4 ms·

While I understand the problems that one might have with induced genetic differences between classes (that would be inevitable given a capitalists approach to c

by SCHiM 11y ago

While I understand the problems that one might have with induced genetic differences between classes (that would be inevitable given a capitalists approach to consumer eugenics) I've never understood the moral problem with tinkering with DNA itself (as opposed to the consequences of tinkering, as stated above). The fact that one might have personal reasons to dislike or abstain from genetic editing does not mean that eugenics are immoral for the rest of the population. Perhaps it's because of how people identify themselves. Most of my friends identify themselves with the 'voice' they hear in their heads, their thoughts and personalities, as do I. My body is more of a vessel and while it's part of me it's not 'me' in any way that matters for my identity. I wouldn't mind tuning a few bits and pieces here and there...

guard-of-terra 11y ago
There's two options: Either genetical improvement will be only available to top 0,5% (this way nothing changes, they're already separated from the rest of us, we don't interact) Or it will be available to top 70% (middle class) In both cases there's no scary divide. We could have scary divide if this option was only available to 10% population, but economically that's unrealistic. Talking about developed countries, of course.
- arbitrage 11y ago
  Those are some pretty impressive fake numbers you pulled out of thin air, there. Please try to keep comments to the realm of reality. Just making things up doesn't move the discussion forward.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Some numbers are better than no numbers. I'm ready to hear your numbers. You also behave rude. Modern USA as a country is based on premise that anybody can afford to buy a car. I don't see why society can't be based on premise that anybody can afford eugenics for their children.
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      Are some numbers really better than no numbers when you make them up?
      - saiya-jin 11y ago
        for internet FUD, of course. for normal discussion... you guessed it :)
VLM 11y ago
> I wouldn't mind tuning a few bits and pieces Your employer will be able to afford it before you can. I don't mean your boss, I mean corporate policy. People already tolerate all kinds of ridiculousness for "culture fit" and drug testing and semi-stealthy political tests. You can follow corporate's genetic fine tuning policy, or not work here, its not like we're forcing you to do anything...
- SCHiM 11y ago
  That is still a consequence of editing as opposed to the editing itself. Perhaps it's unfair to discuss eugenics in the way it would be used in an ideal world. I agree with you that the scenario you sketch seems far from impossible. But I would like to submit your example now for your own consideration. Are computer today not so ubiquitous that it's reasonable for an employer to require you to be skilled in their operation? Don't certain jobs just _require_ you to possess a certain physical or mental trait? I know I'm begging the question here, and that 'being good with computers' is very different from 'forced to modify body because out of financial necessity'. But is is also very different from 'accepting that time moves on, and that nowadays (2100AD) it's very normal to get a job-related tune-up'? As opposed to the 'culture fit' and personality tests (which may or may not have a causal relation to the benefit that you provide to the company) a specific and objectionably verifiable improvement to a part of your body or mental capacity is not something that companies should be barred from expecting from their employees I think.
- caskance 11y ago
  You mean I can get all kinds of sweet augs and not even have to pay for them? Where do I sign?] Also, military will do it WAY before private corps if they are still using human soldiers at the time. If you can give people enhanced strength and eyesight, with less sleep required and resistance to all kinds of diseases, you'd be a fool not to.
  - VLM 11y ago
    The assumption is always that only individually positive mods will happen. Also "give" sounds a little optimistic, in a culture where some stitches and a band aid at an emergency room is like $3500. Obviously someone anxious and timid would make a better underling WRT primate dominance rituals, correct? So lets lower the testosterone level to nil, mess with the brain biochemistry to make them extremely anxious all the time ... This is before we get started on short vs long term. So we got 100 applicants for every warehouse job, well, we'll only hire applicants with the Arnie S. muscle mod. Oh you say in five years they'll all be crippled for life due to skeletal and ligament problems, well, hey, manual labor has always been a tough life and we still got 99 applicants left for every job, so tough luck ... Then there's morally questionable stuff... you can guess the genetic mods that will be mandatory at strip clubs and breasturants, but for women in corporate sales positions, things will be morally ambiguous. Of course things happen already with plastic surgery, and its assumed genetic engineering would be cheaper and more convenient... anyway people (well, men, mostly) make some hiring decisions for somewhat questionable physical characteristic reasons, and the situation will only get worse.

