8 ms·
In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer. The poor can't afford
by dflock 10y ago
In a world with "designer babies", the rich don't just get richer, they get smarter, stronger, more attractive and start to live longer.
The poor can't afford this, so fall further and further behind, perhaps eventually humanity splits into subspecies.
This is very well trod ground. See The time machine by H G Wells with the Morlocs and Eloi, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley with the Alphas and Betas, etc, etc...
- vasco 10y agoOr you use state sponsored designs and everyone has access to it.
- scarmig 10y agoJust like state sponsored designs have guaranteed access to health care and education.
- notgood 10y agoThey have in some country, if it doesn't in yours I don't think you can blame the technology involved. There was a time in which only rich people had toilets and in-house showers, now many extremely poor people have access to those; the same thing will happen with "design babies", there will be a time where only rich people can do it, but as time goes it will become a commodity and making sure you are as healthy as possible even before born will be a human rights issue.
- YorickPeterse 10y agoThey have in many modern first-world countries.
- runeks 10y agoSo the more powerful a technology is in changing our capabilities as human beings, the more unethical it inherently is, because poor people will have less access to it (assuming it costs money)? I'm not arguing on the validity of this world view, but it does seems very negative to me, since it can be applied to any powerful technology (that isn't free of charge). I mean, computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?
- oxide 10y ago>computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality? some folks argue yes, that internet access should be a basic human right.
- paulddraper 10y agoPoor wretched souls of the previous millennia...they all were denied their basic human rights.
- joesb 10y agoPoor slaves of the previous century .... they all were denied their basic human rights.
- paulddraper 10y agoYes, they were. And this is insensitive to say, but at least it was just the enslaved minority denied basic rights, rather than every single human on the face of the earth.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jlgaddis 10y agoJust today there was an article in the newspaper of a nearby town stating that the school system there would be moving to "paperless" report cards; that is, report cards would be entirely online. (It did mention that parents could request a printed copy of their child's report card at any time.) My first thought was "not everyone has Internet access" -- especially in this relatively small city -- and the possible ramifications of that. Will those parents have to request a paper copy every time a report card is issued (four times per school year)? Will they eventually stop doing so? Will they stop paying attention to their child's academic progress and will the child's academic performance then suffer? Will the child slowly begin to perform worse and worse (academically) over time? Will this "digital divide" simply continue to worsen?
- rubber_duck 10y agoThat happens anyway - traits that help you succeed (IQ, health, appearance, impulse control, etc.) are heritable.
- undersuit 10y agoYes and when you are successful and you keep the heritable traits close to the family... you end up with royal inbreds.
- dexterdog 10y agoBut what the rich don't have is the raw numbers that the poor can output. The rich are already a selective group, but the poor can just throw armies of meat at the evolutionary battlefield.
- Kalium 10y agoIn short, "designer babies" is approximately the same thing to us today as nutrition was to an earlier age.
- pyre 10y agoA better analogy for "designer babies" would be performance enhancing drugs in sports. If we accept their use, then it basically becomes a requirement on anyone that wants to participate (or at least compete).
- roywiggins 10y agoThe real ethical issue is that you're giving "performance enhancers" to babies. We can't test this stuff in vitro or in adults, not really. So any baby born this way is, in some sense, an experiment. And crucially, so are all of those babies' children and their children, because they will inherit some or all of the genetic changes.
- BurningFrog 10y agoOnly if you see life as a competition against your fellow humans.
- pyre 10y agoIt's not always about whether or not you see everything as a competition. Consider the "requirement" nowadays of a college degree. I could say that you "need a college degree to compete in the work-force," but that doesn't mean you just need a college degree only if you want to be the "best of the best." Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca).
- BurningFrog 10y agoI think the need for a college degree to even get a job is (1) specific to American society and regulations, and (2) not really true even there. Since we're talking about general human morality, I wouldn't put much weight on the particulars of this region in 2016. On a healthy job market, you get paid about as much as you produce. Regardless of what others produce. You also get to benefit from whatever inventions any new super talented people come up with. Finally, the more intelligent a population is in general, the more peaceful it is.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoIt's probably worth pointing out that the rich are already smarter, more attractive, and longer-lived than the poor. I'm not aware of a study testing rich vs poor bodily strength, but given the other results I wouldn't exactly find it surprising if the rich were stronger too.
- return0 10y agoThe rich always had access to new technologies first, and there is nothing new here; eventually all technology becomes affordable for the masses. What you 're more likely to have a is clash of generations where the brave new generation will consider their fathers (rich or not) as parasites.
- crpatino 10y agoDunno, I am still waiting for my damned flying Delorean. Instead, the rich all got dumb old-fashioned helicopters.
- BurningFrog 10y agoSince it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier, this mostly sounds like an argument based in envy.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoNot really. Do you imagine social and economic classes and their relationship/attitudes toward another wouldn't be affected by this? Even if all it does is increase envy of the people who can't afford the treatments for their children, making that existing envy so much more concrete could have some pretty wide-reaching social consequences. No matter how strict your principle of harm.
- grive 10y agoIt makes people dumber, weaker and uglier, relatively to those that can afford it. There is no "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" in Nature. These are not objective measurements. They are all judgements passed comparatively to the rest of humanity.
- BurningFrog 10y ago"Weak" and "dumb" are absolutely objectively and absolutely measurable. - Someone who can lift 100 kg is stronger than someone who can only lift 80 kg. - Someone who understand that is smarter than someone who doesn't. You could possibly have an argument about "ugly".
- tkxxx7 10y agoBoth of those are comparative, relative measurements which I think was GP's point. If I can lift 10 kg this week, and 20 kg next week, am I strong, or ("just") stronger than before?
- grive 10y agoThat's pretty much exactly my point. These can only exist as comparisons. They are meaningless on their own, e.g. they are not objective attributes.
- azazqadir 10y agoGattaca was pretty much based on this as well.
- talideon 10y agoNot to mention the fact that the same processes could be used to create a permanent underclass though genetic manipulation of the masses.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]