6 ms·

I know this stuff scares the heck out of everyone, but how is this really different from: - Hiring childhood development specialists - Pre-K programs - Kinde

by whack 7y ago

I know this stuff scares the heck out of everyone, but how is this really different from: - Hiring childhood development specialists - Pre-K programs - Kindergarten enrollment - Providing kids with excellent nutrition - Providing kids with a home that is safe and free from abuse Every single factor listed above is demonstrably correlated with lifetime intelligence, body development, mental/physical health and athleticism. Is it fair that some kids get to grow up in a safe and loving environment, while other kids worldwide grow up in malnourished or abusive households. Is it fair that some kids get best-in-class schooling and attention thanks to rich parents, while others are left watching TV all day. If we're going to ban genetic profiling because it is unfair, should we be banning all of the above as well. Instead of trying to pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator, perhaps we should instead focus on pulling everyone up to their highest potential. I for one welcome a world of universal access to genetic improvements, and generations of kids who are healthier and smarter than we can ever hope to be.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"I for one welcome a world of universal access to genetic improvements" The stuff that's scary is not that there is universally accessible genetic improvements. The fear is that these improves are not universally accessible.
- buboard 7y ago
  What if they were part of universal healthcare?
- Kalium 7y ago
  Every one of the above improvements started as not universally accessible. Knowing that they're improvements and available is how we start down the path of making them universally accessible. Demanding perfection or nothing is perhaps only an ideal approach in scenarios where nothing is, in fact, an acceptable answer. In a world where Tay-Sachs exists, I think that would be an ethically abominable outcome.
  - lisptw102019 7y ago
    Unfortunately, Ladder-kicking is a pretty common thing in modern society. So is seeking profit at all costs. In medicine we already see this where companies continually make new drugs that aren't always much better than the old one, but is 'better enough' that their salespeople convince doctors to use that one instead of the old one that has a generic. What could we do to ensure that from day 1 this is universally accessible? This is VERY dangerous territory, we are talking about potentially bifurcating the human race here.
    - Gunax 7y ago
      I don't think that's a good example. The medicines are only marginally better than the last, but are sold because they are profitable. But the whole debate around genetic engineering is that it isn't marginally better. The fear is that it is so supremely powerful it will dwarf all other interventions. And I don't think ladder kicking is particularly true. Once education was only for the elite. But we have seen it get more and more popular, to the point it's about as universal as possible now.
    - Kalium 7y ago
      I'm taking the position that fewer children dying of avoidable genetic diseases is a strict improvement. I am personally unwilling to insist that extra children should die because we cannot be completely sure that every child on the planet can benefit from the same treatment. I understand if some take a different perspective on the matter.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Even if they were universally accessible, you don't want your kid to be stuck with "last year's model" so to speak. Today's genetically improved babies could be sub-optimal by the time they hit kindergarten and just plain old obsolete before they go into high school. And the bad news is, I could see the rate of improvement increasing over time. So that material improvements are being made year to year. Doesn't bode well for when you're going to look for a job at 29 and you have to compete with 28 year olds. Even worse if you're 29 and you have to compete with 25 year olds. And heaven help you if you're 29 and you have to compete with a 20 year old.
  - bradknowles 7y ago
    Ask yourself what happens with that process when you're 53.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    That is taking such a utilitarian approach to the extreme. It goes into the reason why people have kids - and it shouldn’t be (although regrettably, it is sometimes) I’m having kids because he/she will be better than everyone else.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    This is a fixed-pie fallacy. Someone of mediocre intelligence is not harmed by being in a society of people much smarter than him. On the contrary - he benefits greatly because smarter societies are safer, fairer, and take care of citizens (including the dumb ones). This is revealed by real-life preferences: People from low IQ countries consistently try very hard to migrate to societies of smarter people. People from low IQ regions try to get into neighborhoods and schools of higher IQ people. It's like complaining that Einstein existed because my grandpa didn't get to invent relativity. Well, my grandpa was never going to invent relativity. The fact that Einstein existed just means that the rest of us now get to enjoy the positive externalities created by his ability. It's true that if everyone else is smarter, your relative social status would be lower. But this isn't an argument that scales up, since relative social status is in fixed total supply anyway.
    - 7y ago
- Aperocky 7y ago
  Of course, name me one thing artificial that is universally accessible? Why should we fear that? How is it different from hating the rich?
