Orgel's Second Rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."
-
-
-
even if true, does little if our goals and those of evolution aren't the same (since genes only 'want' propagation and we have other goals, they trivially are not) (for more you can see chapter 4 of enhancing human capacities, Julian Savulescu et. al. It's on libgen)pic.twitter.com/dyW5Y8SqGF
-
You make a great point here. It's the reason why CRISPR is so compelling —to have the capacity to combat diseases like cancer in spite of their evolutionary advantages. But, my other tweets in this thread detail a justified ambivalence.pic.twitter.com/AckalCJIqC
-
same chapter I've mentioned has this for heuristics to make this sort of modifications/enhacements safe. As for your understanding, I'm afraid if I understood you correctly it's very flawed: tons of anti-CRISPR systems http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.120 … the thing here is that if we make...pic.twitter.com/RBL0vHbw1m
-
Not wanting to distract you w/ adulation, the two provided references require a convicted appreciation. Despite considering myself lucky if I understood the base 10% of this link, it certainly provided a fascinating exposure to some shockingly intrinsic precautions/contingencies.
-
Stunning how seemingly anticipatory these inhibitors are —almost like hacking was factored into the initial design. (simple anthropic bias surely...but Jesus!) Still, it's not a misnoeism knowing how injudicious society can be at times, and I remain worried about CRISPR's perils.
-
Edit: misnoeism/misnoeism (anyway...thanks for fresh perspective and perfect reading recommendation)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Just because current methods for manufacturing humans are time tested doesn't mean they can't be improved!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
ethics aside, if you manually improve or change genetics, are you not messing w/ evolution? what if the change u make changes something else that we cant even comprehend yet?
-
Glad you redirected the thread towards to a more constructive reflection. This, in my mind, is what makes CRISPR so worrying —difficult to detect full extent of changes when we can't even discern tertium quid from clean causal connections.
-
And it's my understanding that containment, let alone reversion, is next to impossible. It's deeply disconcerting to contemplate an uncorrectable revision propagating through the species and ultimately the entire ecosystem —allowing one mad scientist to wipe everything out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You think so? You think sexual reproduction evolved when a cell divided into two cells too far each other?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
That tells you more about regulators than the wisdom of gene editing!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
Lots of things we take for granted wouldn't meet any regulator's standards. If alcohol were new it would never be allowed.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A retweet from
@instapundit! You're really coming up in the world! ;-)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
"AS IF" - I like it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
If we could design conception to fileter out left or right brain structures, then life would get interesting. Political parents Vs all the rest.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
Will fuel equality (vs. equal opportunity) drive that we now see everywhere. Capable people will be lumped in with the unfair advantage camp
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
-
-
Yyyyyyyyyeah, it's a Brave New World, huh? Oi.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
-
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.