Now that we have CRISPR, shouldn't we expand research into human enhancement?

[Sammael]

We have CRISPR now, and more refined variations and techniques are being developed with more to come, some to improve accuracy, others to not so much cut and modify dna but target it instead. But this tools is LITERALLY like being Prometheus unbound, we now have to prime tools of our own alteration, so... shouldn't we vastly expand research into what makes humans tick, so we can enhance ourselves?

 

 

We all know nature is a massive drag on the fates of mankind, the genetic lotto is a cruel task master to a great many people. Some people are born gifted, intellectually, physically, the latter in both health and appearance, while others are born dullards and worse, squat, grotesqueries that make quasimodo shudder in horror.

 

 

THAT is the genetic lotto, THAT is what all of mankind has been yoked to for their entire history, but now we have the tools to alter this! But we lack the knowledge. And here is where the rub is, there is a VAST frontier of undiscovered knowledge about what makes human beings tick, what leads to what.

 

Everyone wants to strip away genetic diseases, but we should go further. We KNOW that how smart you are has major role in your fate in life in the modern world, we can lift the entire baseline if we only knew what to alter. It is not one gene of course, it's likely hundreds and THOUSANDS of gene interactions and protein interactions with the environment, no human being is going to be able to figure this out, but we have computers, where we can feed vast quantities of individual human dna into, then find statistical signals that get stronger with some gene combinations. WE have a planet of billions of people, we must be able to figure out some of this given enough data and enough corresponding information on how people turned out in life.

 

 

Ultimately, we might even get to a point where we can feed in a dna combination from a zygote, and simulate the appearance of the eventual person with enough knowledge. Then humanity would be fully in control of directed evolution.

 

Am I going mad? This is not crazy talk is it? And I am not wrong for wanting us to move in this direction am I? Because as much as people deride this as morally suspect, it does not hold a Candle to the genetic lotto, where in a world of increasing demands on peoples aptitudes and physical attributes to get ahead in life and prosper, some people roll snake eyes in the stats of life. We don't have to let that stand for people who do not wish it.

[StringJunky]

What and who determines what are desirable traits? To pursue a certain specification in any species' morphology would reduce the potential survivability of such species by reducing the genetic diversity i.e. weeding out the traits that are not desirable right now but may be in some other adverse circumstance; it could mean the difference between the species surviving or going extinct.

[Over 9000]

What and who determines what are desirable traits? To pursue a certain specification in any species' morphology would reduce the potential survivability of such species by reducing the genetic diversity i.e. weeding out the traits that are not desirable right now but may be in some other adverse circumstance; it could mean the difference between the species surviving or going extinct.

So by having lots of low IQ people we are stronger because the "diversity" may be possibly useful in some alternate reality?

 

Tell me something. Would you want your kid to have a low IQ for more diversity?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[StringJunky]

So by having lots of low IQ people we are stronger because the "diversity" may be possibly useful in some alternate reality?

 

Tell me something. Would you want your kid to have a low IQ for more diversity?

Yes, because you can't have all 'desirable' skills rolled into one person; they may conflict There are skills that work better with a low IQ as in, for example, methodical, repetitive tasks where they are working to their capacity whereas a quick, imaginative mind would soon become bored, agitated and, ultimately, unproductive. A well-functioning society is the sum of many diverse parts. We all have a niche. Academic people can't work to their full potential without manually-skilled people and vice versa; they are of equal value in societal terms.

 

It doesn't matter whether my child has high or low intelligence as long as they feel fulfilled.

Edited November 1, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sammael]

Yes, because you can't have all 'desirable' skills rolled into one person; they may conflict There are skills that work better with a low IQ as in, for example, methodical, repetitive tasks where they are working to their capacity whereas a quick, imaginative mind would soon become bored, agitated and, ultimately, unproductive. A well-functioning society is the sum of many diverse parts. We all have a niche. Academic people can't work to their full potential without manually-skilled people and vice versa; they are of equal value in societal terms.

