Being Superhuman

[Loren Pechtel]

Before we get to flying, we can start off with what is almost achievable right now - GATTACA.

My wife refuses to believe me when I say this, but I say that if GATTACA ever becomes a reality, male pattern baldness will disappear within two generations.

At first genetic engineering will be expensive, so the benefits will accrue to the most wealthy first before the price drops enough for regular people to afford it.

The part of the movie I found most disturbing was genetic testing for jobs, genetic testing for identification, etc.

I think you're too conservative. CRISPR. All the talk is about designer babies, I think we are going to end up being able to rewrite our code after conception, also.

 

[Jayjay]

Sure, but what does that have to do with the possibility of genetically or technologically engineering a new kind of human being? To me it seems that all that is necessary for understanding is to increase one's intellect, not to reduce the drive to be more intelligent (i.e. competitive).

Herein lies the logical issue with your position: the drive to be more intelligent than you are is not equivalent to a drive to be more intelligent than some second party.

One is edification, the other is competition. It is possible to have a whole society focused on edification of self and others without a focus on competition. I don't know, though, if it's possible for such a society to be composed of 'humans".

Limited resources will always put constraints on altruism. Not everything is a zero-sum game, but some things always are. I can already see two fault lines in that last paragraph that would lead to competing views on how to divide resources: first the balance between "edification of self" and "edification of others", and secondly disagreements on how to edify most efficiently and appropriately.

Anyway this got started because someone referred to competitiveness, violence and selfishness as "flaws". I see them as features that served a purpose. They may have become partly obsolete as circumstances have changed, but the real question in my mind is, how would people and societies voluntarily modify themselves to better adapt to the new circumstances? We already know there is correlation between testosterone levels and violent/criminal behaviour, yet we aren't giving hormone treatments to criminals to pacify them. And very few people want to mess with their reward system in radical ways. We could all start taking SSRIs to be happier, but at the same time, we'd lose part of the drive to achieve things we think we want to achieve. That's why I gave up on depression meds (well, actually I gave them up because they made me not care about anything, to the point that one day I didn't bother taking the pills anymore). Even if we had the means to more precisely tune our motivations and impulses, I'm not sure we would want to

 

[Jayjay]

The point is, that increasing your life span and augmenting your brain are the only two "superpowers" that will matter. We are already living in a world where some people are stronger, prettier, or can do things others can't. A person who can fly is not that different from a person who can afford a private jet, or skydives for a hobby. It's just a matter of degree.

But if a person is hundred times smarter than you? That makes you obsolete. There is nothing you can contribute to the society that the super-smart people can't do better. And because you can't get a job, you can never afford to augment your own brains the same way to catch up. And neither can your children. That's a bleak outcome that will drive people to the barricades, even if we ignore life span extension.

That's also why I think that some level of brain augmentation, with AI or Neuralink-type of devices will be available to most people. There is really no reason not to restrict that, but even then, some people will be able to afford "better brains" than others. The range of people's intelligence and productivity will be much wider than it is now (although still held back by the biological components): the majority of the people would be to the top thinkers like animals are to us. Lovable pets, but not really necessary.

There's a fundamental flaw here--you are assuming intelligence is a monolithic entity that computer amplification will increase your ability in all areas. I do much better than my wife at tasks that involve a detailed set of steps (she has a hard time with recipes), but she does much better than me at tasks which are perceived as a whole (she will make experimental dishes for company--and has never failed to pull it off.) Who is more intelligent? On an IQ test I certainly am--because no IQ test could measure her strengths.

That's just because you and your wife have roughly speaking the same cognitive abilities, with very minor variations. With enough computing power, you can "brute force" minor differences of baseline human brains. The proper comparison wouldn't be you and your wife, it's you and your hamster.

(You can't properly measure the hamster's IQ either, but for different reasons.)

Before we get to flying, we can start off with what is almost achievable right now - GATTACA.

My wife refuses to believe me when I say this, but I say that if GATTACA ever becomes a reality, male pattern baldness will disappear within two generations.

At first genetic engineering will be expensive, so the benefits will accrue to the most wealthy first before the price drops enough for regular people to afford it.

The part of the movie I found most disturbing was genetic testing for jobs, genetic testing for identification, etc.

I think you're too conservative. CRISPR. All the talk is about designer babies, I think we are going to end up being able to rewrite our code after conception, also.

