Gene Editing. Good or bad?

[We Never Know]

Do you think there are or will be more pros or cons

Evolution Or Extinction: Where Will The Gene Editing Revolution Take Us

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA==#aoh=16197139402618&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/


How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think a pro con discussion should be had about each application of gene editing instead of the technique as a whole.
Pro/con of changing a gene that is associated with high risks of certain cancer will look very different to changing a gene because blue eyed babies is popular.

 

[ChristineM]

I think a pro con discussion should be had about each application of gene editing instead of the technique as a whole.
Pro/con of changing a gene that is associated with high risks of certain cancer will look very different to changing a gene because blue eyed babies is popular.

^^^ This ^^^

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you think there are or will be more pros or cons

Evolution Or Extinction: Where Will The Gene Editing Revolution Take Us

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA==#aoh=16197139402618&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/


How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

I keep thinking The Fly each time the topic is brought up.

 

[We Never Know]

I think a pro con discussion should be had about each application of gene editing instead of the technique as a whole.
Pro/con of changing a gene that is associated with high risks of certain cancer will look very different to changing a gene because blue eyed babies is popular.

I agree. The links point out such.

 

[sun rise]

All technology is subject to use and abuse, this is no different. So to me it's neither good or bad as fire is neither good or bad or computers are neither good or bad.

To me a better question is whether or not the human race can use this technology for positive ends or if it will be used for despicable purposes.

Right now, I don't think we have the species maturity to use it solely for positive ends.

 

[Augustus]

I think a pro con discussion should be had about each application of gene editing instead of the technique as a whole.
Pro/con of changing a gene that is associated with high risks of certain cancer will look very different to changing a gene because blue eyed babies is popular.

I'm not so sure the risk profile is all that much different for either.

If genes are like individual switches and we can isolate them and understand the full consequences of their effects with certainty then why does it matter the use? (I don't think this is the case though)

If we don't know if genes are interconnected in ways we don't understand so we can't isolate any edits from unintended consequences that may spread and be replicated among the broader population then we may end up doing far more harm than good regardless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

CRISPR has the potential to be a very powerful tool. And like most powerful tools there is a potential for abuse. Curing cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and who knows what else could be in its future. So could designer babies. There may not even be a way to guarantee responsible use. The genie is out of the bottle so the goal should be for responsible use.

 

[Vee]

Do you think there are or will be more pros or cons

Evolution Or Extinction: Where Will The Gene Editing Revolution Take Us

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA==#aoh=16197139402618&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/


How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

I think it's too early to know. Like most technologies, put to the right use, can be good, but used for evil purposes it can be catastrophic.
At the moment I see it mostly as dangerous. We might be playing with things that have much deeper consequences than we can see at the moment. As for "evolution or extinction", I think that's just being dramatic. We're not at that stage yet - I think.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you think there are or will be more pros or cons

Evolution Or Extinction: Where Will The Gene Editing Revolution Take Us

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA==#aoh=16197139402618&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/09/evolution-or-extinction-where-will-the-gene-editing-revolution-take-us/


How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

How Gene Editing Could Ruin Human Evolution

I think human evolution is over and that we have no control over what happens, now that genes can be edited. I think the species will fork into two or more.

 

[The Hammer]

I think a pro con discussion should be had about each application of gene editing instead of the technique as a whole.
Pro/con of changing a gene that is associated with high risks of certain cancer will look very different to changing a gene because blue eyed babies is popular.

Absolutely the winner comment. My sentiments exactly.

 

[The Hammer]

I think the species will fork into two or more.

We are going to go back to how we were then.

Multiple species with the capability (hopefully) to inbreed, increasing genetic variability and jumpstarting evolution to a faster pace.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not so sure the risk profile is all that much different for either.

If genes are like individual switches and we can isolate them and understand the full consequences of their effects with certainty then why does it matter the use? (I don't think this is the case though)

If we don't know if genes are interconnected in ways we don't understand so we can't isolate any edits from unintended consequences that may spread and be replicated among the broader population then we may end up doing far more harm than good regardless.