 

It doesn't matter whether my child has high or low intelligence as long as they feel fulfilled.

 

 

I think the key now is that with lower iq they are less likely to feel fulfilled going forward. Automation is increasing, the demand for many less skilled labor jobs is likely going to decrease, up to this point the answer has always been increasing education to move more people higher up the chain, but that is much more difficult for those not so gifted genetically. We've all seen cases where some kid in class or being tutored works twice as hard to get less results from a smarter but lower effort peer. My goal with all of this is not to flatten out all ability and aptitudes, it's to raise the baseline for people enough that should they choose to go into a field that requires more aptitude and technical skill, they are not constrained by natures lottery. I want to get more and more of humanity to the point where even IF there are plenty of people smarter than they are, they are smart enough where their own effort can still allow them to function well and succeed. This is the perk of raising the baseline, it opens up avenues for people that are not available to them.

 

 

And right now this kind of selection is ALREADY engaged in through proxies, female sexual selection in universities, college grad? good job? Decent income prospects? Put that on lock down with marriage, there is a magnetism with high status females and males in part because of the sorting process of universities and grad school and professional fields. What about the people not already in that class? They have a harder time competing for those genes that are more beneficial, and if they don't have the same frequency of beneficial alleles, their offspring will have a harder time in the modern world, because we do NOT reward lower skilled people with greater rewards en masse. Those spoils go to a cognitive elite, through college admissions, through higher earning professions, etc etc. It's not quite as dire and deterministic as it comes across from my words here, but natural gifts matter, and it is past time we give people the option to boost themselves higher, especially if they were not as lucky as others. It's an empirical question whether people are happier and more content in life without higher intelligence, I suspect really high iq could make you less satisfied, but really low iq? or iq low enough to make your job prospects lower? And as a direct consequence make you less marriage material as a man? Have less capacity to earn enough to be comfortable? These are cascading effects and negative consequences from not having the aptitude to do as well in the modern world, and we now have the power to alter that, why NOT work to boost people higher?

[CharonY]

Since we have no idea which traits are linked to which genes and what phenotypes various combinations have it is quite a moot point to speculate about how to improve humans. On top of that traits that can confer beneficial results individually can have undesirable traits. Or certain alleles may be more beneficial in one situation but harmful in others. After all, we are mostly changing the underlying proteins or their regulation and the outcome is highly complex and dependent on the environment.

 

What is known however, is that low genetic variability is an issue with respect to diseases and immune response. Likewise we also know that genetic diseases are a bigger issue in inbred populations.

[Raider5678]

And what would happen if everyone in the world was stupid smart, strong, and powerful. Can you find a way to fix morals? Poor will be poor, and rich will be rich, yet we would all be the same. Think the poor, just as smart and powerful as the rich, will decide: hey. Now that every one is a genius, me and my family will be poor forever while those rich snobs will be rich forever.

 

Or better yet, the rich make them selves more powerful as to simply control the poor. Massive divides will arive, they won't shrink.

[Sammael]

Since we have no idea which traits are linked to which genes and what phenotypes various combinations have it is quite a moot point to speculate about how to improve humans. On top of that traits that can confer beneficial results individually can have undesirable traits. Or certain alleles may be more beneficial in one situation but harmful in others. After all, we are mostly changing the underlying proteins or their regulation and the outcome is highly complex and dependent on the environment.

 

What is known however, is that low genetic variability is an issue with respect to diseases and immune response. Likewise we also know that genetic diseases are a bigger issue in inbred populations.

 

It's moot to speculate on the details of how to improve people now, it is NOT moot to start the vast project of trying to tease out and catalog how gene combinations and interactions effect things. It is PRECISELY because we know so little, that we ought to start large scale projects to figure this kind of stuff out. As for low genetic variability, I assume there is not just a single genetic peak of particular traits to get a desired result. I imagine a sea of genotype combinations on a plane that lead to different peaks and valleys, there is not likely to be a single peak or valley, but multiples of each.

