CRISPR - Can it save us?

[Chad]

This is from the Black Monday Hysterics or Is This IT? thread. I figured I would move it since I like the question and it's only tangentially related to that subject:

So my question is ... how long can we maintain on a society at our level of technological complexity given that only 10% of the population is capable of dealing with the level of complexity we have constructed and distributed universally?

I think 50-200 years, as usual.

http://gizmodo.com/everything-you-need- ... 1702114381

http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scie ... os-1.17378

Is it a good idea to try and bump up the 10% with genetic tinkering?*

*Edit: Oops, I meant to bump up the 90%. Maybe I need some gene slicing for IQ.

[Ego]

Is the problem genetic? By that I mean, are the 90% incapable of dealing with the complexity because of IQ related to genetics. And even if 100% could deal with the complexity (I'm not sure I can BTW) would we be able to agree on solutions then follow through?

When I see complexity that I can't understand, it appears to me to be chaos. That's why I spend so much energy in the practice of building my chaos-coping muscles. Because even if we fully understand a thing, that doesn't mean we can accurately predict it or control it.

[vexed87]

Society's problems are almost certainly cultural and not a matter of genes or one's strength of comprehension. Most people II know are aware of the negative impacts of their behaviours but choose to be selfish rather than behave in the interests of the collective good, myself included albeit, much less so since reading ERE. I am sure the best of us on this forum do not act in the best interests of the collective at all times. One might argue a world full of rationals would have never let things go so far (resource drawdown) but I'm not so sure so sure our problems are more nature than nurture, whereas culture is almost certainly all about nurture.

As a species we are perfectly adapted for our ecological conditions which is why we migrated away out of Africa and populated the remotest parts of the planet, exploiting the resources available to us just as any other living thing on the planet would do. I'm not sure there is a part of our collective genome that is 'broken' and needs 'fixing'. No single gene (or group for that matter) could be blamed for our woes and I'm sceptical that genetic engineering could even be considered a solution. Maybe I'm not thinking enough out of the box in that respect. However it is my firm belief that long after our culture is gone, there will hopefully still be humans, or at least some related descendant who are also perfectly adapted to their new environment (whatever killed us, or our culture off).

I worry that all roads of genetic modification eventually lead to eugenics... eventually. Proceed with great trepidation. Particularly where 90% are perceived to be a 'problem' to be fixed. At this time, eugenics could probably be considered a lesser of two evils, but I wont have that blood on my hands! There is a greater risk that halting all mutations that are seen as inferior could stifle our own evolution and end us entirely unless we truly master our environment. Indeed, there are a lot of causalities along the way of evolution (non-beneficial mutations) but we would not be here without that process.

Human nature, our selfishness, greed, ignorance and sins are the real problem. However to do away with our nature would make us something else entirely. A change of environment (climate change, energy insecurity, water shortage, whatever) will mean either our culture adapts or dies, and in turn we are made one way or another made extinct followed by our own descendent, or some other species will come to the fore. To save the human race, we need to fix the cultures that are not aligned with our best interests. Answering the questions about what is in our best interest is much harder than deciding which gene's need to be fixed.

[jacob]

@Ego - By the OECD report (linked in the other thread), education (nurture) makes some impact. Japan and Korea with their "hardcore" schooling ranks better on _average_ than e.g. Italy or Denmark.

OTOH, people with tertiary eduction which is correlated strongly with high IQ do much much better on the OECD scores regardless of what country's education system they come from.

Complexity and chaos are two different concepts. Chaotic systems can be very simple and contain few parts and connections all of which are fully deterministic but be highly sensitive to initial conditions or perturbations rendering any accurate prediction practically impossible. Complex systems contain many parts with many different connections (e.g. a bacterium, a financial market, a social network, a nuclear reactor, ... ) making them hard to understand. However, in this case the complexity may be an 'unknown known', that is, even if I don't understand the complex system very well, someone else might understand it better. Complex systems can be highly predictable (e.g. bacteria) or somewhat predictable (e.g. markets) or non-predictable (e.g. innovations).