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    K-12 education, and in many developed countries, healthcare and basic housing.
- darawk 7y ago
  Sure, but what about the history of technology leads you to believe that would be the case? Are smart phones only owned by the super wealthy? Computers? Antibiotics?
frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
I'd have no problem banning genetic profiling until every kid has access to pre-k and development specialists, that actually sounds like a good plan to me. Okay, you're rich and you want to genetically enhance your stock? Help us provide these basic provisions to the poor first and then we'll let you do it.
- Ancalagon 7y ago
  This is actually a really interesting idea. Although I think it would fail if any single part of the world allowed genetic profiling, because then the rich would just go there to have their babies' conception.
the-pigeon 7y ago
Big difference "The twist would be to decide, on the basis of their dna, which of a group of available embryos should be implanted and brought to term." In this case you are deciding which group of cells to implant. In your examples you are effecting a specific person. Not choosing them out of a group and discarding the others. Personally I don't know. But your comparison isn't fair.
ambicapter 7y ago
> universal access HAH. Not even close, and not never, probably. That's what people are concerned about.
mattnewton 7y ago
Other people have mentioned the risk of class distinctions being codified at birth. I worry about that, but I think there is also a larger concern that we still don't really know what we are doing here yet, and we can be selecting out traits that are beneficial for Human flourishing (in the species sense) in our ignorance. There are plenty of examples of disease resistance that look maladaptive, sickle cell and malaria being the classic one. We have no idea what we're doing and we need to take this cautiously.
- celticninja 7y ago
  Due to the inequality of the world, it is unlikely we would rid ourselves of something entirely before we realise we need it.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    You're betting your species on it though, so it better be some pretty ironclad inequity.
- Gunax 7y ago
  Right. Clones are good for business, but long term can have disasterous consequences. There is a potential for human mono-culture just like in agriculture.
celticninja 7y ago
I agree, these things should not be banned but they also should not be for the super rich only, this should be standard options on a child.
throwaway744678 7y ago
> I know this stuff scares the heck out of everyone, but how is this really different from: [...] For once, these items are not eugenics, and people try to provide their kids with what's best for them. You can deplore that it's easier for rich parents than for poorer ones, and we should try to improve it; but it's really different from selecting genetics traits before implanting an embryo.
pjscott 7y ago
They're all correlated, sure, but how well have we determined causation for these? Childhood nutrition I'll grant: it has big, well-established long-term effects on a lot of things. The rest look more shaky. Pre-kindergarten education, for example, has effects that look to be somewhere between tiny and nonexistent: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/13/preschool-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/13/preschool-much-more-th... ... which hardly seems cost-effective.
glitchc 7y ago
There’s just not enough resources available to do that for every kid out there. We would have to impose strict population limits to achieve this.
DuskStar 7y ago
> - Pre-K programs > - Kindergarten enrollment > Every single factor listed above is demonstrably correlated with lifetime intelligence I thought that pre-k and kindergarten programs (along with essentially all education) were not correlated with IQ when measured later in life? Part of how most "shared environment" influences decrease as people age. (The two remaining factors would be "nonshared environment" and "genetics", each at ~50%) There is a correlation between "years spent in school" and IQ, but that's typically thought to go the other way. (Higher IQ causing more years in college - grad school, PHD programs, etc) EDIT: I should add that there are still correlations that go the other way - more intelligent, wealthier parents are more likely to enroll their kids in pre-k programs and/or kindergarten, and are also more likely to have more intelligent, wealthier children. But intervention tests - where entire regions are enrolled in preschool, for instance - don't show the improvement you'd expect.
trianglem 7y ago
The lack of universality is the problem. The government should just step in and make this available to everyone that wants it. It would lead to a rapid improvement in the quality of its populace.
- Darth_Hobo 7y ago
  Making things available universally have already been tried in USSR. What it leads to is everyone being equally poor. And it also disincentive hard work, because most of the fruits of your labor will go to equality, instead of going to you. And because everyone gets things equally you might as well as work as little as possible - you will get what you want in any case.
  - pengstrom 7y ago
    Meanwhile, many European countries also make things available universally, without making everyone poor.
    - Darth_Hobo 7y ago
      Not on the same scale as USSR. The less you do it the farther you are away from making everyone poor. Europe still has a lot of capitalistic elements to counter the equality plague.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  You pive in a bubble of people who went to university. A lot of people who attend in the US wouldn't be able to go in a lot of EU countries due rationing.