 

 

There could easily be hundreds of different gene combinations that boost the aptitude of people, plenty of biodiversity there. But if you are worried, I suspect not all people would choose to have their children modified. And for those that do, I also suspect we will be much more competent at engineering around some of the roadblocks viruses use to target us and take us out, or bacteria, or fungus. Health concerns are not enough of a reason to stall this research, and delay the project of lifting people out of the muck.

And what would happen if everyone in the world was stupid smart, strong, and powerful. Can you find a way to fix morals? Poor will be poor, and rich will be rich, yet we would all be the same. Think the poor, just as smart and powerful as the rich, will decide: hey. Now that every one is a genius, me and my family will be poor forever while those rich snobs will be rich forever.

 

Or better yet, the rich make them selves more powerful as to simply control the poor. Massive divides will arive, they won't shrink.

 

 

We will not all be the same, there are innumerable different combinations of genetic and environmental influences that make us who we are, focusing on a single aspect like peoples native intelligence and boosting that up across the board will not remove differences, it will just give the people who got unfortunate combinations of genes a leg up. Right now, they are at a disadvantage.

 

Look at yourselves, you don't give a damn if someone tries three times harder than another person, you don't give a damn if they put in more hours and effort, at the end of the day, when it comes to college admissions, you are looking for test scores and results. This is the inevitable result of a meritocracy, the problem is that a large portion of the outcome is based on something that is completely outside the persons control, what gifts they are born with. Raising the baseline ability gives more people options.

 

 

There will still be poor people, through random chance and circumstance, but we will be able to DIMINISH (not eliminate) the number of people living a lower quality of life because they don't have the aptitude to get the skills that are more in demand in society. Do you honestly think if we were able to raise the floor of iq for 80% of the population, that would not have a positive effect overall? Because I think it would, ethics and morality are beyond the scope of my discussion, I have no clue what we'd do to measure such things, I suppose some of you are worried of creating some army of Khan Noonien Singh's. I'm not worried about that. But then I am less cynical and pessimistic than is common these days. I still kind of believe that we are more likely to be able to build a better world, something closer to the utopian vision of Roddenbary than the world of Hunger Games or Elysium:

 

 

 

The goal is not to have no problems, but fewer problems, and having a higher baseline level of aptitude seems to me to be more likely to lead to that desired result than leaving it all to chance where people are being increasingly filtered into separate segments of life based on things outside their control. That is NOT the future I want to just allow to stand. Why are any of you sated with such things? There is this apathy that pervades so many corners that seems to suggest.. don't even bother looking to try and tackle these realities.

 

Here is a dark truth to ponder. The more fair and just and meritocratic and equal a society is in terms of its external impacts on its populace, the more the INTERNAL aspects of the individuals influence outcomes. And when that is the main thing left, the answer can't just be... never mind, nothing to see here. We don't currently know enough, sounds too hard, don't even bother. Quitter talk. That's a reason to want to figure more of this out.

 

Your genetic makeup makes you more prone to Alzheimer? Not anymore. You have a recessive gene for Sickle Cell? You'd child won't be carrying it. Genes more prone to breast cancer? Let's replace those with some that make you more resistant to it. There is no reason this kind of project needs to stop at health. It won't. So let's cut the pretense and get on with this work.

[StringJunky]

. You have a recessive gene for Sickle Cell? You'd child won't be carrying it.

This is a perfect example where an affliction can be detrimental in one way but beneficial in another but survival matters the most.

 

 

Protective Effect of Sickle Cell Trait Against Malaria-Associated Mortality And Morbidity

 

Only in some individuals do malaria episodes progress to severe life-threatening disease, while in the majority the episodes are self-limiting. This is partly because of host genetic factors such as the sickle cell gene.

