Conversation

Notices

1. r҉ustic cy͠be̸rpu̵nk🤠🤖 (cypnk@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2017 09:18:36 UTC r҉ustic cy͠be̸rpu̵nk🤠🤖

   More #Biopunk than #Cyberpunk, but scientists in China have managed to clone dogs. What makes this project more remarkable is that they edited the genes with CRISPR before doing so, which means you could change the heritability of some traits

   If this moves on to human trials, it has implications for preventing diseases from passing on and, less ethically, letting people select more favorable traits in their children

   http://www.wdsu.com/article/biz-says-its-cloned-the-first-dog-from-a-gene-edited-donor-dog/14497140

   • Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Dec-2017 11:07:28 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Cathal Garvey
     @cathal @cypnk From a certain point of view, modifying someone's genes to give them a better chance in life is more ethical than removing those individuals who do not already have those traits.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 03:36:46 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Cathal Garvey
     @cathal @cypnk If we have the ability to improve the genetics of our children, are we morally obliged to do so? Is it immoral to intentionally cripple them by not enhancing their abilities?
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 03:54:05 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     in reply to

     • Hallå Kitteh
     • Cathal Garvey
     @cypnk @cathal Stepping back a short bit from the edge, where do we draw the line between removing defects and outright augmentation?
     
     Concrete example: Lactose tolerance in adults.
     
     A few thousand years back, we didn't have that. That's a newly acquired power. In our current dairy-centered society, maybe lacking lactose tolerance is a defect. But 5000 years ago, would it have been an augmentation?
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 09:51:11 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     in reply to

     • Hallå Kitteh
     I heard a podcast episode with a discussion of this recently, but can't find it now. Too many podcasts. :-)
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 10:52:44 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Cathal Garvey
     @cypnk @cathal Lactose *tolerance* developed in the last 10000 in response to dairy farming, that's what I was talking about.
     
     Adding the ability to drink milk in adulthood to a pre-ice-age human of Northern European stock is an augmentation. Or, adding it to those 65% of the global population today that lack it.
     
     But anyway, what you are saying is that there is no line at all between removing a propensity for prostate cancer and removing ... the lack of a sixth finger?
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 16:07:40 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     • Cathal Garvey
     @cypnk @cathal Sure, but around where do you think the line of the acceptable would be today, where do you think it should be, and do you think the distinction between "remedy" and "enhancement" affects that judgement?
     
     As for another factor, do you think that the lines between "natural for humans", "naturally occurring in the animal kingdom", "naturally occurring" and "artificial" are relevant for the judgement of what's acceptable?
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 17:09:43 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @cypnk
     
     What guidelines and principles will guide the case-by-case?
     
     What guidelines and principles ought to guide the case-by-case?
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2017 18:08:33 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @cypnk So, it's an "I'll know it when I see it" type situation.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2017 01:58:38 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @cypnk I guess we'll have to disagree on whether we have guidelines, a compass that can be expressed, for the fuzzy stuff.