose phenotype is "desired" but whose genotype is "less than ideal," or simply a kid who was the best they could get with the limitation of the parent's genetic material. Like, if AA = bad, AG = good, GG = better and the parents are AA and AG, oh, well, let's just make an AG kid.

You can't just make one generation of genetically filtered children and figure everything's going to be good now, we have all the "bad parts" eradicated, because that's not how genes work. In addition, if you read the paper, it mentioned something on the order of a dozen embryos, and doing a genetic analysis of each one. Using this technique, you'd be able to filter out, perhaps a handful of disease, maybe pick out one with green eyes if that's what you wanted (and your genes allowed), but you're not going to gene-by-gene eliminate every chance of bad combinations with every other combination of genes on the planet, barring mutations. That's ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com