4 ms·

The same argument holds for every technological advance. "Why build the world wide web when only the rich can afford home computers" and "why develop electric

The same argument holds for every technological advance. "Why build the world wide web when only the rich can afford home computers" and "why develop electric cars when only the rich can afford them". We live in a capitalistic society and therefore almost every advance will be available to the wealthy before it's available to the rest of us. That's not a good thing but it's also not a reason to stop improving ourselves. I would rather give the one percent another advantage than sit here smug in my knowledge that hey, millions of children might suffer needlessly from type 1 diabetes or cystic fibrosis but at least Donald Trump the fourth has to pay somebody to take his exams for him instead of using his artificial eidetic memory.

hkt 5y ago
Conflating giving somebody an "upgrade" with preventing disease is fairly disingenuous. So is suggesting something you can acquire through work (owning a computer) is comparable to something you must be born to. They're not the same.
- causality0 5y ago
  What does and does not constitute a disease is relative. Mental infirmity is a disease. Aging is a disease. Death is a disease. We participate in the comforting delusion that because these things have never been challenged before that somehow makes them less horrifying. Screw that.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Death is a disease. Death may be a consequence of disease (among other causes), but it is not a disease.
maximus-decimus 5y ago
I wonder if the problem is this breaks the American dream. Americans see themselves as potential future bilionaires and they tell themselves they're just as capable as the rich, but if the rich become genetically superior, it creates a gap that clearly can't be overcome.
- causality0 5y ago
  This already exists. The rich are less stressed and happier. They have absurd nepotism and social connections. They don't die of curable diseases or from lack of treatment. Their children are better educated and less traumatized growing up. Of all the advantages the rich have, genetic modification is one that could be reduced in price enough for the middle class to afford.

hkt 5y ago

Conflating giving somebody an "upgrade" with preventing disease is fairly disingenuous. So is suggesting something you can acquire through work (owning a computer) is comparable to something you must be born to. They're not the same.

causality0 5y ago
What does and does not constitute a disease is relative. Mental infirmity is a disease. Aging is a disease. Death is a disease. We participate in the comforting delusion that because these things have never been challenged before that somehow makes them less horrifying. Screw that.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Death is a disease. Death may be a consequence of disease (among other causes), but it is not a disease.

maximus-decimus 5y ago

I wonder if the problem is this breaks the American dream. Americans see themselves as potential future bilionaires and they tell themselves they're just as capable as the rich, but if the rich become genetically superior, it creates a gap that clearly can't be overcome.

causality0 5y ago
This already exists. The rich are less stressed and happier. They have absurd nepotism and social connections. They don't die of curable diseases or from lack of treatment. Their children are better educated and less traumatized growing up. Of all the advantages the rich have, genetic modification is one that could be reduced in price enough for the middle class to afford.