3 ms·

> but modified human embryos is a whole can-of-worms and is such a game changer I feel the need to worry about it. Playing random lottery and hoping not to dra

by okket 7y ago

> but modified human embryos is a whole can-of-worms and is such a game changer I feel the need to worry about it. Playing random lottery and hoping not to draw the gene-defect ticket while only evolve on a scale of 1,000s of generations is better? We might not even have 1,000 generations left on this planet.

Ancalagon 7y ago
Well notice I said conservatively. I do think gene-editing for very specific diseases should be permissible, given societal approval and control. Allowing enhancements for things in more ethically gray areas (height, intelligence, good-looks, etc.) will in the short run quickly make you and me obsolete. In the long run edits like those will make the current wealth stratification of society look cute in comparison.
Y-bar 7y ago
I believe it is more about who get to have access to this and the social consequences of that. It could conceivably create a permanent class structure where those who can afford to have “perfect” healthy, smarter, longer living, and so on offspring will inevitably exploit that position. It could make me the wealth and class divides with better care and better schools the rich can afford we see today seem quaint in comparison.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Why are genetic medical technologies going to remain exclusive to the rich any more than prior revolutionary medical technologies like vaccines, hormonal birth control, or antibiotics? Genetic technologies in general have undergone prolonged cost decreases that don't look to be anywhere near exhausted. Patents restrict access for a couple of decades at most. If the enabling technology is affordable and patents are expired, I see no reason that genetic technology use cannot become widespread. "Not dying of infectious diseases in childhood" used to be a luxury of the rich too, but it didn't ossify into a permanent class marker.
  - cat199 7y ago
    Why are financial instruments going to remain exclusive to the elite any more than prior revolutionary economic technologies like agriculture, refrigeration, or pasteurization? Financial instruments in general have undergone prolonged cost decreases that don't look to be anywhere near exhausted. Patents restrict access for a couple of decades at most. If the enabling technology is affordable and patents are expired, I see no reason that financial instrument use cannot become widespread. "Not dying of poverty in childhood" was never a luxury of the elite, and it always ossified into a permanent class marker.

by okket 7y ago

Ancalagon 7y ago

Well notice I said conservatively. I do think gene-editing for very specific diseases should be permissible, given societal approval and control. Allowing enhancements for things in more ethically gray areas (height, intelligence, good-looks, etc.) will in the short run quickly make you and me obsolete. In the long run edits like those will make the current wealth stratification of society look cute in comparison.

Y-bar 7y ago

I believe it is more about who get to have access to this and the social consequences of that. It could conceivably create a permanent class structure where those who can afford to have “perfect” healthy, smarter, longer living, and so on offspring will inevitably exploit that position. It could make me the wealth and class divides with better care and better schools the rich can afford we see today seem quaint in comparison.

philipkglass 7y ago
Why are genetic medical technologies going to remain exclusive to the rich any more than prior revolutionary medical technologies like vaccines, hormonal birth control, or antibiotics? Genetic technologies in general have undergone prolonged cost decreases that don't look to be anywhere near exhausted. Patents restrict access for a couple of decades at most. If the enabling technology is affordable and patents are expired, I see no reason that genetic technology use cannot become widespread. "Not dying of infectious diseases in childhood" used to be a luxury of the rich too, but it didn't ossify into a permanent class marker.
- cat199 7y ago
  Why are financial instruments going to remain exclusive to the elite any more than prior revolutionary economic technologies like agriculture, refrigeration, or pasteurization? Financial instruments in general have undergone prolonged cost decreases that don't look to be anywhere near exhausted. Patents restrict access for a couple of decades at most. If the enabling technology is affordable and patents are expired, I see no reason that financial instrument use cannot become widespread. "Not dying of poverty in childhood" was never a luxury of the elite, and it always ossified into a permanent class marker.