[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

CRISPR gene-editing technology is advancing quickly. What can it do now—and in the future?

The revolutionary gene-editing tool known as CRISPR can alter, add, and remove genes from the human genome. The implications are immense: It could help eliminate illnesses like sickle cell disease and muscular dystrophy, and could even allow us to alter the genes of future generations of humans, leading to so-called designer babies. But will this ever really happen?

Medical journalist and pediatrician Alok Patel investigates the current state of CRISPR—starting with a bull calf named Cosmo. Patel discovers how scientists edited Cosmo’s genome so he would produce more male offspring, and what that means for humans. In conversation with scientists, artists, and ethicists, Patel explores what kind of gene editing is actually possible right now—and what we should be thinking about when we consider manipulating human traits and, ultimately, the human experience.

Most ethicists disapprove gene editing on human embryo based on inaccuracies of current CRISPR methods. Will they approve it if the accuracy can be improved to be comparable to current heart surgery?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Using A.I. to build a better human | The Age of A.I.

Through life changing accidents, and data minded through NASCAR, human beings are finding ways to rebuild one another so that we are better, faster, and stronger than ever before and all with the help of A.I.. Once nothing more than the stuff of comic books and TV shows, we truly have the technology to become modern superheroes.

The Age of A.I. is a 8 part documentary series hosted by Robert Downey Jr. covering the ways Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Neural Networks will change the world.

0:00​ Introduction
1:34​ The End of Disability?
13:40​ Enhancing Our Abilities
26:33​ Life And Death Situations
36:36​ Facing Cathedral Ledge

[alancalverd]

But radical genetic change would produce a new species, so it wouldn't be human improvement but human replacement.

Why is that bad?

not bad, but makes the argument irrelevant!

Humans evolved from other species anyway. Some of our cousins may haven't changed a lot since humans split from our common ancestors. What makes us better than them? Are we already perfect?

I can see no way in which we are "better" than any other ape - or indeed any other species at all. Taking pleasure from unnecessary killing makes the species morally worse than anything except a fox, and killing for the greater glory of god or a politician is utterly despicable and entirely human.

[alancalverd]

Most ethicists disapprove gene editing on human embryo based on inaccuracies of current CRISPR methods. Will they approve it if the accuracy can be improved to be comparable to current heart surgery?

The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities. I've never subscribed to that line of thought. As far as I'm concerned, those who don't exist have no rights, and those who do exist have full rights. What you make and how you make it is of no concern, but you have a duty to support and care for whatever you make.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

not bad, but makes the argument irrelevant!

Nothing is particularly important in having 23 pairs of chromosomes. Or being a homo sapiens, or Neanderthal hybrids. They are stepping stones or scaffolding to achieve universal consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Taking pleasure from unnecessary killing makes the species morally worse than anything except a fox, and killing for the greater glory of god or a politician is utterly despicable and entirely human.

On what ground can we claim that it is indeed morally bad? Is it universally accepted? Is there any exception? What's the reason for the exceptions?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities.

Is there any supporting data to support this claim?
To win a competition, there are two major ways:
Improving oneself to be better than our competitors.
Preventing our competitors from being better than us.
If most contestants adopt the first strategy, the overall competition tends to be better off over time.
If significant number of contestants adopt the second strategy, the competition tends to be worse off. The winners of this kind of competition will have smaller chance to compete against the winners of other competitions that proceed independently.

[alancalverd]

Taking pleasure from unnecessary killing makes the species morally worse than anything except a fox, and killing for the greater glory of god or a politician is utterly despicable and entirely human.

On what ground can we claim that it is indeed morally bad? Is it universally accepted? Is there any exception?

1. You wouldn't like it if I killed you for my pleasure or to please my god
2. You wouldn't kill your nearest and dearest for pleasure. Though plenty of perverts have killed their families to please a god.

[alancalverd]

The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities.

Is there any supporting data to support this claim?

Not since the fall of the Third Reich, but that doesn't stop people making it!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. You wouldn't like it if I killed you for my pleasure or to please my god
2. You wouldn't kill your nearest and dearest for pleasure. Though plenty of perverts have killed their families to please a god.

It's possible if we share the same god.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities.

Is there any supporting data to support this claim?

Not since the fall of the Third Reich, but that doesn't stop people making it!

