It's like banning children from owning and carrying handguns. They still have knives and ultimately fists. We cannot eliminate harms, therefore we should not attempt to reduce harms.
I wouldn't go that far. Other, less invasive treatments should still be available IMHO, but there should remain an element of personal accountability. Gene editing is a very powerful tool, and messing with complex systems in powerful ways that we don't fully understand could be a recipe for many troubles down the line. I think the use of gene editing should be very surgically applied to obviously detrimental mutations, not for some scatter gun like approach.
What if the body raising cholesterol levels serves some purpose we aren't yet aware of? I've heard there's some evidence that medication to reduce blood pressure has a potential link to the onset of Parkinson's disease. Maybe messing with blood pressure in that way without addressing underlying causes has been a mistake, and messing with cholesterol levels without addressing underlying causes could also be.
That is why we do long and expensive trials before approving any medication for use.
Having said that, we have we been medically lowering people's cholesterol levels for decades, and the evidence seems pretty clear at this point that it is a net health benefit to those for whom treatment is indicated.
It is not at all obvious that targeted gene editing would be more disruptive to the body compared to flooding the body with a drug that happens to interfere with the one part of the process that we found a drug to interfere with.
Particularly if we are editing the gene to match a form that is already present in much of the population.
Some issues could only become evident over a period of hundreds of years with gene editing. That's longer than any medical trial I'm aware of. And mistakes made would be difficult, if not impossible, to undo.
If medications can already do what's required for cholesterol issues, why wouldn't we continue to use them rather than making some change to affect a complex balance that could cause problems over very long timescales?
If we were to be editing a specific gene to match what the wider population has, then I'd be more ok with that.
If you think so, what sources would you recommend? According to Wikipedia on medical ethics, "These values include the respect for autonomy". Not expecting any level of self control doesn't show respect for autonomy IMHO.
Interesting. I'll look into that. The Hippocratic oath says that a physician should do no harm (ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν). It's a personal value judgement as to whether some intervention is providing medical care or causing harm. I consider reckless genetic modification to be causing harm.
The short answer is a reward function. The long answer is the alignment problem.
Of course, everything in the middle is what matters. Explicitly defined reward functions are complete, but not consistent. Data defined rewards are potentially consistent but incomplete. It's not a solvable problem form machines but equally likewise for humans. Still we practice, improve and middle through dispite this and approximate improvement hopefully, over long enough timescales.
Well, it’s pretty clear to me that the current reward function of profit maximization has a lot of down sides that aren’t sufficiently taken into account.
Intellectual property is ontologically incoherent. Stealing IP isn't possible because IP is a legal construct, not something that exists in the natural world nor in reality.
Algorithmic breakthroughs (increases in efficiency) risk Jevons Paradox. More efficient processes make deploying them even more cost effective and increases demand.
The "Council of models" is a good first step, but ultimately I found myself settling on an automated talent acquisition pipeline.
I have a BIRTHING_POOL.md that combines the best AGENTS.md and introduces random AI-generated mutations and deletions. The candidates are tested using take-home PRs which are reviewed by HR.md and TECH_MANAGER.md. TECH_MANAGER.md measures completion rate per tokens (effectiveness) and then sends the stack ranking of AGENT.mds to HR to manage the talent pool. If agent effectiveness drops low enough, we pull from the birthing pool and interview more candidates.
The end result is that it effectively manages a wider range of agent talents and you don't get into these agent hive mind spirals you get if every worker has the same system prompt.
It's all abstractions to help your brain understand what electrons are doing in impossibly pure sand. Pick the one that frees the most overhead to think about problems that matter
> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons
The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia.
Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.
What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
> What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?
Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.
Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.
Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.
> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.
It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).
Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow.
I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits.
An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
> Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.
I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
If your enemy is China, Greenland is in the wrong direction. If your enemy is Russia, you can probably put them in Ukraine or Poland for free. If you want less detectable missiles, then you fund that directly. If you just want missiles as close as possible, there are subs.
There's a million different strategies with different tradeoffs here. I'm asking what set of plausible reasons point to Greenland as a local optimum.
re: ships, the two leading countries for arctic ship design (excluding Russia) are Finland and Canada.
> Since the US military strikes on Venezuela and seizure of its president Nicolás Maduro this month, Trump has said he plans to tap into the country's huge oil reserves.
Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
Not sure about the US citizens versus non-citizen nationals (I had always thought American Samoans were citizens), but you're spot on that it would certainly not be a state. The people living in Greenland would almost certainly lean blue, and the republicans would never allow the Dems to gain more de facto seats in the house and senate.
I don't think any of the Trump crowd thought as far as these legal ramifications. Send in the Little Green Men, annex, and figure things out as they happen.
reply