Complex systems can also be chaotic (weather forecasting, although that's bordering on simple), but they can't be simple.

[cmonkey]

Personally I think any form of genetic engineering would be dangerous if left unchecked in the hands of powerful people. Humans have never had that sort of power to alter long term evolutionary tracks and given our generally volatile/rash behavior with most other subjects, I would expect the same with this. No one is really having tough conversations about whether we should even be doing this. We just do it.

It really begs the question though, what does the 10% do about the 90% that just can't understand complex issues like resource depletion and falling EROEI? Can you do anything? I think the answer to that is no, and I also believe we don't have to. These things tend to right themselves of their own accord given enough time.

What lets me sleep at night is the much greater resilience this planet displays as opposed to the house of cards we have built for ourselves. Over the last several years my personal identity (who am i, really??) has really transitioned away from "human" and more toward some ethereal connection with the natural world around me. Given that, I have begun giving up my cares about what humans are doing to themselves and I find myself living more in "deep time" (pondering the world +-100 million years from now {or ago}) than in the present chaotic world around me.

[Dragline]

I think we are in for a lot of "unintended consequences." The "Wrath of Khan" superhuman hypothesis aside, I would not be surprised if genetically modified humans have abnormally short lifespans, tend to be sterile and/or are susceptible to strange diseases that would ordinarily only affect inbred populations.

[7Wannabe5]

Easier solution.

http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecomm ... offspring/

Also, the use of infant formula to feed humans has probably knocked a measurable percentage off the overall IQ of our species. Sugars and Omega-3s are what make it through the barrier to grow developing brain tissue. That's why human milk is naturally sweeter than cow's milk. Sweetness of milk is directly correlated to brain/body mass ratio in mammals. Who knows what corn syrup does to brain development and the introduction of alien proteins in infancy is directly correlated with immune system problems including the sky-high asthma rates the health system is currently bearing.

Of course, the high negative correlation between education level of women and birth rate is also likely contributing to a decline. Not to mention the current practice of farming out much early education and care. If you think a genetically high IQ two-year-old in a daycare center gets as much mental stimulation as a similar two-year-old in the direct care of one of his high IQ parents, then you have never worked in a daycare center. Etc, etc, etc. No need to look as far as genetic engineering to find unintended consequences of modern technology and lifestyle.

I would also note that recent genetic research seems to lend credence to the notion that what allowed us to finally make our way out of Africa and spread all over the planet was the result of around 300 matings between human males and Neanderthal females. The Neanderthal species had already spread and adapted to more Northern conditions prior to the interspecies sharing of genes. So, nothing really new under the sun here.

Also, there is some evidence that an important component of genetic intelligence is found on the X chromosome. There is stronger correlation between maternal intelligence and intelligence of male offspring than other possible combinations. This may be a good part of the reason why there seem to be more high genius level males than females. They are occasionally thrown off by females of varying mediated levels of reasonably high intelligence. Therefore, removing high IQ females from the mating pool will likely have a more catastrophic effect on the comprehension level of future generations than removing high IQ males would cause.

In conclusion, the future of the human race largely depends on high IQ females with curvy figures, so everybody ought to treat them very, very well.

[jennypenny]

Why are we assuming that making people 'smarter' would solve the problem? Maybe it's better to give them more empathy or make them more compassionate. Maybe give them more persistence so they are able to read more and more often, or give them more patience so they can listen to explanations that take longer than 30 seconds. Or just make them all INTJs.

The problem IMO is that the answer is different for everyone. One person might need an injection of grit but another needs compassion and yet another needs more intellect. Simply making everyone smarter might lead to unintended consequences.

[Chad]

Why are we assuming that making people 'smarter' would solve the problem? Maybe it's better to give them more empathy or make them more compassionate. Maybe give them more persistence so they are able to read more and more often, or give them more patience so they can listen to explanations that take longer than 30 seconds. Or just make them all INTJs.

