3 ms·

I agree that there's a purpose to this diversity. Why do we assume that it is bad to have rank and uneven distributions of qualities in a species, among human b

I agree that there's a purpose to this diversity. Why do we assume that it is bad to have rank and uneven distributions of qualities in a species, among human beings? Like it's bad to have an IQ less than 180 now? A society is enriched by this diversity because various niches can be filled and concerns taken care of. One guy brings the pot roast and the spices, another brings the napkins. We don't all need to be equal and identical. Why are some people so afraid of someone being more than another? Pride, that's why. But I would suggest we don't slander beautiful people. Vanity comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes and isn't the exclusive province of beautiful people. There's plenty of vanity in this thread alone, let along HN, much worse than the petty vanity of a 13 year old girl. Vanity affects all human beings. (Also, those who spend on plastic surgery are either mentally ill (in the manner of bulimics) or probably not in those 10%. Otherwise, why the plastic surgery? Otherwise back to mental illness. Besides, plastic surgery doesn't actually make you beautiful, it can at best make you appear beautiful because it's fake, so you're being fraudulent because you are only simulating beauty at best.)

varelse 5y ago
I'm not slandering beautiful people at all, I'm just slandering people who aspire to little more than being one of them. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it. The only thing worse is people catering to that urge. But I guess it's a market opportunity and that's how capitalism works, no? As for genetic diversity, sure we need genetic diversity, but we also no longer need the gene that fights malaria in the heterozygous case but gives you sickle cell anemia in the homozygous case because we have treatment for malaria now. Lather rinse repeat for a whole bunch of genetic ailments that will eventually get filtered out of the genome by evolution because they no longer serve their purpose so what's your problem with us accelerating the schedule? Or do you see value in the BRCA gene for your unconceived potential daughter for some reason? There's definitely a moral hazard beyond that and I admitted as much but there's plenty of runway before we get there. But also if we really need to reintroduce these genes down the road we have the technology to do so.
- nradov 5y ago
  Who is "we"? Malaria still kills 400K people per year and the treatments aren't completely effective. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/reduction/drug_resistance.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/reduction/drug...
  - varelse 5y ago
    And why is that happening? "We" certainly have the technology to fight it so I wonder why that hasn't happened already. Hmmmmmm... https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=18104 https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=18104

varelse 5y ago

I'm not slandering beautiful people at all, I'm just slandering people who aspire to little more than being one of them. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it. The only thing worse is people catering to that urge. But I guess it's a market opportunity and that's how capitalism works, no? As for genetic diversity, sure we need genetic diversity, but we also no longer need the gene that fights malaria in the heterozygous case but gives you sickle cell anemia in the homozygous case because we have treatment for malaria now. Lather rinse repeat for a whole bunch of genetic ailments that will eventually get filtered out of the genome by evolution because they no longer serve their purpose so what's your problem with us accelerating the schedule? Or do you see value in the BRCA gene for your unconceived potential daughter for some reason? There's definitely a moral hazard beyond that and I admitted as much but there's plenty of runway before we get there. But also if we really need to reintroduce these genes down the road we have the technology to do so.

nradov 5y ago
Who is "we"? Malaria still kills 400K people per year and the treatments aren't completely effective. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/reduction/drug_resistance.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/reduction/drug...
- varelse 5y ago
  And why is that happening? "We" certainly have the technology to fight it so I wonder why that hasn't happened already. Hmmmmmm... https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=18104 https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=18104