3 ms·
>If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else, who wi
by Houshalter 9y ago
>If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else, who will benefit from them most? (hint: probably not people living on welfare)
Why not? People on welfare have access to better healthcare than the richest person on Earth did 50 years ago. They have access to pocket computers and communication systems far more powerful than the military could have afforded 50 years ago.
But this is beside the point. These ideas can and should be debated. Literally ostracizing people and thinking they are evil for having different opinions on them, is absurd.
- edmccard 9y ago>People on welfare have access to better healthcare than the richest person on Earth did 50 years ago. They have access to pocket computers and communication systems far more powerful than the military could have afforded 50 years ago. Which doesn't really matter unless you have a time machine that can send them back 50 years. At least, none of the poor people I've known (including myself) have ever said "I can't afford to give my children better opportunities, let alone leave them something in my will, but hey! at least they'll have nifty pocket computers!"
- prepend 9y agoIt does matter as they live a healthier, happier and more productive life. I think the point is that people are better off now than 50 years earlier. So in 50 years what used to only be available to billionaires will be over the counter.
- Houshalter 9y agoSorry, I just don't see the world in terms of "anything that makes one person better off, necessarily makes someone worse off." That kind of world view is toxic to progress. It completely flies in the face of everything we've achieved in the last 2 centuries.
- GuiA 9y ago> These ideas can and should be debated. Literally ostracizing people and thinking they are evil for having different opinions on them, is absurd. Agreed. But wait, is anyone actually getting ostracized now for having different opinions? Has Sam Altman been refused service somewhere, or denied employment, or suffered any consequence for holding the opinions he does, besides maybe being called a dick on Twitter? Because this all seems to me like rich people getting their panties in a bunch because they don’t like being called dicks on Twitter.
- alien_at_work 9y agoPeople in this very thread are saying anyone who works on such technologies are inherently unethical people. Do you not see how this kind of labelling is dangerous and distructive to debate?
- GuiA 9y agoIt’s called “freedom of speech” my dude, and it’s actually essential to debate, even (particularly!) if you don’t agree with it.