The problem IMO is that the answer is different for everyone. One person might need an injection of grit but another needs compassion and yet another needs more intellect. Simply making everyone smarter might lead to unintended consequences.

I agree completely. This was kind of what I was thinking when I posed this question. I have a good friend who is plenty smart, but his inability to focus and his big emotional swings prevent him from thinking logically. Emotion really drives his thought process and given the the prevalence for certain MBTI types, it's probably a bigger problem than overall intelligence.

Of course, with all of this you run the risk of snuffing out the unmeasurable "spark" in some very high achieving/accomplished people.

Another risk is determining what traits are best. You and I could agree on the majority of positive traits, but I view belief as big negative and you view it as a big positive.

[7Wannabe5]

Every human being is an unique variety. That's why we all have our own names. It's really not good practice to refer to another human being as a Chippendale or a Mortgage Lifter or a Rational. Any process that tends towards creation, or even just perception, of mono-culture or rigid model and denial of the random and complex will be inherently and become increasingly fragile.

[jennypenny]

The more I think about it, the more I think the scope of the initial question is too narrow. We might be ten-percenters when it comes to understanding complex technological systems, but there are other systems that are equally important where most of us would be lumped in with the other 90%. The obvious example is a complex social system, which most of us scoff at partly (IMO) because we can't comprehend the subtleties and nuances necessary to navigate it successfully.

If you could only comprehend one given those two examples--climate system and social system--which would you choose? Which might make you happier or more fulfilled?

I guess my point is that we might be the only ones who think this is a problem. The other 90% might see us as the ones who need help.

[jacob]

Comprehension levels between literary, numerical, and technological complexity are strongly correlated. I'd submit that social complexity is correlated as well or that it even falls under literary comprehension. This isn't idiot savant territory.

For complex social systems, what's important to understand in terms of the end of civilization is e.g. how lobbyists create democratic inefficiencies, how the left-right demagoguery (and nationalism) is a red herring, how morality exists on different levels(*), ... The complex social skill of winning the popularity contest in high school or mastering small-talk exists on a completely different scale.

In particular, the latter scale seems what most people have evolved to deal with. The former scale, not so much. Which is why public/popular politics often looks indistinguishable from high school.

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_ ... evelopment is illustrative in that each higher level requires one to take into account additional and often conflicting information and reason out a conclusion (classic example below). Same as the literary test.

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

[7Wannabe5]

What if your answer is : "Should" is irrelevant; the important question is "What is the likelihood that Heinz will steal the drug? " If the likelihood is high then the drug is de facto overpriced in a world with some given dispersal of levels of social morality. OTOH, would I steal the drug? Definite "Yes."

My kids like to torture me, so they once asked me what I would have done if some serial killer had kidnapped and eaten them when they were young. My immediate reaction was "Well I guess I would have to hunt him down and kill him." My son started laughing and said "Oh Mom, I know you would want to do that because you love us, but on the way to the killing you would get lost and start crying.", but my daughter said "Mom, you might think that is what you would do, but when you finally found the killer, you would realize that he was a mentally ill person, so you wouldn't kill him." I replied "Interesting. I am generally perceived to be harmless, but it's not clear whether this is due to being total wimp or highly moral."

[jacob]

What if your answer is : "Should" is irrelevant; the important question is "What is the likelihood that Heinz will steal the drug? " If the likelihood is high then the drug is de facto overpriced in a world with some given dispersal of levels of social morality.

If "should" is irrelevant and all that matters is price (i.e. cost-benefit), then Kohlberg would deem that a stage 1 consideration.

Kinda like saying that the reason that the reason people are speeding with a high likelihood is that traffic tickets are de facto underpriced.