True. There are actually very few diseases you'd need to fix in the germ line. You can apply CRISPR to partially specialized stem cells in most cases. As far as complex features like intelligence or good looks go, we're going to be better off just choosing our partners (or donors) than gene editing because we'd have to understand and modify the genome in too many places to make it worthwhile.

My prediction is that designer babies are going to be mostly improved for health (getting rid of hereditary diseases) and superficial modifications like hair color and skin pigmentation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's just because you and your wife have roughly speaking the same cognitive abilities, with very minor variations. With enough computing power, you can "brute force" minor differences of baseline human brains. The proper comparison wouldn't be you and your wife, it's you and your hamster.

(You can't properly measure the hamster's IQ either, but for different reasons.)

To some extent you can brute force. I'm not sure everything can be brute forced.

Before we get to flying, we can start off with what is almost achievable right now - GATTACA.

My wife refuses to believe me when I say this, but I say that if GATTACA ever becomes a reality, male pattern baldness will disappear within two generations.

At first genetic engineering will be expensive, so the benefits will accrue to the most wealthy first before the price drops enough for regular people to afford it.

The part of the movie I found most disturbing was genetic testing for jobs, genetic testing for identification, etc.

I think you're too conservative. CRISPR. All the talk is about designer babies, I think we are going to end up being able to rewrite our code after conception, also.

True. There are actually very few diseases you'd need to fix in the germ line. You can apply CRISPR to partially specialized stem cells in most cases. As far as complex features like intelligence or good looks go, we're going to be better off just choosing our partners (or donors) than gene editing because we'd have to understand and modify the genome in too many places to make it worthwhile.

My prediction is that designer babies are going to be mostly improved for health (getting rid of hereditary diseases) and superficial modifications like hair color and skin pigmentation.

Genetic diseases will come first, but I'm more talking about actual enhancements.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, the fact of the matter is, we don't exactly get to decide what enhancements become available.

My thought is that you should have to be human, at least until you turn 21, as you were born*, and we shouldn't expect anyone to carry, or not carry, to term. That's their decision for their reasons.

Let people decide, at the point at which they must be capable of deciding, whether they want to have some enhancement.

I think it is valuable to be born and live as we are.

I think that we should have laws about how long any of us may live, or at least how long we may experience life, or some combination.

This is because death is a necessary part of life. I didn't understand why, years ago when I joined here. Death eats all, even those who refuse to let go, even those that should let go.

Death is necessary at some point for everyone for the same reason as "president for life" is not an acceptable arrangement.

I will not accept "god emperors".

* Hormones or blockers at puberty notwithstanding, if someone so decides.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Which is why even though my wife doesn't believe me I say that such genetic manipulation will eliminate male pattern baldness in a few generations.

But my point was how I found the genetic testing for jobs and identification very disturbing.

 

[Jarhyn]

As to what we allow? Well, I would say, probably, anything. I wouldn't say no to a full body replacement.

How many do we allow of someone? Do they all expire together? Are we allowed to keep backups? Should we be?

I do think at the minimum that anyone on their second body should need to be visibly post-human, and that nobody should be able to make of themselves a weapon any more than they ever were.

I accept that some may become stronger, and more capable. I accept that some will become quicker and smarter than I myself am.

I accept that computers may some day spawn life which has not known death. I would wish to keep the peace.

 

[Jayjay]

Before we get to flying, we can start off with what is almost achievable right now - GATTACA.

My wife refuses to believe me when I say this, but I say that if GATTACA ever becomes a reality, male pattern baldness will disappear within two generations.

At first genetic engineering will be expensive, so the benefits will accrue to the most wealthy first before the price drops enough for regular people to afford it.

The part of the movie I found most disturbing was genetic testing for jobs, genetic testing for identification, etc.

I think you're too conservative. CRISPR. All the talk is about designer babies, I think we are going to end up being able to rewrite our code after conception, also.

True. There are actually very few diseases you'd need to fix in the germ line. You can apply CRISPR to partially specialized stem cells in most cases. As far as complex features like intelligence or good looks go, we're going to be better off just choosing our partners (or donors) than gene editing because we'd have to understand and modify the genome in too many places to make it worthwhile.

My prediction is that designer babies are going to be mostly improved for health (getting rid of hereditary diseases) and superficial modifications like hair color and skin pigmentation.