I asked about the data showing that more ethicists disapprove genetic modification on humans due to devaluation of the disabled, rather than on the risk of the new and immature technology.
If the first case is true, then they would still disapprove even when the technology gets better and more reliable.
If the second case is true, then they will approve it when the technology gets better and more reliable beyond some threshold.
The ethicist interviewed in the video seems to take the second case.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To win a competition, there are two major ways:
Improving oneself to be better than our competitors.
Preventing our competitors from being better than us.
If most contestants adopt the first strategy, the overall competition tends to be better off over time.
If significant number of contestants adopt the second strategy, the competition tends to be worse off. The winners of this kind of competition will have smaller chance to compete against the winners of other competitions that proceed independently.

New Rule: Equality of Outcomes | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Visionary biochemist Jennifer Doudna shared the Nobel Prize last year for the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), which has the potential to cure diseases caused by genetic mutations. Correspondent David Pogue talks with Doudna about the promises and perils of CRISPR; and with Walter Isaacson, author of the new book "The Code Breaker," about why the biotech revolution will dwarf the digital revolution in importance.

[alancalverd]

I asked about the data showing that more ethicists disapprove genetic modification on humans due to devaluation of the disabled, rather than on the risk of the new and immature technology.

I've never heard it uttered in an ethics committee or even directly by  person affected by the outcome, but often in discussions about assistive or corrective technology. One that crops up frequently is in relation to Downs Syndrome and similar chromosomal anomalies, and another in relation to cochlear implants for profound deafness. The argument runs "there is a perfectly happy community of [whatever....] who have a right to bring [...] babies into the world to join their community."

This does raise a problem with respect to cochlear implants, oddly. You'd think that  giving a profoundly deaf person useable hearing would be a Good Thing, but it has to be done at an early age if it is to be successful. Problem is that (a) the child never gets fully immersed in sign language and lip reading, so finds it difficult to participate in the deaf community and (b) he is now dependent (to a far greater extent than someone with occupational or senile loss of hearing) on a technology which is unlikely to outlive him. You can't get spare parts for a mass-produced 10-year-old computer, never mind a device that was only ever made in tens or hundreds, so when you drop the transmitter down the toilet you need a very complicated and risky opearation to implant a new receiver, and then have to learn to hear and speak all over again.

To my mind a much more complicated ethical problem than editing a gene so you are less susceptible to breast cancer than your mother, for ever.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We shouldn't complicate things unnecessarily. Complexity of a system can be increased by adding unknown parameters or uncertainty to it, or unknown relationships between those parameters.
The biggest obstacle to solve problems is unwillingness to spend time and energy for it, or unwillingness to accept some necessary facts because they would cost us in something else that we think more important.

[alancalverd]

The complexity of cochlear implants, and indeed all prostheses, increases with time as we try to replicate the unbelievably complicated natural gadget. The earliest 2-electrode devices allowed some speech recognition whilst current 12- and 24-electrode units transfer music acceptably, with a vastly more complicated processor. A pirate's wooden leg is fine for standing, but a long way short of the performance of complex modern artificial limbs. At each stage in the development of a product, the ethical (moral) imperative is to treat the patient in front of you with the best (i.e. most biomimetic) kit you have at the time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Technical rules and standards are created to help solving known technical problems. While moral rules and standards are created to help solving known moral problems.
Compliance to technical rules, or its non-compliance, brings technical consequences. They usually occur automatically, without the need for conscious agent to enforce them.
On the other hand, moral consequences usually require conscious agents to enforce them.

[alancalverd]

Technical standards reflect what is possible at the time they are written, and therefore develop towards greater complexity or a presumption of improved safety, performance or interoperability. I haven't seen any change in my moral standard tests since they were coined in the distant mists of history.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Technical standards reflect what is possible at the time they are written, and therefore develop towards greater complexity or a presumption of improved safety, performance or interoperability. I haven't seen any change in my moral standard tests since they were coined in the distant mists of history.

Ethical or moral standards also have developed over time. What were done by Moses, Joshua, and David to non-Jewish people were considered moral by their own moral standard. Slavery and caste system were once morally acceptable.
The trend is that moral standards are getting more inclusive. The second world war gave us universal human right. If one day we can find or create non-human conscious beings, our current moral standard would be extended to include them too.

[alancalverd]

I have several non-human conscious beings in my garden. Four of them lay eggs every day and one keeps predatory conscious beings like thieves rats and foxes away. I treat them as I would wish to be treated and they look after me. No need to invent anything new.