by whack 7y ago

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

"I for one welcome a world of universal access to genetic improvements" The stuff that's scary is not that there is universally accessible genetic improvements. The fear is that these improves are not universally accessible.

buboard 7y ago
What if they were part of universal healthcare?
Kalium 7y ago
Every one of the above improvements started as not universally accessible. Knowing that they're improvements and available is how we start down the path of making them universally accessible. Demanding perfection or nothing is perhaps only an ideal approach in scenarios where nothing is, in fact, an acceptable answer. In a world where Tay-Sachs exists, I think that would be an ethically abominable outcome.
- lisptw102019 7y ago
  Unfortunately, Ladder-kicking is a pretty common thing in modern society. So is seeking profit at all costs. In medicine we already see this where companies continually make new drugs that aren't always much better than the old one, but is 'better enough' that their salespeople convince doctors to use that one instead of the old one that has a generic. What could we do to ensure that from day 1 this is universally accessible? This is VERY dangerous territory, we are talking about potentially bifurcating the human race here.
  - Gunax 7y ago
    I don't think that's a good example. The medicines are only marginally better than the last, but are sold because they are profitable. But the whole debate around genetic engineering is that it isn't marginally better. The fear is that it is so supremely powerful it will dwarf all other interventions. And I don't think ladder kicking is particularly true. Once education was only for the elite. But we have seen it get more and more popular, to the point it's about as universal as possible now.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    I'm taking the position that fewer children dying of avoidable genetic diseases is a strict improvement. I am personally unwilling to insist that extra children should die because we cannot be completely sure that every child on the planet can benefit from the same treatment. I understand if some take a different perspective on the matter.
bilbo0s 7y ago
Even if they were universally accessible, you don't want your kid to be stuck with "last year's model" so to speak. Today's genetically improved babies could be sub-optimal by the time they hit kindergarten and just plain old obsolete before they go into high school. And the bad news is, I could see the rate of improvement increasing over time. So that material improvements are being made year to year. Doesn't bode well for when you're going to look for a job at 29 and you have to compete with 28 year olds. Even worse if you're 29 and you have to compete with 25 year olds. And heaven help you if you're 29 and you have to compete with a 20 year old.
- bradknowles 7y ago
  Ask yourself what happens with that process when you're 53.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  That is taking such a utilitarian approach to the extreme. It goes into the reason why people have kids - and it shouldn’t be (although regrettably, it is sometimes) I’m having kids because he/she will be better than everyone else.
- jlawson 7y ago
  This is a fixed-pie fallacy. Someone of mediocre intelligence is not harmed by being in a society of people much smarter than him. On the contrary - he benefits greatly because smarter societies are safer, fairer, and take care of citizens (including the dumb ones). This is revealed by real-life preferences: People from low IQ countries consistently try very hard to migrate to societies of smarter people. People from low IQ regions try to get into neighborhoods and schools of higher IQ people. It's like complaining that Einstein existed because my grandpa didn't get to invent relativity. Well, my grandpa was never going to invent relativity. The fact that Einstein existed just means that the rest of us now get to enjoy the positive externalities created by his ability. It's true that if everyone else is smarter, your relative social status would be lower. But this isn't an argument that scales up, since relative social status is in fixed total supply anyway.
  - 7y ago
Aperocky 7y ago
Of course, name me one thing artificial that is universally accessible? Why should we fear that? How is it different from hating the rich?
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  K-12 education, and in many developed countries, healthcare and basic housing.
darawk 7y ago
Sure, but what about the history of technology leads you to believe that would be the case? Are smart phones only owned by the super wealthy? Computers? Antibiotics?

frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago

I'd have no problem banning genetic profiling until every kid has access to pre-k and development specialists, that actually sounds like a good plan to me. Okay, you're rich and you want to genetically enhance your stock? Help us provide these basic provisions to the poor first and then we'll let you do it.

