4 ms·

Perhaps. And like salt in ancient times, there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest mean

by speby 8y ago

Perhaps. And like salt in ancient times, there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means. I can see that being the case for genetic engineering too. Consider that the first genome sequencing (the human genome project) cost around $2.7 billion dollars in the 90s (https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-complet...). These days, you can do a full sequenincing of your DNA (not like the 23andme style) for around $1,400 (https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/ https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-complet...).

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means Inequality is rising, not falling. For example, any person at all today can easily get their hands on weapon that would win them any fight with a caveman wielding a bone, sure. But today, there's tanks and satellites and whatnot -- the most powerless became WAY more powerless in contras to the most powerful. You don't compare the poor of today with the rich of yesterday, you compare the them with the rich of today. And you compare the poor of tomorrow with the rich of tomorrow. > Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell Already it's pretty normal for rich people to consider themselves above socializing with poor people. Adding editing of genes on top of that might not just turn that wide gap into a fortified moat, complete with property rights and patents and enforcement of said patents (imagine getting a mutation by chance that you have no license for), it might also mess up the incentives for medical research even more. Why find a cure for a disease that anyone can get, that is another "equalizer", when you can immunize yourself and your offspring to it? You may say all such things will always be made available to everybody, but how would you know now? What of the current behaviour of the powerful gives you reason to consider that likely? When it comes to biodiversity and the possibility of extinction, not many HN comments mention the people with the biggest footprints, but a lot mention "overpopulation". So how would that mesh with making the unwashed masses more resilient and healthy? Wouldn't it make more sense to go the opposite way? You see, "perhaps" isn't good enough with something like this. At these speeds, "eventually" steering means crashing into a wall.

by speby 8y ago

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> there are luxuries of the rich that eventually, become less expensive and more accessible to people of more modest means Inequality is rising, not falling. For example, any person at all today can easily get their hands on weapon that would win them any fight with a caveman wielding a bone, sure. But today, there's tanks and satellites and whatnot -- the most powerless became WAY more powerless in contras to the most powerful. You don't compare the poor of today with the rich of yesterday, you compare the them with the rich of today. And you compare the poor of tomorrow with the rich of tomorrow. > Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell Already it's pretty normal for rich people to consider themselves above socializing with poor people. Adding editing of genes on top of that might not just turn that wide gap into a fortified moat, complete with property rights and patents and enforcement of said patents (imagine getting a mutation by chance that you have no license for), it might also mess up the incentives for medical research even more. Why find a cure for a disease that anyone can get, that is another "equalizer", when you can immunize yourself and your offspring to it? You may say all such things will always be made available to everybody, but how would you know now? What of the current behaviour of the powerful gives you reason to consider that likely? When it comes to biodiversity and the possibility of extinction, not many HN comments mention the people with the biggest footprints, but a lot mention "overpopulation". So how would that mesh with making the unwashed masses more resilient and healthy? Wouldn't it make more sense to go the opposite way? You see, "perhaps" isn't good enough with something like this. At these speeds, "eventually" steering means crashing into a wall.