5 ms·

Was it unethical for Homo Sapiens to out-compete Neanderthals? Same concept applies here. It is merely the continued advancement of humanity biologically and ge

Was it unethical for Homo Sapiens to out-compete Neanderthals? Same concept applies here. It is merely the continued advancement of humanity biologically and genetically.

crististm 8y ago
I don't see what makes the two concepts are one and the same. How can you know that the result is an advancement and not a regression?
- greenrd 8y ago
  New technologies face the same risk when unproven. Capitalism has a simple solution to that - people just stop buying them if they turn out to be worse than what was on offer before. In the future, genetic enhancements will be available in a regulated competitive marketplace, and the ones that have unforseen bad consequences will fall out of favour.
  - crististm 8y ago
    Technology does not answer to questions about ethics. Technology dispenses with any value propositions. Capitalism doesn't either. Capitalism answers to profits and not necessarily to _everybody_'s profits.
    - mantas 8y ago
      Technology doesn't have wide variance too. Thus it hinders natural selection.
      - crististm 8y ago
        How do you know your premise is true?
        mantas 8y ago
        If gene A is applied artificially, it always gets applied. Or should we add rand() to ensure some sort of natural selection-like variance?
  - mantas 8y ago
    What if some enhancement gets applied to (virtually) everybody and side effects are learned only when it's too late? Naturally there's a big, uncontrolled variety of possible changes and natural selection comes into play. Meanwhile gene editing is prone to become a monoculture.
  - crististm 8y ago
    I have yet to see someone with a proven record of reading into the future.
- crististm 8y ago
  People that are smart enough to answer this questions didn't. Others are blind to the fact that history was not only roses and fun and people justified a lot of atrocities with "progress".
adayIwillforget 8y ago
You're purposefully ignoring the comment you're responding to. That's not the implication here. The opposite to genetically engineering super humans is to genetically engineer slaves that do whatever you tell them because they are not considered "human". The equivalent would be to enslave the Neanderthals because they are not "human".

Was it unethical for Homo Sapiens to out-compete Neanderthals? Same concept applies here. It is merely the continued advancement of humanity biologically and genetically.

crististm 8y ago

I don't see what makes the two concepts are one and the same. How can you know that the result is an advancement and not a regression?

greenrd 8y ago
New technologies face the same risk when unproven. Capitalism has a simple solution to that - people just stop buying them if they turn out to be worse than what was on offer before. In the future, genetic enhancements will be available in a regulated competitive marketplace, and the ones that have unforseen bad consequences will fall out of favour.
- crististm 8y ago
  Technology does not answer to questions about ethics. Technology dispenses with any value propositions. Capitalism doesn't either. Capitalism answers to profits and not necessarily to _everybody_'s profits.
  - mantas 8y ago
    Technology doesn't have wide variance too. Thus it hinders natural selection.
    - crististm 8y ago
      How do you know your premise is true?
      - mantas 8y ago
        If gene A is applied artificially, it always gets applied. Or should we add rand() to ensure some sort of natural selection-like variance?
- mantas 8y ago
  What if some enhancement gets applied to (virtually) everybody and side effects are learned only when it's too late? Naturally there's a big, uncontrolled variety of possible changes and natural selection comes into play. Meanwhile gene editing is prone to become a monoculture.
- crististm 8y ago
  I have yet to see someone with a proven record of reading into the future.
crististm 8y ago
People that are smart enough to answer this questions didn't. Others are blind to the fact that history was not only roses and fun and people justified a lot of atrocities with "progress".

adayIwillforget 8y ago

You're purposefully ignoring the comment you're responding to. That's not the implication here. The opposite to genetically engineering super humans is to genetically engineer slaves that do whatever you tell them because they are not considered "human". The equivalent would be to enslave the Neanderthals because they are not "human".