上级分类: 生物多样性生物工程生物技术

Human self-modification

How to edit our own genome to phenotype, and should we?

YAML 问题

It is easy to modify our phenotype just by having a plastic surgery, and it doesn't affect the genetics of all of our offspring. Changing genome, on the other hand, is a much more consequential in that regard. On the other hand, it is also a fact that each of us is an owner of their body, and can practically privately try to do to their bodies whatever they please.

The differentiation of species could potentially lead to the diversity of humans on a par and greater than the diversity of dogs. This category is both for the "how" and the "why" of low-to-high level self-modification.


没有子分类。

投票 (可选) (别通知) (可选)
请,登录

// 想象一下,当没有像你这样的人时,尝试适应... //

但是两个一模一样的人很少见,每个人都已经不同了……而我们已经无法改变我们祖先的交配决定。如果我们像处理代码和软件工程一样理解和处理基因组,就会有很多方法来确保满足约束条件。

我赞成后代集体工程的想法,而不是像Marvin Minsky的解释那样只有传统的两个父母交配然后产生后代的想法://youtu.be/RYsTv-ap3XQ?t=540)。

// Imagine trying to fit in when there's no one like you... //

But two identical people are rare, everyone is already different... And we already can't change the mating decisions of our ancestors. If we understand and deal with genomes like we deal with code and software engineering, there's going to be many ways to ensure that constraints are satisfied.

I favor the idea of collective engineering of offspring rather than the idea that only traditional two parents mate and then produce offspring like Marvin Minsky's explains.


即使是未来,我也不是粉丝。没有可能的方法来为这样的事情创建监督和规则。最可怕的部分是处理不可逆转的错误。这些基因模式中的每一个都将是一场不可逆转的实验,有些人必须应对后果。想象一下,除了知道你的痛苦来自某个特定的人,你认识的人之外,当没有人像你一样的时候,试着融入其中。想象一下成为那个人并且不得不面对你的错误。道德问题的范围超出了我的范围。我宁愿离开这个话题。我确定它会来。我的意思是,这将摧毁任何道德观念,因为它随着人类历史的发展而演变。什么风暴会袭击我们是不可预测的。我还没有准备好。

Even if it's the future, I'm not a fan. There's no possible way to create oversight and rules about such a thing. The scariest part is dealing with irreversible mistakes. Every one of those genetic mods will be an irreversible experiment, with some individuals having to deal with consequences. Imagine trying to fit in when there's no one like you, besides knowing your misery came from someone specific, someone you know. Imagine being that person and having to confront your mistake. The range of moral issues is beyond me. I'd rather get off the subject. I'm sure it's coming tho. What I'm saying, this will destroy any notion of morality, as it evolved thru human history. What storm will hit us is unpredictable. I'm not ready.



    :  -- 
    : Mindey, 尹与及
    :  -- 
    

skihappy,

从[另一个话题]回答[skihappy]的顾虑(https://0oo.li/intent/82001/?l=en

Answering [skihappy]'s concerns from another topic, namely:

// Modifying genome will affect only the next generation, not the individual, but his offspring. What kinda motivation would we have to do that to our children? I'd guess, to produce slaves, highly specialized for some tasks. //

I think self-modification would actually increase the bio-diversity, a bit like sex has increased the biodiversity, and really, increase the competition between variants, leading to new wave of evolution. However, with these technologies, where being born of one phenotype would not mean staying with it, the evolution could happen not by death of variants, but by death of certain traits by replacing them with new ones -- continual morphing.

// Another scenario is rich people enhancing their children with super senses, creating a master race. How about creating a warrior subspecies of humans? Are you ready to fight them? //

Superhumans wouldn't be a problem, if society had rules and social norms that govern certain abilities, just like there are rules for the blind people, there could be rules for those with the vision of an eagle or an owl. I frankly would love to have the vision of an owl, as I could see the Andromeda galaxy in its full glory without a long-exposure. Why not? At the rate that these technologies are progressing (consider CRISPR), it's likely that they will be widely available, not just for the rich people.

Having a gun today is more dangerous than any "warrior subspecies", and guns are generally regulated in most countries. However, I agree that there should be limits set though -- it may be that certain characteristic are not socially acceptable.

There's definitely limits to the diversity of species that modern society would be ready and willing to deal with.

// It's like software that can modify its own code. Maybe by some rules at first, but then those rules will be subject to change. It's just too confusing. Also, how would you deal with unfortunate, but inevitable mistakes. Woops, we just created a species in f monstrous phycopaths, for ever to deal with. Good luck. //

Good point. Perhaps the features of self-modification would have to be publicly known and legal-coded, and there would have to be both legal and illegal features to acquire through self-modification. For example, it may be illegal to grow very large muscles meanwhile destabilizing certain cognitive functions, etc.


语言