Ancalagon 7y ago
This is actually a really interesting idea. Although I think it would fail if any single part of the world allowed genetic profiling, because then the rich would just go there to have their babies' conception.

the-pigeon 7y ago

Big difference "The twist would be to decide, on the basis of their dna, which of a group of available embryos should be implanted and brought to term." In this case you are deciding which group of cells to implant. In your examples you are effecting a specific person. Not choosing them out of a group and discarding the others. Personally I don't know. But your comparison isn't fair.

ambicapter 7y ago

> universal access HAH. Not even close, and not never, probably. That's what people are concerned about.

mattnewton 7y ago

Other people have mentioned the risk of class distinctions being codified at birth. I worry about that, but I think there is also a larger concern that we still don't really know what we are doing here yet, and we can be selecting out traits that are beneficial for Human flourishing (in the species sense) in our ignorance. There are plenty of examples of disease resistance that look maladaptive, sickle cell and malaria being the classic one. We have no idea what we're doing and we need to take this cautiously.

celticninja 7y ago
Due to the inequality of the world, it is unlikely we would rid ourselves of something entirely before we realise we need it.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  You're betting your species on it though, so it better be some pretty ironclad inequity.
Gunax 7y ago
Right. Clones are good for business, but long term can have disasterous consequences. There is a potential for human mono-culture just like in agriculture.

celticninja 7y ago

I agree, these things should not be banned but they also should not be for the super rich only, this should be standard options on a child.

throwaway744678 7y ago

> I know this stuff scares the heck out of everyone, but how is this really different from: [...] For once, these items are not eugenics, and people try to provide their kids with what's best for them. You can deplore that it's easier for rich parents than for poorer ones, and we should try to improve it; but it's really different from selecting genetics traits before implanting an embryo.

pjscott 7y ago

They're all correlated, sure, but how well have we determined causation for these? Childhood nutrition I'll grant: it has big, well-established long-term effects on a lot of things. The rest look more shaky. Pre-kindergarten education, for example, has effects that look to be somewhere between tiny and nonexistent: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/13/preschool-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/11/13/preschool-much-more-th... ... which hardly seems cost-effective.

glitchc 7y ago

There’s just not enough resources available to do that for every kid out there. We would have to impose strict population limits to achieve this.

DuskStar 7y ago

> - Pre-K programs > - Kindergarten enrollment > Every single factor listed above is demonstrably correlated with lifetime intelligence I thought that pre-k and kindergarten programs (along with essentially all education) were not correlated with IQ when measured later in life? Part of how most "shared environment" influences decrease as people age. (The two remaining factors would be "nonshared environment" and "genetics", each at ~50%) There is a correlation between "years spent in school" and IQ, but that's typically thought to go the other way. (Higher IQ causing more years in college - grad school, PHD programs, etc) EDIT: I should add that there are still correlations that go the other way - more intelligent, wealthier parents are more likely to enroll their kids in pre-k programs and/or kindergarten, and are also more likely to have more intelligent, wealthier children. But intervention tests - where entire regions are enrolled in preschool, for instance - don't show the improvement you'd expect.

trianglem 7y ago

The lack of universality is the problem. The government should just step in and make this available to everyone that wants it. It would lead to a rapid improvement in the quality of its populace.

Darth_Hobo 7y ago
Making things available universally have already been tried in USSR. What it leads to is everyone being equally poor. And it also disincentive hard work, because most of the fruits of your labor will go to equality, instead of going to you. And because everyone gets things equally you might as well as work as little as possible - you will get what you want in any case.
- pengstrom 7y ago
  Meanwhile, many European countries also make things available universally, without making everyone poor.
  - Darth_Hobo 7y ago
    Not on the same scale as USSR. The less you do it the farther you are away from making everyone poor. Europe still has a lot of capitalistic elements to counter the equality plague.
snagglegaggle 7y ago
You pive in a bubble of people who went to university. A lot of people who attend in the US wouldn't be able to go in a lot of EU countries due rationing.