5 ms·

The "competition with China" angle is going to (already has) drive much of the decay of our moral society in the US. How can we compete with China if we don't

The "competition with China" angle is going to (already has) drive much of the decay of our moral society in the US. How can we compete with China if we don't <have a surveillance state>/<edit embryos with CRISPR>/<patent everything possible>/<eliminate all protections for laborers>? Much like Europe has with the US, there is an argument to be made that we should just let them have their piece of the world and return to living happy, normal lives that are less stressed and more focused on being good to one another.

duxup 7y ago
I think the motivations for the things you listed are just tied to human nature. They have nothing to do with China.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  The parent wasn't saying China would introduce the motivation, they said fear of China would erode the taboos that presently stop us from giving in to the motivation.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I feel like it is always something though. I've seen fear of just about everything... doesn't really matter what it is. Russia Japan Asia in general Terrorists Immigrants They don't always result in the same choices, but the instincts are similar.
- xtian 7y ago
  How do you reconcile that belief with examples of humans who don't have these motivations?
  - duxup 7y ago
    >humans who don't have these motivations I'm not sure how to quantify that, but let me see if I can say this. I don't hate my neighbor because they're different from me, but I will say that it is human nature to be tribalistic. So generally I don't think that there is anything to reconcile there.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cat199 7y ago
> return to living happy, normal lives that are less stressed and more focused on being good to one another. but this would mean we'd have to actually produce things again..
Creationer 7y ago
What is the problem with gene editing? It will allow us to remove hereditary diseases from the population, and enhance the capabilities of the next generation. Being in control of our own genome seems completely reasonable.
- zwkrt 7y ago
  Gene editing is the most morally ambiguous and worrying development of technology humans will probably ever encounter. We may not be humans by the time we are done with it, although this in itself could be a beautiful and exciting development. I don't know the future, but imagine being treated like an anti-vax nutjob because you refuse to edit your kids genes to make them more docile and passive in the name of "herd wellness". Imagine having to choose which subspecies of mutually incompatible human you would like to be, or even just living in such a world. If we think we have racism now, just wait!
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I'd love to edit high cholesterol out of my family.
    - zwkrt 7y ago
      I'd love to edit intelligence and perseverance out of my enemies' families. EDIT: Ok that was argumentative, but really children do not have a choice to be thrown into this world, and to think that there is someone who knows better about how this should be done is the absolute highest hubris.
      - MisterOctober 7y ago
        yeah indeed - the potential to weaponize gene editing is tremendous. "Brave New World" may look like an egalitarian utopia if that potential is realized.
- dannykwells 7y ago
  Likely a troll comment but I'll respond like it's not since this is so important: Ummm, have you seen Gattaca? Let me spoil it for you: it doesn't end well. Every reasonable scientist working in CRISPR is against editing the human germline. Here is a good piece on it: https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111 https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1... Also note, why do you assume that "we" would be in control? Suppose a government took control of your genome? Or a private company? Given the expense there is almost no way it would be democratic.
Shivetya 7y ago
Whose morals are more important? Which morals are under threat? Most issues that affect life, ending it, sustaining, and now modifying it, are drawn from religions. While some are obviously to the benefit of all they all apply towards the living. Gene work prior to life; yet another term with much debate; is not the real issue, it is what happens to the life that comes of it. What are the rights we will apply to a person or animal that was modified by gene edits? Animals are pretty much a wash as society only distinguishes between pets and livestock within certain societies. So how do we address people born of this work? Are groups going to demand that certain work is never done? Just look at current news around the world for some points of contention. People are always point towards issues which they assume cannot be disputed, deadly birth defects or handicaps that prevent a self fulfilling life. However what if, provided it can be done, if groups decide to limit the number of births of one sex? Or say, should it ever be provable, if homosexuality is genetic, would we disallow removing the combination? A dictatorship that decides to create a modified race of brain addled fighting men? Then consider all the effects on competitive areas, from sports to education. Would engineered humans be afforded the same consideration or locked out?

duxup 7y ago

I think the motivations for the things you listed are just tied to human nature. They have nothing to do with China.

whatshisface 7y ago
The parent wasn't saying China would introduce the motivation, they said fear of China would erode the taboos that presently stop us from giving in to the motivation.
- duxup 7y ago
  I feel like it is always something though. I've seen fear of just about everything... doesn't really matter what it is. Russia Japan Asia in general Terrorists Immigrants They don't always result in the same choices, but the instincts are similar.
xtian 7y ago
How do you reconcile that belief with examples of humans who don't have these motivations?
- duxup 7y ago
  >humans who don't have these motivations I'm not sure how to quantify that, but let me see if I can say this. I don't hate my neighbor because they're different from me, but I will say that it is human nature to be tribalistic. So generally I don't think that there is anything to reconcile there.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cat199 7y ago

> return to living happy, normal lives that are less stressed and more focused on being good to one another. but this would mean we'd have to actually produce things again..

Creationer 7y ago

What is the problem with gene editing? It will allow us to remove hereditary diseases from the population, and enhance the capabilities of the next generation. Being in control of our own genome seems completely reasonable.

zwkrt 7y ago
Gene editing is the most morally ambiguous and worrying development of technology humans will probably ever encounter. We may not be humans by the time we are done with it, although this in itself could be a beautiful and exciting development. I don't know the future, but imagine being treated like an anti-vax nutjob because you refuse to edit your kids genes to make them more docile and passive in the name of "herd wellness". Imagine having to choose which subspecies of mutually incompatible human you would like to be, or even just living in such a world. If we think we have racism now, just wait!
- bluGill 7y ago
  I'd love to edit high cholesterol out of my family.
  - zwkrt 7y ago
    I'd love to edit intelligence and perseverance out of my enemies' families. EDIT: Ok that was argumentative, but really children do not have a choice to be thrown into this world, and to think that there is someone who knows better about how this should be done is the absolute highest hubris.
    - MisterOctober 7y ago
      yeah indeed - the potential to weaponize gene editing is tremendous. "Brave New World" may look like an egalitarian utopia if that potential is realized.
dannykwells 7y ago
Likely a troll comment but I'll respond like it's not since this is so important: Ummm, have you seen Gattaca? Let me spoil it for you: it doesn't end well. Every reasonable scientist working in CRISPR is against editing the human germline. Here is a good piece on it: https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111 https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1... Also note, why do you assume that "we" would be in control? Suppose a government took control of your genome? Or a private company? Given the expense there is almost no way it would be democratic.

Shivetya 7y ago

Whose morals are more important? Which morals are under threat? Most issues that affect life, ending it, sustaining, and now modifying it, are drawn from religions. While some are obviously to the benefit of all they all apply towards the living. Gene work prior to life; yet another term with much debate; is not the real issue, it is what happens to the life that comes of it. What are the rights we will apply to a person or animal that was modified by gene edits? Animals are pretty much a wash as society only distinguishes between pets and livestock within certain societies. So how do we address people born of this work? Are groups going to demand that certain work is never done? Just look at current news around the world for some points of contention. People are always point towards issues which they assume cannot be disputed, deadly birth defects or handicaps that prevent a self fulfilling life. However what if, provided it can be done, if groups decide to limit the number of births of one sex? Or say, should it ever be provable, if homosexuality is genetic, would we disallow removing the combination? A dictatorship that decides to create a modified race of brain addled fighting men? Then consider all the effects on competitive areas, from sports to education. Would engineered humans be afforded the same consideration or locked out?