Genetic diseases will come first, but I'm more talking about actual enhancements.

I think we are a long way off from that. CRISPR isn't perfect and we don't know the rate of failure that its use might cause yet. I think the issue at hand that we need to fix in our regulation is plain old selective IVF. That is, using genetic mapping and possibly AI analysis on multiple zygotes or fertilized eggs to choose the "best" possible offspring. This way you can't create supermen, but you can weed out undesirable traits from one parent, and possibly ensure good overall health. I think this kind of designer babies should become the norm for everyone, not just the super rich.

When we get CRISPR working, we could improve on that. But it doesn't make sense to do very complex enhancements with CRISPR. If you need to edit hundreds or thousands of places in the DNA, the possibility for errors also increases, and at some point it's just not worth it. Besides I think people will want to have offspring that has their own DNA, instead of just cutting and pasting features from a catalog. They just want the best possible combination of that DNA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you're too conservative. CRISPR. All the talk is about designer babies, I think we are going to end up being able to rewrite our code after conception, also.

True. There are actually very few diseases you'd need to fix in the germ line. You can apply CRISPR to partially specialized stem cells in most cases. As far as complex features like intelligence or good looks go, we're going to be better off just choosing our partners (or donors) than gene editing because we'd have to understand and modify the genome in too many places to make it worthwhile.

My prediction is that designer babies are going to be mostly improved for health (getting rid of hereditary diseases) and superficial modifications like hair color and skin pigmentation.

Genetic diseases will come first, but I'm more talking about actual enhancements.

I think we are a long way off from that. CRISPR isn't perfect and we don't know the rate of failure that its use might cause yet. I think the issue at hand that we need to fix in our regulation is plain old selective IVF. That is, using genetic mapping and possibly AI analysis on multiple zygotes or fertilized eggs to choose the "best" possible offspring. This way you can't create supermen, but you can weed out undesirable traits from one parent, and possibly ensure good overall health. I think this kind of designer babies should become the norm for everyone, not just the super rich.

When we get CRISPR working, we could improve on that. But it doesn't make sense to do very complex enhancements with CRISPR. If you need to edit hundreds or thousands of places in the DNA, the possibility for errors also increases, and at some point it's just not worth it. Besides I think people will want to have offspring that has their own DNA, instead of just cutting and pasting features from a catalog. They just want the best possible combination of that DNA.

I was using it as a description of what would be done, not saying that it would actually be used. CRISPR isn't accurate enough, the encoding for what to change sometimes gets false positives.

 

[Elixir]

When we get CRISPR working, we could improve on that. But it doesn't make sense to do very complex enhancements with CRISPR. If you need to edit hundreds or thousands of places in the DNA, the possibility for errors also increases, and at some point it's just not worth it. Besides I think people will want to have offspring that has their own DNA, instead of just cutting and pasting features from a catalog. They just want the best possible combination of that DNA.

Ah, so an app.
"Plug our handy DNA analyzer into your phone, and add a drop of each parent's spittle. Just select your desired traits from the menu that pops up showing all possible attributes! Instructions for a specific set of genome edits are automatically sent to our lab, where we can do all those desired edits (just ship us your gametes or blastocyst!) and your own physician can implant it back in the host mother, in a simple outpatient procedure!
Guaranteed to give you YOUR best offspring - a mini YOU, only BETTER!"

 

[Jayjay]

When we get CRISPR working, we could improve on that. But it doesn't make sense to do very complex enhancements with CRISPR. If you need to edit hundreds or thousands of places in the DNA, the possibility for errors also increases, and at some point it's just not worth it. Besides I think people will want to have offspring that has their own DNA, instead of just cutting and pasting features from a catalog. They just want the best possible combination of that DNA.

Ah, so an app.
"Plug our handy DNA analyzer into your phone, and add a drop of each parent's spittle. Just select your desired traits from the menu that pops up showing all possible attributes! Instructions for a specific set of genome edits are automatically sent to our lab, where we can do all those desired edits (just ship us your gametes or blastocyst!) and your own physician can implant it back in the host mother, in a simple outpatient procedure!
Guaranteed to give you YOUR best offspring - a mini YOU, only BETTER!"

That's just silly. The company already has your DNA, because you signed it up when your parents signed you up to Facebook when you were born. And they can synthesize your gametes from that.