by SCHiM 11y ago

guard-of-terra 11y ago

There's two options: Either genetical improvement will be only available to top 0,5% (this way nothing changes, they're already separated from the rest of us, we don't interact) Or it will be available to top 70% (middle class) In both cases there's no scary divide. We could have scary divide if this option was only available to 10% population, but economically that's unrealistic. Talking about developed countries, of course.

arbitrage 11y ago
Those are some pretty impressive fake numbers you pulled out of thin air, there. Please try to keep comments to the realm of reality. Just making things up doesn't move the discussion forward.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Some numbers are better than no numbers. I'm ready to hear your numbers. You also behave rude. Modern USA as a country is based on premise that anybody can afford to buy a car. I don't see why society can't be based on premise that anybody can afford eugenics for their children.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    Are some numbers really better than no numbers when you make them up?
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      for internet FUD, of course. for normal discussion... you guessed it :)

VLM 11y ago

> I wouldn't mind tuning a few bits and pieces Your employer will be able to afford it before you can. I don't mean your boss, I mean corporate policy. People already tolerate all kinds of ridiculousness for "culture fit" and drug testing and semi-stealthy political tests. You can follow corporate's genetic fine tuning policy, or not work here, its not like we're forcing you to do anything...

SCHiM 11y ago
That is still a consequence of editing as opposed to the editing itself. Perhaps it's unfair to discuss eugenics in the way it would be used in an ideal world. I agree with you that the scenario you sketch seems far from impossible. But I would like to submit your example now for your own consideration. Are computer today not so ubiquitous that it's reasonable for an employer to require you to be skilled in their operation? Don't certain jobs just _require_ you to possess a certain physical or mental trait? I know I'm begging the question here, and that 'being good with computers' is very different from 'forced to modify body because out of financial necessity'. But is is also very different from 'accepting that time moves on, and that nowadays (2100AD) it's very normal to get a job-related tune-up'? As opposed to the 'culture fit' and personality tests (which may or may not have a causal relation to the benefit that you provide to the company) a specific and objectionably verifiable improvement to a part of your body or mental capacity is not something that companies should be barred from expecting from their employees I think.
caskance 11y ago
You mean I can get all kinds of sweet augs and not even have to pay for them? Where do I sign?] Also, military will do it WAY before private corps if they are still using human soldiers at the time. If you can give people enhanced strength and eyesight, with less sleep required and resistance to all kinds of diseases, you'd be a fool not to.
- VLM 11y ago
  The assumption is always that only individually positive mods will happen. Also "give" sounds a little optimistic, in a culture where some stitches and a band aid at an emergency room is like $3500. Obviously someone anxious and timid would make a better underling WRT primate dominance rituals, correct? So lets lower the testosterone level to nil, mess with the brain biochemistry to make them extremely anxious all the time ... This is before we get started on short vs long term. So we got 100 applicants for every warehouse job, well, we'll only hire applicants with the Arnie S. muscle mod. Oh you say in five years they'll all be crippled for life due to skeletal and ligament problems, well, hey, manual labor has always been a tough life and we still got 99 applicants left for every job, so tough luck ... Then there's morally questionable stuff... you can guess the genetic mods that will be mandatory at strip clubs and breasturants, but for women in corporate sales positions, things will be morally ambiguous. Of course things happen already with plastic surgery, and its assumed genetic engineering would be cheaper and more convenient... anyway people (well, men, mostly) make some hiring decisions for somewhat questionable physical characteristic reasons, and the situation will only get worse.