Hacker News Reader

So the real question in regards to both abortion and embryo hacking is how much value we place on other humans -- humans of a different color, humans that are babies, humans that disagree with us. Do we treat them as we would want to be treated? Or are they basically disposable?

This gets particularly interesting when we consider that most people would be absolutely horrified at the idea of killing humans which are "imperfect" in some way, yet as one of the sibling comments says:

Its perfectly fine to take an active hand in evolution by selective breeding through marriage, thus "remove "bad" genes from a family tree and potentially adding "good" ones.

Presumably the creation of the embryo would've involved some degree of selection already, so "embryo hacking" seems more like patching bugs before birth... and this process is basically on the border between controversial abortion and widely-accepted selection before conception. I suppose your opinion on it rests on some deep notion of what you think humans and life is/should be.

Also non-religious and ambivalent about this - if only for the fact that governments and corporations are likely going to eventually figure out how to use this tech to their own advantage...

> This gets particularly interesting when we consider that most people would be absolutely horrified at the idea of killing humans which are "imperfect" in some way, yet as one of the sibling comments says:

>> Its perfectly fine to take an active hand in evolution by selective breeding through marriage, thus "remove "bad" genes from a family tree and potentially adding "good" ones.

Eugenics got itself a bad name early in the 20th century, but if you discard that cultural meme, the basic idea of purposefully improving genetic traits does make quite a lot of sense. It's that meme that makes people discard the concept wholesale.

Eugenics got a bad name because they've tried to play god by sterilizing people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization . There is no cultural meme here.

There was also the socially-constructed "ideal" human that eugenics strived for, or how it designated non-white races as "inferior" genetically, or the subjugation of the individual's fitness to society's "needs". My feeling is that these ideas are "not even wrong" enough that they'll incrementally come right back if you don't place a moral firewall around the entire concept.

> My feeling is that these ideas are "not even wrong" enough that they'll incrementally come right back if you don't place a moral firewall around the entire concept.

Interesting concept, I haven't thought about that this way before. Thanks!

Sure there is, as you've just demonstrated. Compulsory sterilization is one of many ways to implement eugenics, and the fact that it is so closely associated with the general concept is the cultural meme TeMPOraL was referring to. Other more benign forms of eugenics like incest taboo or selecting your sexual partners are not just acceptable, they are often not even seen as eugenics, because eugenics is "that bad thing the Nazis did".

Sometimes Hacker News feels like a really cold place. Today is one of those days - and the tone of this discussion is why I'm shuddering.

Please tell me that you at least so much as hesitated an instant before you typed "embryo hacking", please?

My purpose was to draw the contrast between what we do as technologists and what kinds of people we are.

"Embryo hacking" did that quite nicely. It was jarring, and it was supposed to be jarring.

It's jarring because it's wrong. Hacking DNA is nothing like hacking code.

Genes are not code. Genes are visible elements in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands.

So by hacking embryos you're guaranteeing there will be unexpected results and outright defects.

Does anyone have the right to create embryos that are defective? I don't think they do, and I don't think the ethical issues are particularly fuzzy.

I agree with your last sentence, but:

Any particular bit of code is a visible element in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands.

The issue with hacking human embryos is that it's like working on a four billion year old legacy code base, written by toddlers smashing keys on a keyboard, in a language with no abstraction and where all variables are globally scoped. And the only testing you can do is to watch embryos die quickly or develop into people to die new and uniquely grisly deaths.

>unexpected results and outright defects.

This seems pretty close to the original meaning of "hacking," before "hacker" became a synonym for "Dilbert with VC funding"

> Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people: up until then, "people" was just part of whichever clan you were in. Other folks were sub-human.

I disagree:

Many people, including Christians, have used religion to justify treating others as sub-human. Consider slavery in the United States, often justified by religion, and treatment of people of different sexual orientations today. Many other horrible things have been done in Christianity's name (which again is true of all religions).

Many religions emphasize treatment of strangers (and guests). I would bet all religions say that, and in other places all religions justify killing the sub-human, apostate 'other'. Religious scriptures (at least those I've read) are self-contradictory, vague documents; subject to wide ranges of interpretations; written by many people over long periods of time. Often people interpret whatever they want to see; perhaps that's necessary if your religion is going to appeal to millions or billions of people, across cultures and eras.

> Many people, including Christians, have used religion to justify treating others as sub-human

I assume Daniel was talking about the early days of Christianity, when Jesus and the Apostles were alive. At that time, they actually meant the whole concept of "God loves everyone individually". Eventually, and especially when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, that changed, but during the early days, that tenet made Christianity revolutionary and dangerous to the Roman elite.

Buddhism is older than Christianity. It (as far as I'm aware) isn't tribalistic and espouses benevolent treatment for all other humans.

> IIRC, Christianity was one of the first belief systems to suggest that all people _were_ actually people

Do you mean that literally or was it intended to describe Abrahamic religion ? No flame bait here, genuine question.

I'm probably not the right person to answer this

but it seems that Christianity distinctly less tribal than Judism

its seems that the Old Testament, is essentially the story of 'God's people'

in contrast, especially the stuff concerning Paul, alot of the New Testament is about the Gentile's relation to God

again, I'm not the right expert to answer this question