
Japan set to allow gene-editing tools for research into early human development - benryon
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06847-7
======
Salgat
It's going to be depressing if we get to a point where the next generation is
vastly superior both in intelligence and physical fitness. Mind you, still
great for humanity, but depressing to have missed out on that. We may be
considered primitive compared to humanity in a few centuries.

~~~
interfixus
We have no idea how that's gonna play out. We always think in terms of linear
extrapolation, when in reality every new development eventually veers off into
unintended consequences and totally unforeseen societal directions. Nobody in
the nineteen sixties foresaw where computers where going. They thought
Multivac paradise. We got the Facebook nightmare. Nobody in the eighteenth
century saw past the exiting novelty of self driving carriages to the
unliveable infernos we have let our cities turn into today. Nobody foresaw the
overwhelming cultural rifts eventually resulting from universal wealth and
mass education. A new race of superhumans may vanquish Everything Bad That
Ever Was™, or they may blow up the universe. We just don't know.

~~~
magduf
>Nobody in the nineteen sixties foresaw where computers where going. They
thought Multivac paradise.

If you're referring to giant computers that took up a room, they really
weren't that far off with that vision. Sure, a modern laptop computer or even
smartphone has more computing power than an old mainframe, but we still have
giant room-sized systems, but today we call them "server farms" or
"datacenters".

------
yipbub
Some points:

* The draft is of guidelines that are not legally binding

* This was previously completely unregulated before

* The proposed guidelines encourage embryo research

* The proposed guidelines restrict manipulation of human embryos for reproduction

Also:

> Japan’s draft guidelines will be open for public comment from next month and
> are likely to be implemented in the first half of next year.

------
PakG1
It is interesting to note that Japanese popular fiction (especially various
anime) often has human genetic modification as a central theme. Non-Japanese
popular fiction does as well, but my perception is that it's not to the same
extent and quantity. I am curious how much popular fiction influences people's
comfort level with the concept. Or is there more prevalence of these themes in
popular fiction because the people are more comfortable with it? Does life
imitate art, or is it the other way around?

Or my perception could be completely off. It happens. :)

~~~
skissane
I also wonder what role religious backgrounds of different countries might
have in this. Are Christians more likely to have a religious opposition to
human genetic modification (such as on the grounds of "playing God") than
Shintoists and Buddhists might be? (I suspect the answer is "Yes", but I don't
know enough about Japanese religions to be confident in that answer.)

------
yipbub
If this leads to "enhanced" humans, I wonder how countries will react to
competition from modified humans that can better compete.

The human race is in the unfortunate position of needing global regulation,
and having a push back against globalization.

I don't know if the path of corporate globalization we are on can help either.
We need a non-profit approach to global regulation of technologies like
genetic engineering, self driving vehicles, and AI deployment because each of
these has the potential to completely reshape the human condition.

I wonder if countries could cooperate on issues like this in a meaningful way.
Can we come up with a sufficient momentum without drivers like profit or fear?
Both of these drivers should ideally drive rational people to take action on
these issues, but I think the perceived difficulty is what makes us ignore it.
We need to clarify a path to profit and security for people to see taking
action on this as an option they can take.

I'm an intern at a software company, what can I do? I'm struggling with
choosing between the long term and the short term. The wide view and the
narrow focus. For now, I'm building the scaffolding of my life, so that when I
see an option that has better tradeofs between these I can take it and build
something.

~~~
beerlord
We will soon come to the point of realisation that billions of humans are
superfluous, and that the lands they occupy would be better off as huge nature
parks. Any critical farming or mining operations can be carried out mostly by
robot labour and a few genetically uplifted human engineers.

~~~
tejtm
and on a different rock

------
vjsc
What I am looking forward to is when someone tries to start cloning process on
a human being.

When I was a kid, in 1990s, there was a lot of fuss around cloning. Most
people rejected it as unethical. I wonder how far the state of the art has
come since then in cloning technology.

I am guessing that cloning maybe a real chance for humans to become immortal
or atleast live longer lives.

~~~
anonytrary
> [In the 90s] most people rejected it as unethical.

I don't understand this. If a clone is given the same rights as a non-clone, I
can't see how cloning is unethical. It's not like non-clones get a choice in
whether or not they want to exist. Why would we treat clones differently,
anyway?

> I am guessing that cloning maybe a real chance for humans to become immortal

Sounds like you are confusing classes with instances. If every human is a
different class, the _class_ gets to potentially live forever, but each
_instance_ of the class still goes through the lifecycle. It's not like the
consciousness of a previous instance is copied to a later instance. Each
instance presumably gets its own state.

~~~
paxy
In people's minds, cloning = a person walks into a machine and two exact
copies walk out. If you instead framed it as birthing a child who was exactly
like you, I'm sure the perception would be a lot different.

~~~
anonytrary
> In people's minds, cloning = a person walks into a machine and two exact
> copies walk out.

I highly doubt this is even close to true. Most people are smart enough to
know that cloning has something to do with "modifying the egg and sperm and
growing the baby". That's literally _all_ they have to know to not think the
absurd thing you mentioned. What you've described is "teleportation gone
wrong" which is complete and utter science-fiction, and most people know that.
I would even go further and say that most people are familiar with Dolly and
already know cloning to be possible.

Plus, they are already familiar with twins (about two pairs per high-school)
which is natural cloning. You'd have to be living under a rock to think twins
share the same mind.

~~~
Bartweiss
At the very most, I think people expect clones to look like identical twins
(correcting for age difference), and perhaps share that same level of average
personality similarity. That's _still_ an overestimate, since identical twins
get very similar epigenetic and usually environmental pressures. But it's a
pretty reasonable thought, and very different from "cloning is what they
showed in Star Wars".

------
randyrand
I wonder how much being pro choice correlates with being pro human gene
research in fetuses.

I would think the arguments on the value of the unborn fetus vs the value to
society are very similar.

personally - it correlates for me. I’m in favor of both.

------
erikig
I’m glad that governments are cautiously allowing progress in gene editing
even in human embryos instead of taking a hardline stance or outright banning
the practice. Gene editing in human embyros is controversial to say the least
but it has shown great promise in the last couple of years. It would be great
to see the US get on board and allow the use of public funds for this
research.

------
crististm
The ethical implications of this road are appalling.

I read comments here on this thread and people are amazed that they will
become irrelevant to next-gen super-humans. As if this the only possible
outcome. What I see is that people are blind to something that will come back
to bite really hard.

~~~
beerlord
Was it unethical for Homo Sapiens to out-compete Neanderthals? Same concept
applies here. It is merely the continued advancement of humanity biologically
and genetically.

~~~
crististm
I don't see what makes the two concepts are one and the same.

How can you know that the result is an advancement and not a regression?

~~~
greenrd
New technologies face the same risk when unproven. Capitalism has a simple
solution to that - people just stop buying them if they turn out to be worse
than what was on offer before.

In the future, genetic enhancements will be available in a regulated
competitive marketplace, and the ones that have unforseen bad consequences
will fall out of favour.

~~~
crististm
Technology does not answer to questions about ethics. Technology dispenses
with any value propositions.

Capitalism doesn't either. Capitalism answers to profits and not necessarily
to _everybody_'s profits.

~~~
mantas
Technology doesn't have wide variance too. Thus it hinders natural selection.

~~~
crististm
How do you know your premise is true?

~~~
mantas
If gene A is applied artificially, it always gets applied. Or should we add
rand() to ensure some sort of natural selection-like variance?

------
crististm
Did you guys hear about Unit 731?

------
Zarath
Is this the real singularity?

