Comment by Amezarak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Amezarak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I firmly believe that the advent of human genetic engineering marks the end of humanity, at least as we know it, and if we had any sense, we'd abolish it right now and and punish any research into it with the most severe penalties possible. We lost our chance with nuclear weapons, we still might have a shot with genetic engineering.

Yes, we can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering. But as you allude, it won't stop there. People will pick and choose external characteristics for their children. The idea that doctors will somehow be able to keep this in check is to ignore history and the huge incentives that are set up here. First, it will be diseases. Then it will be, for instance, the genetic propensity to obesity. Then 'disadvantages', like being too short or a little too dull. Then it will be external traits, like blue eyes or blonde hair. Then it will be mental traits and personality characteristics. And where it will end will be totally inhuman and beyond our present comprehension.

The result will be massive suffering, inequality, and possibly even the extinction of humanity as human genetic diversity is replaced with an ever-accelerating social competition that ends in a monoculture that will probably be ill-suited for survival the same way modern dog breeds often end up unsuited for survival.

Yes, it would be lovely if we could use genetic engineering technology safely and responsibly. We can't. That's to say nothing of the risks inherent in the technology if it became simple and cheap for anyone to use even on non-humans.

We left the pool of normal species as soon as we started using tools, agriculture, and industry. This is just the next step. Who knows where it'll go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring or even survive on this planet beyond a few billion years.

Humans have taken tools and industry to a whole new level, but there's nothing unnatural about that; it doesn't make us an "abnormal" species, whatever that means. But this is something well beyond just "the next step." We're directly and consciously changing our own genetic code. This is also not unnatural, but it represents an existential threat.

> Who knows where it'll go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring or even survive on this planet beyond a few billion years.

So? I don't see how that's an argument for human genetic engineering. If we want to perpetuate life throughout the universe for some reason, we can send probes loaded with microbes, maybe even advanced probes that can incubate more advanced animal and plant species to create an ecosystem. In your scenario, humanity is presented with its extinction through either natural causes or by being the architect of its own destruction. I'd prefer the former.

We directly and consciously altered our environment, energy consumption, knowledge consumption, mobility, appearance, anatomy, life expectancy etc. etc. But genetics is somehow not cool to touch?

It's not like these things people have done are exactly safe and side-effect free already. People have:

* Made entire species extinct through hunting and deforestation

* As a side effect of industrialization, dumped enough CO2 to change the climate and will probably keep it up

* Domesticated multiple other species into being dependent on us, from crops to farm animals to dogs

* Started work on AI and machines which might even replace us one day

Genetic modification isn't a one-way street to destruction as much as AI is, or industrialization.

Also regarding perpetuating life: the one thing life has in common is that it perpetuates itself. We'd be a shitty species if we perpetuated machines or microbes instead of ourselves.

I agree with your larger point, Bill Joy[1] notwithstanding, CRISPR is no more likely to wipe us out than nuclear weapons, driving cars, or any of a dozen 'unnatural' and dangerous things we've been doing for decades. But as rhetorical flourish, I'm not sure I can agree with the idea it will let us survive 'a few billion years.' Are there any species which have existed the few billion years the earth has existed? Multicellular ones? Once the sun boils off all the water on Earth in 3.5B years, presumably there won't be anything surviving here...

1: https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2

I don't think genetic changes alone will allow us to survive earth becoming a wasteland, but it may allow us to better survive travel through deep space in ships and become space faring.

When I visited hawaii, I noticed that there were large trees all growing on one of the oldest islands. Due to erosion, the island will eventually submerge back into the sea, and all those tress will be dead. Those trees don't know it, but their time will be up soon.

I don't know what the future holds, but shying away from technological development means that we as a species are like the trees. At least venturing to other planets would be like if the trees could send seeds across the ocean.

As far as escaping the heat death of the universe, who knows.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we haven't destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons, despite giving it a fairly good go for five decades. The Cold War is over.

We can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering

Sounds good enough for me. Fuck cancer, fuck heart disease, fuck diabetes, fuck obesity. Full steam ahead!

But will those benefits be shared equally? How do you feel about current class inequality being split further into a select "super race" of a beautiful, genius-IQ, long-living 1% vs... the rest?

The weaponry cold war did happen: how do you feel about a genetic enhancements cold war?

That might be true for awhile but technology tends to become cheaper and more available over time, barring artificial constraints like the types of regulations on drugs in America (which is a social issue, not a tech issue).

Then of course the risk is that a lack of genetic diversity wipes people out all at once, so some care is needed.

Also there already is a competition to become super beautiful, it's called sexual selection.

I feel it's better than nobody having it.

15 years ago, only the super wealthy had big flatscreen TVs. Now everyone's got them. If it takes 15 years to go from only the super wealthy having gene enhancements to everyone having them, that would be fine by me.

> I don't know if you've noticed, but we haven't destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons, despite giving it a fairly good go for five decades

Five decades is nothing in historical terms, and it was by no means a foregone conclusion that nuclear weapons would not be used in that time period. The reason they have not has been due to extraordinary effort, chance, and non-proliferation efforts. The future decades and centuries look much grimmer unless we can dismantle existing stockpiles and do what we can to enjoin future generations to not create them.

> The Cold War is over.

The Cold War is over, but the Pax Americana enforced by American hegemony will not last forever. If history teaches us anything, it is that all peacetimes eventually end.

> Sounds good enough for me. Fuck cancer, fuck heart disease, fuck diabetes, fuck obesity. Full steam ahead!

If eliminating heart disease means the extinction of human beings, or the death and suffering of billions of others, is that really worthwhile to you? What if heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity can eventually be dealt with through other, safer, means?

I'm sure glad people like you aren't able to hold us back anymore. This sounds a lot like the old religious authorities burning scientists.

Science is all well and good, but the survival of the species is even better.

I am sure you would agree that if science, say, discovered a simple way to make large amounts of antimatter at home, it would be better to suppress that knowledge by whatever means necessary so that one crazy guy somewhere doesn't decide to obliterate the European continent.

Get some religious leaders to declare it blasphemy and you'll have a big group of boring old humanity for quite a long time.

there's the rub: even if nearly everyone agrees it's unethical and will speciate humans, there's a huge incentive for, say, china to defect from this consensus and develop a class of superhumanly gifted citizens. even if that class lacks genetic diversity, that seems like exactly the kind of issue that genetic engineering exists to solve.

welcome to the new arms race.

I agree. The problem is once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't rely on every nation-state and every organization to adhere to any consensus about the use of genetic engineering.

In an ideal world, humanity would be scattered and numerous enough that the engineering of any one population would leave the others unaffected. But as it is, we're all stuck on Earth in a global, interconnected civilization without central authority, so once this technology is introduced, the incentives are aligned against us.

But I don't know what else to try.

> even if that class lacks genetic diversity, that seems like exactly the kind of issue that genetic engineering exists to solve.

Why would anyone choose to have genetically diverse children if that diversity led to immediate short-term problems? Who would bite the bullet and have 100IQ child who had to compete in a world of 150IQ children for the sake of genetic diversity?

I'm sure religious groups are going to opt out, so when smallpox 2.0 comes and everyone dies suddenly, the meek will inherit the earth once more.

This is just the next phase of evolution, and like all phases of evolution there are winners and losers on a grand scale.

I personally don't think we'll tend toward monoculture. Different needs, goals and cultural biases will promote different people toward different genetic ends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com