It begins. :) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/human-has-been-injected-gene-editing-tools-cure-his-disabling-disease-here-s-what-you …pic.twitter.com/LpnSJy6B5i
-
So you're not going to answer any of the questions and apparently don't know any of the relevant material. Who's the 'zealot' here?
This could have gone better. For Gwern's argument without the hostility, see http://nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusq …. We apply it to this case: does anyone want to increase diversity of the genome in case it may protect against some unknown future disease? Why/Why not?
-
-
My reasoning is that these losses due to diversity are unlikely to be a serious issue any time soon bc the uptake of genomic editing will be slow initially. Furthermore, if we get good at editing, and we find that some variant protects against some disease, can always CRISPR it.
-
Furthermore, I'm skeptical about hypothetical downstream losses being weighed above immediate certain gains. Especially when there is a lot of uncertainty about how strong those losses may be at all, may be zero.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.