4 ms·

>now nobody would have genetic diseases. Nobody with parents who can afford IVF would have genetic diseases. Nobody would rise from an ignoble birth to greatne

>now nobody would have genetic diseases. Nobody with parents who can afford IVF would have genetic diseases. Nobody would rise from an ignoble birth to greatness ever again... or at least not in countries without universal healthcare.

thegrimmest 5y ago
Doesn't that just mean that the bar for "greatness" will have risen? Isn't that a net gain?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  The real world is a mixture of zero-sum and positive-sum games, and people do not like the idea that they and their descendants will be destined to lose (in a compounding way) every competition. After a few generations of selection you will have a large population of people who wouldn't be good starting points even if they could afford it, because their genomes would be far behind by that point. Unless you want that you happen, you'd better make sure that everybody gets it if anybody does.
belval 5y ago
Equality is great, but the situation would be no different than someone having access to healthcare/higher education/equal opportunities. After a few decades that technology would become commoditized just like everything else. It's not as if it was impossible to enforce regulations around that sort of thing.
mywittyname 5y ago
Those kids would still potentially breed the normal way. If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. And rich people fall from grace all the time. It's difficult for families to hold onto their wealth over successive generations. One of the keys to maintaining wealth is to keep it from being diluted, which means that some kids are going to get cut off.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. This doesn't set off your dystopia alarm?
  - krageon 5y ago
    Why? It's a dystopia if someone fathers a lot of children? It's dystopian when those children have heritable (but "artificial") genetic advantages?

thegrimmest 5y ago

Doesn't that just mean that the bar for "greatness" will have risen? Isn't that a net gain?

whatshisface 5y ago
The real world is a mixture of zero-sum and positive-sum games, and people do not like the idea that they and their descendants will be destined to lose (in a compounding way) every competition. After a few generations of selection you will have a large population of people who wouldn't be good starting points even if they could afford it, because their genomes would be far behind by that point. Unless you want that you happen, you'd better make sure that everybody gets it if anybody does.

belval 5y ago

Equality is great, but the situation would be no different than someone having access to healthcare/higher education/equal opportunities. After a few decades that technology would become commoditized just like everything else. It's not as if it was impossible to enforce regulations around that sort of thing.

mywittyname 5y ago

Those kids would still potentially breed the normal way. If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. And rich people fall from grace all the time. It's difficult for families to hold onto their wealth over successive generations. One of the keys to maintaining wealth is to keep it from being diluted, which means that some kids are going to get cut off.

whatshisface 5y ago
>If a rich kid knocks up a bunch of poor ones, those children will have similar genetic advantages. This doesn't set off your dystopia alarm?
- krageon 5y ago
  Why? It's a dystopia if someone fathers a lot of children? It's dystopian when those children have heritable (but "artificial") genetic advantages?