3 ms·
Sometime I listen to 90’s AM conspiracy theory radio for fun (Coast to Coast AM). One thing that’s struck me is how much fear there was about the Human Genome P
by bnralt 4y ago
Sometime I listen to 90’s AM conspiracy theory radio for fun (Coast to Coast AM). One thing that’s struck me is how much fear there was about the Human Genome Project and designer babies being right around the corner (Gattaca was 1997, for example). Maybe that will come to pass someday. But at the moment, it still seems a long ways off.
A lot of groups have some new technology they’re scared of. Tech folks have latched onto the idea that we’ll create Skynet, or that large scale video surveillance will turn countries into authoritarian dystopian states. Hippy groups are convinced that GMO’s cause cancer or will lead to a biodiversity disaster. Or that nuclear plants are going to lead to meltdowns, environmental destruction, and deaths.
Appropriate safeguards are always important in society. Excessive safeguards can cause harm. Sometimes people have a maximalist view of danger that’s so detached from the current reality that it’s hard to have a rational discussion with them.
- housley 4y agoThe technology for designer babies is here; polygenic embryo selection could do it right now, people just aren't going all the way for various reasons (concern about regulation).
- stametseater 4y agoIndeed, and to illustrate the point: He Jiankui infamously created two CRISPR babies in 2018 and for it he was fired and imprisoned. Such regulations and public outcry are the only thing holding us back from Gattaca.
- stereolambda 4y agoAs a sibling points out, some of the fears do turn out to be founded eventually. I also take issue with lumping together objections based on disproved memes ("hippy" ones) and pure speculation (Skynet) with ones based on observing reality critically. Even though I'm not much a biotech scare person myself, I do respect that people with philosophical stances somewhat different than mine can be more scared by the road that we're on. People argue from historical precedent (by itself a pretty weak argument when there's no understanding of underlying mechanisms) by picking some ancient panics from lifestyle magazines and putting them next to modern concerns that have intellectual weight behind them. For example, when you actually read the famous "bicycles leading to murder" article, it's pretty clearly either satire or extremely light compared to writing about serious issues from that era. Think "top X reasons to hate TV series Y" websites. It's possible that a bunch of things will get us, or are getting us by aligning well with changing generations, news cycles and cultural fashions long term. Let's say people lived in a preindustrial city with the level of carbon monoxide in the air rising very slowly. Older people start to complain that people are becoming more sluggish. After the initial wave of hubbub on the marketplace it turns out they still live, the life goes on. By the third generation, say, the city may be laughing that people were fearmongering about it since forever, and don't even notice that they are very symptomatic: right before they do all fall asleep. I would classify surveillance dystopia into the slow trainwreck category, with most people not understanding the ramifications or not caring, the rest being gradually worn down, new generations being used to a situation worse by one or two steps. It would be "poetic justice" if such things resulted in some spectacular movie disaster down the line, but I don't wish this, it wouldn't be worth it just to "prove" some people right. The future could be just worse than it could have been, but technically livable. This doesn't mean people that tried to stop the trend were laughable and behind the times. This is also my expectation about global warming. What a combination of such things could do, it's a different story.
- precompute 4y agoWe already have mRNA, you could call that unwitting genetic modification.