Skip to main content

Gene Editing for Cosmecutical purposes must trump all efforts to ban the technology.

The early rush to ban such use is going to fall by the wayside very quickly as governments realize that banning the technology for human use domestically will only put their people at a huge disadvantage going forward.

As I have been explaining at my blog for years and explained in my chapter of The Future of Business

:CrispR Cas9 will make all sorts new industries possible that are focused on genetic modification of superficial (phenotype) traits that are "low hanging fruit" modifications. It heralds the "cosmecutical" industry as I like to call it. I've written on this subject for quite some time having prognosticated its emergence going back a decade.

Research teams all over the world are probably already at work (bolstered by entrepreneurs and business people who have come across these ideas) will require a few months to years of focused research identifying the important gene networks, characterizing their variation and then will strike "gold" in the form of gene editing mods to switch individual network pathways to desired output forms either somatically (which isn't permanent nor does it transfer to progeny) or germ line (which is both).

The existing industry for cosmetics will flower with these new non invasive and extremely safe future means of effecting things like skin color change, hair color change, hair texture change and eye color change. Taken together I've researched that this industry is at least a trillion dollar potential.

Beyond the money however I see it as mans final domination of much of the source of xenophobia in human society. It is based on identification of apparent physical difference and creating arbitrary distinctions of ability, merit and association from them...what happens when technology can truly turn a black person white or a white person black?

All sorts of awakenings happen in the social landscape. The coming together of humans of shared experience which the internet started, the web accelerated and mobile web kicked into high gear...will be boosted yet again when superficial markers become totally and completely a fashion accessory to wear and take off ...not a symbol of identity to fight and kill and oppress over.
The dawn of the age of Neapolitan people: The obfuscation, if not end of skin based privileges and the attendant evils that they have created and maintain in many parts of the world is nigh using such technology and for that alone it may be worth all the risks.
For me this is the greatest power in the unleashing of such technologies and why it is CRITICAL we let it happen no matter what short term consequences result ....and be sure some will, teams will make mistakes in their characterizing of various pathways....teams will not produce guide RNA that are specific enough in their identification of extant pathways and result in undesired modifications. If testing (likely in animal models) is not fully performed, these may impact the deployment of the technology in the first nations to go live with human tests; so it is important that during this research process that it is: a) visible to regulation and b) complete to cover as many edge cases as possible.

Making such modifications illegal makes both a) impossible and b) unlikely (up to the ethical fiat of the "gene kiddies" running basement biolabs who would other wise be trying). So early embrace and control and guidance is the only rational choice for any government.


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …