7 ms·

How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive tha

How would genetic editing be a race to the bottom? If anything it would be a race to the top. If every generation got smarter, healthier and more attractive thanks to procedures like this humanity would be better for it. This would probably be true even if only a minority of people can afford it. If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended.

yulaow 9y ago
It depends, if you create a super-race which ends to fight their "inferiors" or viceversa, well, you just doomed humanity Elisium style.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  I wonder, why is it that the CEOs, directors, scientists and high ranking officers are much more likely to survive a war then the common soldier?
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended. Because science and technology alone cannot save us from destroying ourselves. Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan and many others warned of how our scientific progress has been outpacing our human social progress. Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword.
- pcnonpc 9y ago
  That is partly because most people are not Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan. If using genetic techniques and most people become as smart and wise as those names the world WILL be a better place, no?
  - yulaow 9y ago
    You are confusing intelligence/wisdom with empathy/ethic.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  >Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword. People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] If anything, now that a significant portion of the world has nukes, we haven't had two developed countries at war for perhaps the longest period in recorded history. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War --- Case and point -> You meant to write "case in point".
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] Technology was used in all of those examples. Technology by itself didn't create mass murder, but it does makes it much easier to do.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      Taking someone's cattle so that they starve doesn't require technology. I guess you could say smallpox blankets are a biological weapon.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        What's your point?

yulaow 9y ago

It depends, if you create a super-race which ends to fight their "inferiors" or viceversa, well, you just doomed humanity Elisium style.

literallycancer 9y ago
I wonder, why is it that the CEOs, directors, scientists and high ranking officers are much more likely to survive a war then the common soldier?

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>If we had orders of magnitues more of genius level intellects pushing the boundaries of technology and science, humanity would be better for it. I just don't see where this would be harmful if it works as intended. Because science and technology alone cannot save us from destroying ourselves. Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan and many others warned of how our scientific progress has been outpacing our human social progress. Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword.

pcnonpc 9y ago
That is partly because most people are not Einstein, MLK, Carl Sagan. If using genetic techniques and most people become as smart and wise as those names the world WILL be a better place, no?
- yulaow 9y ago
  You are confusing intelligence/wisdom with empathy/ethic.
literallycancer 9y ago
>Case and point - our scientific progress has led us to create tools of global genocide. Technology has always been a double edged sword. People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] If anything, now that a significant portion of the world has nukes, we haven't had two developed countries at war for perhaps the longest period in recorded history. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War --- Case and point -> You meant to write "case in point".
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >People never needed technology to commit genocide - there are plenty of examples throughout our whole history.[1][2][3] Technology was used in all of those examples. Technology by itself didn't create mass murder, but it does makes it much easier to do.
  - literallycancer 9y ago
    Taking someone's cattle so that they starve doesn't require technology. I guess you could say smallpox blankets are a biological weapon.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      What's your point?