[7Wannabe5]

Hmmm....doesn't seem likely that I only have Stage 1 morality given my GRE scores. More likely I have been infected with some viral strain of post-modernity which is rendering me able to make moral decisions about my own behavior, but not that of Heinz. I can't say what Heinz should do, only what it is likely that he will do. He is like a chipmunk or a wave. IOW, I am not saying that the drug should be priced lower in order to prevent theft, only that it is likely priced too high to prevent the likelihood of theft.

Some Surrealists developed the theory/practice that you should go out into the streets of Paris and then try to become the lover of the first person who meets your gaze. Is it right or wrong if Heinz does this? Why?

[jennypenny]

That begs the question of which is more important in terms of 'saving us' -- the ability to comprehend a system or the ability to manipulate it. Comprehension alone won't save us. A person who understands how a complex system works can't necessarily envision how it should work, and neither is necessarily capable of effecting change. I would argue that the last person doesn't need the same level of comprehension as the first person. Maybe 10% is all that's needed for the first group?


@Heinz--Yes, of course, he should save his wife's life. It doesn't really matter to me how he does it. If all he has to do is steal something, it's a no-brainer. Maybe I'm not understanding the question?

[Ego]

Maybe 10% is all that's needed for the first group?

Most of the locals here are living in such a way that if the world adopted their lifestyle the problem would be solved. I sit here each morning and watch as all of the women bring ornate, handmade offerings to their family temples. It takes them a long time to make the offerings each day, leaving them less time to do the actual work. Since the women do virtually all of the hard work and rear the kids and cook the meals and tend to the fields and harvest the rice.... while the men sit at the community temple discussing weighty matters, it seems the culture has a built-in self-limiting mechanism.

From my vantage point it seems that the continuation of that self-limiting mechanism requires unquestioning obedience to the culture. I would guess that 10%ers get expelled because they would screw things up by questioning certain aspects of the culture. But things are changing fast. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of perspective.

[jacob]

Attention Kohlberg class! I know you're just being debative but RTFM, eh?

The point of Heinz's story is to present you with a complex moral dilemma and for you to answer what you think Heinz should do(*) explaining why you consider that action to be right or wrong. You're not scored based on what you do but how you justify what you do. The complexity and form of your reasoning reveals your moral stage. At least according to theory.

PS: It would be fair to answer according to what you actually do rather than what you think you should do. For example, I can certainly empathize with level 6 and answer according to level 6 but in reality and according to how I behave, I'm a solid 5. You're not going to find me in front of a tank protesting The Party even if I think they're wrong. IOW, while I empathize with this level 6 guy, I'm too much of a coward.

(*) Not what you as the chief officer of Walgreen's Loss Prevention Department compute the optimal drug price to be in a market of Heinzes.

[jennypenny]

The point of Heinz's story is to present you with a complex moral dilemma

That's what I don't get. It's not a complex moral dilemma. His wife is dying. There is medicine that can save her. The rest of the story is just a lot of blah blah blah, right? I'm not purposely being 'debative' (this time ), I just think this particular example is pretty straightforward.

It would be fair to answer according to what you actually do rather than what you think you should do.

What I would actually do is take a large contingent from team jennypenny and approach the druggist one last time with the $1000 offer. If he was still foolish enough to say no, I would take the medicine and stick his $1000 someplace where he would need medical intervention to retrieve it.


@professor--I just read the wiki. I guess I'm still not getting why it's a theory worthy of a wiki page. Level 1 morality is childhood, level 2 is puberty, and level 3 is adulthood. It strikes me more as a theory of maturity than morality. BTW ... I completely disagree with stage 5. I believe there are inalienable rights, but Kohlberg is talking about social contracts which IMO are usually used to keep people in line. I say skip stage 5.

[jacob]

I just think this particular example is pretty straightforward.

Everybody thinks so(*)... but why in particular do you think so? More relevantly, would you actually break into Walgreens if you couldn't afford their prices even if it meant saving a life? A lot of people would not.

(*) However, not everyone does so, or we'd see a lot more ninjas holding up doctors at gunpoint demanding unaffordable treatment.