The sickle cell gene is caused by a single amino acid mutation (valine instead of glutamate at the 6th position) in the beta chain of the hemoglobin gene. Inheritance of this mutated gene from both parents leads to sickle cell disease and people with this disease have shorter life expectancy. On the contrary, individuals who are carriers for the sickle cell disease (with one sickle gene and one normal hemoglobin gene, also known as sickle cell trait) have some protective advantage against malaria. As a result, the frequencies of sickle cell carriers are high in malaria-endemic areas.

Most earlier studies of the relationship between sickle cell trait and malaria were cross-sectional, and therefore some important data relevant to the protective effects of sickle cell trait were missing. CDC's birth cohort studies (Asembo Bay Cohort Project in western Kenya ) conducted in collaboration with the Kenya Medical Research Institute allowed us to investigate this issue in depth. We determined that the sickle cell trait provides 60% protection against overall mortality. Most of this protection occurs between 2-16 months of life, before the onset of clinical immunity in areas with intense transmission of malaria. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html

Edited November 2, 2016 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

 

It's moot to speculate on the details of how to improve people now, it is NOT moot to start the vast project of trying to tease out and catalog how gene combinations and interactions effect things. It is PRECISELY because we know so little, that we ought to start large scale projects to figure this kind of stuff out. As for low genetic variability, I assume there is not just a single genetic peak of particular traits to get a desired result. I imagine a sea of genotype combinations on a plane that lead to different peaks and valleys, there is not likely to be a single peak or valley, but multiples of each.

 

 

And that is what we have been doing for a few decades. The thing is that it is far more complicated than you think it is. After all, despite all the progress we have made, even for simple cells our understanding is still lacking. And we have been mutating those buggers for quite some time now. If we add multicellular interactions, the complexity goes up exponentially. I am not saying that we will never understand it, but quite clearly CRISPR is not some magic bullet. The closest we thought we would be to one was probably on the onset of the omics era somtime in late 90s but now we are still cataloging the challenges more than being able to address them.

My point, however, is that you make call to ponder the last of millions of step, while we are still figuring out the first couple ones. Or to use an analogy, it is like dreaming about an utopia in a different solar system, whilst having no clue how to even leave ours.

Edited November 2, 2016 by CharonY

[Sammael]

Well, before we start adding things, I expect a decades long if not century long project to take place to map out what does what. I don't expect any individual to be able to predict what changes in genes lead to what effects, but that was never the way forward anyway. We have billions of human beings on this earth. Why can't we just feed their dna into computers and couple that data to phenotypical observations, like appearance, health issues, profession, disease, longevity. You don't need to predict or needlessly worry about what altering a single gene does because with a sample size of billions of humans, there are probably plenty of people with similar gene clusters where the alternations in question are already there where you can compare and contrast differences. Using the sickle cell example, you can look at african populations without the mutation and notice in increase in malaria rates and deduce from that statistical likelihoods of some benefit that would be lost by stripping that away (still worth it in that case because we can solve malaria in other ways like changing the environment).

 

 

If we feed enough data into computers, a lot of this missing data will fall out of it naturally, you will get signals that suggest that certain gene clusters provide x benefit and perhaps their inclusion increases the risk of y malady. We need the data, and so how about we start thinking about how we ought to collect it and cross reference it so we can start to get some useful and prescriptive information out of it.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Sammael

[StringJunky]

. We need the data, and so how about we start thinking about how we ought to collect it and cross reference it so we can start to get some useful and prescriptive information out of it.

I think tentative moves have been made in that direction with some reputable organisations.

 

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/reports/thenhsif/what-if-every-patient-were-to-have-their-genome-mapped/?gclid=CjwKEAjwnebABRCjpvr13dHL8DsSJABB-ILJ_54FTt4xREU0p6A5HUw_oxpo2-b0kuex-KZmYANazRoCefXw_wcB

[John Cuthber]

We have CRISPR now, and more refined variations and techniques are being developed with more to come, some to improve accuracy, others to not so much cut and modify dna but target it instead. But this tools is LITERALLY like being Prometheus unbound,

I stopped reading there, because it's clear that you do not know the meaning of the words you use.