10 comments

[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 98.3 ms ] thread
I'm morbidly curious to see what the unexpected side effects will be.

Altering cognition like this can't be for free.

> We need drugs, but it’s another thing to take normal people and muck with the DNA or chemistry to improve them

In a sense, don't drugs do exactly that sans the mucking with DNA?

Yes. If we read that quote in 50 or 100 years, it'll seem hilariously antiquated.
Memory is a two way street, I think the brain has a way to protect itself from painful memories as a way to keep us functional and sane.
Totally. I have a very normal memory and have sometimes wished a particularly unpleasant or embarrassing memory was a bit less sharp. Then again, I’v often wished my memory was a bit sharper for learning new languages, names or technical details.

I too must admit to a morbid curiosity to see how this turns out. I suppose we’ll have to wait about twenty years to see.

Although i share the intuitive reaction of disgust, the last statement "we're not ready for it" made me wonder : knowing the complexity of the genes expression problem, is there any point when we'll be able to say we're ready for it ?

Another question i wonder : is making a baby with someone else truely something responsible, knowing the number of things that we alter when we combine pretty randomly the DNA of two , sometimes extremely different, people ?

Another question, if we had the tech to improve the cognitive abilities of our offsprings, would it be ethical not to do it?
It's probably something like configuring a kernel and enabling way too many options. The guy's probably flipped a shitload of switches and there's a chance neither of the kids will boot correctly.