In both cases the utility for trying to solve genetically linked cancer is higher than eugenics lite (c), which should effect the risk/reward ratio. But I agree that a mistake could have dire consequences in either case.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are going to go back to how we were then.

Multiple species with the capability (hopefully) to inbreed, increasing genetic variability and jumpstarting evolution to a faster pace.

You are cheating by calling that evolution. That is breeding...but Ok. Who cares about semantics?

I think we're going to have a lot of human experimentation, first in secret, then licensed to help control it. It will be sometimes very horrific. Other times someone will have stunning advantages as a result, and society will struggle to cope with that. That's what I think. Sports might be one of the first areas that are affected. Instead of doping their athletes, some countries will secretly genetically enhance embryos to be athletic -- or if not countries maybe it will be the Manchester United football club etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think human evolution is over and that we have no control over what happens, now that genes can be edited. I think the species will fork into two or more.

That would mean that human evolution is far from over. Evolution by natural means may be over. We could have a hyper artificial variation and artificial selection in our future. It is a major concern.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That would mean that human evolution is far from over. Evolution by natural means may be over. We could have a hyper artificial variation and artificial selection in our future. It is a major concern.

There is probably no stopping that. I hope I'm around to see what happens.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think a pro con discussion should be had about each application of gene editing instead of the technique as a whole.
Pro/con of changing a gene that is associated with high risks of certain cancer will look very different to changing a gene because blue eyed babies is popular.

All technology is subject to use and abuse, this is no different. So to me it's neither good or bad as fire is neither good or bad or computers are neither good or bad.

I think it's too early to know. Like most technologies, put to the right use, can be good, but used for evil purposes it can be catastrophic.

What I want to know, is what exactly is an 'evil' use if the technology was never ever compelled to be used ?? This is coming down the pike, and I don't know where the political wings are going to fall with this. Are the pro-choicers only pro-random choice , if the choice is to bring someone to term? Then they aren't completely pro-choice right? In a wacky twist, will the pro-life people be the strongest advocates of gene editing? I find that possibility hard to fathom, because they seem to be the hardest advocates for random chance in one's life

I heard something about Tay Sach's, that it is a monogenic thing , and they are getting to where , or are , at a point where you can filter an embryo for it. Ok, say that happens, if is not happening already. Is that then, a slippery slope? How exactly. Say that I have some physical problem, perhaps 'more trivial,' that you can filter out. Now if they do that in future, some may argue that this affects their personal self-worth. I say, that self-worth is something that I generate from a more personal foundation. I probably should not need the external universe for it

If you can select a baby for blue eyes, or maybe even violet, orange, or lime green eyes, or reinforced tendons, I want to say that this opens up cool possibilities.. You already name a child, and how many times does the individual you named think about what they are named, and say that name to other people. A million times, it is part of how you defined them. Ok, let's say you can temper the aggression of a person by beefing up some cluster of genes associated with the frontal cortex, amygdala, or something. Is that a tool for enriching the possibilities of the individual, or a hindrance?

Now if we are talking about some autocrat who does this, then I think a line gets clearly crossed at that point. The people are not making the choice. It is no longer democratic , and the whole point of a democracy is that people might choose how to best improve the human plane. Unless of course, you decide that all improvement is subjective, in which case no improvement is possible, actually

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm not so sure the risk profile is all that much different for either.

If genes are like individual switches and we can isolate them and understand the full consequences of their effects with certainty then why does it matter the use? (I don't think this is the case though)

If we don't know if genes are interconnected in ways we don't understand so we can't isolate any edits from unintended consequences that may spread and be replicated among the broader population then we may end up doing far more harm than good regardless.

So I guess some genes are mono - genic in their effects, while others are poly - genic. I don't know much about all of that, but it just means that if you switch up one thing, sometimes a big bunch of others things might get switched up. Sometimes maybe not.

 

[sun rise]

What I want to know, is what exactly is an 'evil' use if the technology was never ever compelled to be used

Star Trek explored this idea. The basic idea was that superhumans were created with great physical and mental abilities who wanted to rule over ordinary humans.