this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
167 points (85.5% liked)

Technology

59123 readers
2299 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 125 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the paywall click: https://archive.is/8WWq2

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Link didn’t work for me but ~~suck~~ such a nice wording

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 124 points 7 months ago (22 children)

Does population decline worry you?

I mean, it’s super important. The population of all of the places we love is shrinking. In 50 years, 30 years, you’ll have half as many people in places that you love. Society will collapse. We have to solve it. It’s very critical.

Uhhh...what? There are a handful of countries with recent population decline, but most of the world is still growing even if growth rates are slowing. I've never seen any credible projections of catastrophic population decline.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but what if those countries are the only places I love tho?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This is sounding close to replacement theory.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Yeah it's a bit of a hyperbole, but the rate is what's important. By the time we hit worldwide negative growth rates (which is projected to happen this century), it's going to be way too late to have a discussion about whether or not that's a good thing.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 112 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm having trouble trusting anyone with no scientific background (i.e. no PhD), no published journal articles, and no ethical committee oversight to proceed with a complex problem such as this one.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Theranos: Genetic Boogaloo.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would not blindly trust those people either, if they are human they are corruptible as well.

Looking at certain 'scientific background' people they act just like politicians, if you take the time to look into them and their activities.

I am just saying to be criticial and do not treat them like celebrity worship status, because I have done that mistake with politicians as well.

We must stay criticial of people in power and with money/influence.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Science IS political, at all levels. You can't compete without funding and your institutions will pressure you to perform a certain way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 97 points 7 months ago (2 children)

As long as you don't use the word eugenics explicitly apparently you can sell anyone on anything.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago (15 children)

No they acknowledge that the technology could be used that way. But there's a lot of actual medical problems we can catch this way. Imagine you carry the Huntington's gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don't pass that down to your kids?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 children)

Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

Nothing. That's what health insurance is for. Also practically noone has any issues with preimplantation diagnostics when it comes to things that are clearly genetic diseases, what rubs people the wrong way is a) selecting by bullshit criteria, e.g. sex, eye colour, curliness of hair, whatever, b) making designer babies the default at the expanse of erm wild ones, worst of all, c) the combination.

And ethics aside the arguments should be obvious it's also a bad idea from the POV of the honest eugenicist: Humanity's genetic diversity is already low as it is it would be fatal to allow things like fashions to narrow it down even more.

Humanity is already shaping its own selection criteria, we might need to start doing something extra to avoid evolving ourselves into a corner by non-PID means. Random example: C-Sections. No mother or baby should die in childbirth, yet, the selective pressure towards more uncomplicated births getting removed might, over many many many generations, leave us with very few women who would survive a natural birth which doesn't sound like a good situation for a species to be in, to be reliant on technology to even reproduce. Thus is might become prudent to artificially select for e.g. wide-hip genes.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They literally say "Word beginning with 'eu' and ends with 'genics'" inside the article pimping them out.

With a sprinkling of 'Orchid doesn't like us to use that word' as if 'Nazis do not like to be called Nazis' is a valid complaint.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Gene filtering for IVF babies.. gattaca

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

Glad I wasn’t the only one who thought of that

[–] [email protected] 49 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Ironically, this would enable those with genetic conditions to more safely have kids. I'd argue the problem with Gattaca was that the one man who wasn't genetically perfect was discriminated against, not that everyone else was genetically perfect.

The problem with this is that it sounds like they haven't proven that it works.

(Sorry for the edits, accidentally pressed post before I was done.)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’d argue the problem with Gattaca was that the one man who wasn’t genetically perfect was discriminated against, not that everyone else was genetically perfect.

The premise of the movie was that people would discriminate against the perfect whan the tech becomes available. Seems like a very realistic take on how society would act in the real world based on all of human history.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

(Sorry for the edits, accidentally pressed post before I was done.)

A thousand edits is better than none at all; especially if the bit above needs a colon.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't there a movie about this? Called Gattaca?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

These people are saying “we finally created the utopia of Neuromancer.” And I look at them and I go, “I don’t think you read Neuromancer."

--Cory Doctorow

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Do you want Khan Noonien Singh? Because that's how you get Khan Noonien Singh.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Eugenics is overblown, they can't even tell the difference between a pre ganglionic fiber and a post ganglionic nerve

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

They can be great at darts though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (2 children)

How much does an Orchid screening cost?

It’s $2,500 per embryo.

And presumably you’d be screening several embryos. What about for families that can’t afford that?

We have a philanthropic program, so people can apply to that, and we’re excited to accept as many cases as we can.


I must now ask a question I’ve been dreading. I’m sorry in advance. Here goes. It’s the inevitable question about Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes.

No, this is the worst question. This is so mean.

Tell me why it’s so mean.

I find it sad. It’s a sad state of affairs where—my friends who aren’t even in health, they say they get it too. It’s like, any female CEO with any tech-adjacent thing is constantly being questioned—by the way, are you like this other fraud? Do you want to comment on this other random fraud that occurred that has absolutely nothing to do with you besides the person being the same gender as you?

If you’re trying to charitably understand where this question is coming from, how do you do that?

What would be the charitable interpretation—besides that our society is incredibly misogynistic and men’s frauds and failings are passed aside and when one female does it she stands for every other female CEO ever?

So there’s no charitable interpretation.

I don’t think there is. Society treats men as, like, default credible. For a woman, the default is skeptical.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (10 children)

It’s like, any female CEO with any tech-adjacent thing is constantly being questioned—by the way, are you like this other fraud?

This really sounds like she is admitting that this is fraud, and that she doesn't like being compared to other fraud.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, she didn't really address fraud comparisons. Went straight to sexism. Both can be true, and if you are a CEO of a medical company you should be ready to prove your shit works.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If I (man) was being interviewed and the interviewer randomly said "hey, I read in the news a little while ago that a man committed fraud, and well, you're a man too. Are you a fraud?", I also wouldn't dignify it with a response.

If the interviewer had said "This seems like a service a lot of people would want to partake in - how has the efficacy of this procedure has been confirmed, how can we verify that it works?", he'd have got an answer.

Saying "hey, these people with no link to you other than your genitals are frauds, and it makes me feel like you could be, so are you?" doesn't deserve to be treated like a question asked in good faith, because it isn't.

E: spelling

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (5 children)

If they were committing nearly identical fraud it would be a good comparison.

Did you read what she was claiming it could do with a minuscule sample and a fancy algorithm? That is exactly the same claim as Theranos.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago

They could just ask who has verified the outcomes... No need to do the 'are you a fraud' line

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

It automatically replies when it can read/summarize a site, but that isn't always possible (maybe it has problems with some paywalls).

load more comments
view more: next ›