3 ms·

No, you're right. Dumb old me was looking for an argument when you were trying to simply share your perspective.

midoridensha 4y ago
Honestly, I was trying to play devil's advocate in a way. In that reality, most of society had decided that getting their kids genetically engineered (GE) was the correct choice: we have the technology, so why not use it? I see it as somewhat similar to medical technologies we have today, like vaccinations, with a small number of people refusing them because "they're not natural" or whatever. Most people prefer to have a society where polio and smallpox are eradicated instead of normally-occurring, so vaccinations are generally required in most places. So in the future, would having your kids GE'ed be seen the same way? For low-hanging fruit, what if your kid has sickle-cell anemia or MS or some other obvious genetic defect, and a simple tweak can fix this and keep them from being condemned to a lifetime of health problems and an early death? Why wouldn't we avail ourselves of this, and what parent would want their kid to suffer with these things? But with GE technology, obviously we can go much farther than just fixing a few transcription errors that have devastating consequences, so where does that lead us as a society? I do find this question really fascinating.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  Oh, of course. If it were possible to actually do it, then it wouldn't ever be possible to contain. Either a small selection of elites get access to the tech and use it to dominate all of society, or we all have it. I don't think you could put the genie back in the bottle once it's possible to make your children smarter, stronger and more successful.
midoridensha 4y ago
Another thing I just thought of with my Michael Phelps example: genetically engineering people isn't necessarily going to make them superpeople, so I wonder how this will be handled. Phelps is really good at swimming with his body type, but that same body type probably means he's also really bad at other sports, such as weightlifting or cycling. Different body types are better optimized for different activities. Currently, people just get lucky usually, born with physical attributes that make them good at those tasks. So you don't see any pro cyclists that look like the "The Mountain" guy from Game of Thrones, for instance (whereas that guy is really good at weightlifting).
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  >that same body type probably means he's also really bad at other sports, such as weightlifting or cycling I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'm sure Phelps could lift more and cycle faster/further than most people on earth. If anything, the fact he's good at swimming means it's likely that he's also really good at other sports - just like someone good at one sort of cognitive task is probably good at most.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    I disagree. Sure, he's probably better at those sports than "most people", but that's not important, it's whether he can compete at an Olympic level in those sports. I'm sure he can't. He's optimized for world-class performance in just one sport, but not likely to be able to excel (at that level) in many others, no matter how much he trains. I can cycle faster and farther than most people on Earth too. That doesn't mean I can compete at a pro level, or worse an Olympic level. I'm nowhere near that level of performance; the bar for "most people on Earth" just isn't very high for most sports, in fact it's pathetically low. Most people are laughably bad at any sport.

Honestly, I was trying to play devil's advocate in a way. In that reality, most of society had decided that getting their kids genetically engineered (GE) was the correct choice: we have the technology, so why not use it? I see it as somewhat similar to medical technologies we have today, like vaccinations, with a small number of people refusing them because "they're not natural" or whatever. Most people prefer to have a society where polio and smallpox are eradicated instead of normally-occurring, so vaccinations are generally required in most places. So in the future, would having your kids GE'ed be seen the same way? For low-hanging fruit, what if your kid has sickle-cell anemia or MS or some other obvious genetic defect, and a simple tweak can fix this and keep them from being condemned to a lifetime of health problems and an early death? Why wouldn't we avail ourselves of this, and what parent would want their kid to suffer with these things? But with GE technology, obviously we can go much farther than just fixing a few transcription errors that have devastating consequences, so where does that lead us as a society? I do find this question really fascinating.

AussieWog93 4y ago
Oh, of course. If it were possible to actually do it, then it wouldn't ever be possible to contain. Either a small selection of elites get access to the tech and use it to dominate all of society, or we all have it. I don't think you could put the genie back in the bottle once it's possible to make your children smarter, stronger and more successful.

midoridensha 4y ago

Another thing I just thought of with my Michael Phelps example: genetically engineering people isn't necessarily going to make them superpeople, so I wonder how this will be handled. Phelps is really good at swimming with his body type, but that same body type probably means he's also really bad at other sports, such as weightlifting or cycling. Different body types are better optimized for different activities. Currently, people just get lucky usually, born with physical attributes that make them good at those tasks. So you don't see any pro cyclists that look like the "The Mountain" guy from Game of Thrones, for instance (whereas that guy is really good at weightlifting).

AussieWog93 4y ago
>that same body type probably means he's also really bad at other sports, such as weightlifting or cycling I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'm sure Phelps could lift more and cycle faster/further than most people on earth. If anything, the fact he's good at swimming means it's likely that he's also really good at other sports - just like someone good at one sort of cognitive task is probably good at most.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  I disagree. Sure, he's probably better at those sports than "most people", but that's not important, it's whether he can compete at an Olympic level in those sports. I'm sure he can't. He's optimized for world-class performance in just one sport, but not likely to be able to excel (at that level) in many others, no matter how much he trains. I can cycle faster and farther than most people on Earth too. That doesn't mean I can compete at a pro level, or worse an Olympic level. I'm nowhere near that level of performance; the bar for "most people on Earth" just isn't very high for most sports, in fact it's pathetically low. Most people are laughably bad at any sport.