8 ms·

"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

"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?

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?