
Human enhancement: does nature know best? - jonbaer
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/deane20130627
======
purplelobster
I'm convinced nothing can stop genetic engineering in humans in the long run.
The question is what goal the genetic engineering will have, what ideal will
take the place of natural selection? This article suggests we will engineer
away negative, selfish and competitive traits, but my guess is it will go the
opposite direction. There will be an arms race where people improve themselves
and their children to learn faster, excel in school and at work, be
competitive and selfish. Parents already do whatever they can to give their
kids a competitive advantage, pay tens of thousands of dollars for private
school (even kindergarten), pay for expensive tutors so they excel at all the
standardized tests etc. Globalization has created an environment where winner
takes all, so few parents with a choice would deny their kids the advantages
that some of their peers get.

Unless we're all in on it, we can't engineer towards happiness because there
will always be some group of people that will take advantage of the situation.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> I'm convinced nothing can stop genetic engineering in humans in the long
> run.

Note: the article talked about human enhancement _in general_ , and mentioned
cyborg-esque options like titanium bones. It didn't mentioned the most radical
option of all, mind uploading, but I guess that was to avoid scaring readers
away. (Mind uploading also have this minor "will it be really _me_?" problem.)

> This article suggests we _will_ engineer away negative, selfish and
> competitive traits

(Emphasis mine.)

Err, I didn't read that. From what I read, the article said that we probably
_should_ engineer away such traits. And again, if a parent can enhance her
child's school results by buying her the best arithmetic implant from Texas
Neuro-Instruments, she will not limit herself to mere DNA modifications. Many
of us already wear glasses, for instance.

I do agree with your main point though: technology-aided evolution will
probably take a sharp and nasty turn, if ran unchecked.

~~~
XorNot
Nasty turn how? It's only a problem when combined with allowing other,
existent problems to go unchecked - i.e. the stratification of wealth.

Presuming the problem is that it's being done at all is fundamentally asking
the wrong questions, not to mention strays far into violating rights like
habeas corpus which creates a much bigger problem.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Technology can create new problems by itself. The most obvious ones are Risks
of Blowing Ourselves Up (or existential risks). Drexlerian Nanotechnology?
Gray goo accident. Strong AI? Skynet, only it'll kill us all before we even
realise it. Biological research? Pandemic disease from the lab. And of course
the more mundane World War III and environmental collapse, from which it is
unclear our civilization can ever recover. The difference with the last two is
that it can run on _current_ technology.

We could also create a universe that we wouldn't like at all, like Robin
Hanson's vision of the future after mind uploading.

We could also modify ourselves for the sake of competitivity alone, or
pleasure alone, or anything that doesn't encompass _all_ that we want to do
and be.

Sure, technology is only a catalyst. But it's one _hell_ of a catalyst. Aim a
knife in the wrong direction, and you might hurt someone. Aim a nuclear
warhead in the wrong direction, and you might obliterate a whole city. In both
cases, the root of the problem is that you aimed in the wrong direction. But
technology makes quite a difference in terms of consequences. By the way,
we're already aware of that to some extent: nuclear warheads tend to have more
security around them than knives.

~~~
XorNot
Catalyst yes, but there's degrees of problems. Within this scope, the question
is "should people be allowed to improve themselves" \- denying that because it
would exacerbate an underlying social problem still exacerbates that problem.

------
lukifer
When having these discussions (and the inevitable anthropomorphisms of nature
and evolution), it's important to view Past Evolution and Present Evolution as
distinct.

Past Evolution is a billion-year-old algorithm from which emerged deep and
subtle intelligence through trillions of trillions of iterations of trial and
error. Though far from perfect, its legacy is the Terran Ecosystem, aka Mother
Nature + Humans, a force to be reckoned with.

Present Evolution, however, is lazy, cruel and sloppy. On the scale of mere
decades, it does effectively nothing to advance the interests of human life.

(Future Evolution is of course significant, though not on a timescale relevant
to our lifetimes, at least if we're referring to the "untampered" variety.)

I view genetic augmentation as inevitable, leading to an accelerated
evolutionary process; however, I can see valid cases for either throwing on
the brakes and going as slowly as possible, or putting on the gas to maximize
progress, with all its benefits and costs.

~~~
unlikelymordant
what do you mean by present evolution?

~~~
smackay
For any small window of time evolution is the hum-drum existence of daily live
- being born, being eaten, etc. Only over significant periods are the patterns
of change discernable. There are good examples of evolution at work over
periods that humans can easily understand, bacterial resistance or peppered
moths,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution),
for example. But these are not nearly numerous enough for widespread
understanding of the process. On a side note: hence the reason why Creationism
is not extinct.

~~~
XorNot
It's also important to remember evolution is not a process of general
improvement, it's a process of adaptation for survival.

There is absolutely no reason for natural evolution to select for being
smarter or stronger if it's not a good survival tactic - i.e. if it doesn't
select for traits which allow proficient reproduction.

On a large scale "more evolved" is a meaningless term.

------
cdcarter
I can't think of a single secular concern regarding human enhancement that
isn't prudential at best.

~~~
whatshisface
Here's one: the large number of unwilling human test subjects we will need in
order to really tell exactly what genes need to be changed, and why.
(Modifying the genes of someone with a simple mutation like downs syndrome is
a lot simpler, though.)

~~~
pygy_
You're right regarding the correction of monogenic diseases, but you chose
your example poorly.

Down's syndrome is the result of having an extra chromosome, which induces the
overexpression of genes, some of which are related to embryogenesis and
development.

------
hcarvalhoalves
Humans are a force of nature themselves.

------
Nux
Genetic manipulation and other enhancements should be accepted as at least a
by-product of evolution. After all, it was evolution that gave us the brains
capable of it.

------
Spherius
The appendix is actually not evolutionarily useless; it apparently helps to
foster beneficial bacteria within the intestines. Which, although I tend to
agree with the author, is definitely not a point in his argument's favor.

------
btilly
Are we going to pick random genes and insert them? I'd like the chimp form of
myosin, please. I'd love to be that strong. (I hope it has no negative
consequences.)

~~~
makeset
Comes with the 1.5" penis.

