3 ms·

Do We have a Moral Duty to Improve the Human Race?

8 points by nreece 18y ago

mdasen 18y ago
The author mentions competitive advantage. To be honest, I think that in such a fundamental case as this, competitive advantage isn't a win. Let's say that good nutrition increases general aptitude. So, more people are smart competing with me if nutrition improves. It also means I pay less money supporting people with bad health. And while I might be competing, it means that better things are being done. Let's say that my IQ is 125 and the average is 100. Let's say we find something that can raise everyone's IQ to 150 except mine. That's a good thing, even for me. Those people will make production more efficient, create new and better products, etc. That lowers the cost of the same standard of living or allows one to pay a constant cost and get a significantly increased standard of living. Now, my place in the social hierarchy would change, that's for sure. I guess people tend to care about that as much if not more than the other things. In terms of genetically engineering children, I'm less thrilled. The fact is that biodiversity prevents extinction. Designer genes might, for a while, provide us with better results, but in the long run it leaves us very, very vulnerable to catastrophe. So, do we pick ourselves or our species? Parents will always pick their child over their species. So, all parents with the means to do so, will eliminate that genetic diversity to the detriment of the species. We're even seeing it today with parents refusing vaccinations. They work off the principle that everyone else is vaccinated so my child won't get those diseases anyway and I would be terrified if my child got autism (which has never been proven, but they're nuts anyway). They pick their child over society. What happens when everyone does that? In the case of vaccines, it won't happen because once enough people do it, disease will return and parents will be burring their children. In the case of biodiversity, we might not know for hundreds or thousands of years. I wouldn't be so quick to accept this as improving the human race. Improving individuals: yes (at the cost of loosing the biodiversity that sustains species). We'd become like the banana - doomed.
rthomas6 18y ago
I'm just happy we're starting to have this conversation at all.
sh1mmer 18y ago
I think the author's methodology (or at least the article's synopsis of it) seems a somewhat flawed premise. Suggesting that we focus less on conventional medicine in order to raise the bar in other areas neglects the massive waste and allocation in the market system. One of the fundamental things that increases lifespan is diet. I've read in numerous sources the approx life span of humans should be 120 years if they don't suffer a medical trauma. Now we have the ability to deliver the optimum diet to achieve that we don't. Instead we subsidize meat until people get fat heavy diets, etc. The Macdonalds culture has created a culture where non-nutritious foods are the cheapest to consumers, despite the real cost of production. The author can try to justify leeching resource from numerous areas of society to create "competitive advantage" but until governments remove the impediments to have healthy food cost less nothing much else we do will mean much.

8 points by nreece 18y ago

The author mentions competitive advantage. To be honest, I think that in such a fundamental case as this, competitive advantage isn't a win. Let's say that good nutrition increases general aptitude. So, more people are smart competing with me if nutrition improves. It also means I pay less money supporting people with bad health. And while I might be competing, it means that better things are being done. Let's say that my IQ is 125 and the average is 100. Let's say we find something that can raise everyone's IQ to 150 except mine. That's a good thing, even for me. Those people will make production more efficient, create new and better products, etc. That lowers the cost of the same standard of living or allows one to pay a constant cost and get a significantly increased standard of living. Now, my place in the social hierarchy would change, that's for sure. I guess people tend to care about that as much if not more than the other things. In terms of genetically engineering children, I'm less thrilled. The fact is that biodiversity prevents extinction. Designer genes might, for a while, provide us with better results, but in the long run it leaves us very, very vulnerable to catastrophe. So, do we pick ourselves or our species? Parents will always pick their child over their species. So, all parents with the means to do so, will eliminate that genetic diversity to the detriment of the species. We're even seeing it today with parents refusing vaccinations. They work off the principle that everyone else is vaccinated so my child won't get those diseases anyway and I would be terrified if my child got autism (which has never been proven, but they're nuts anyway). They pick their child over society. What happens when everyone does that? In the case of vaccines, it won't happen because once enough people do it, disease will return and parents will be burring their children. In the case of biodiversity, we might not know for hundreds or thousands of years. I wouldn't be so quick to accept this as improving the human race. Improving individuals: yes (at the cost of loosing the biodiversity that sustains species). We'd become like the banana - doomed.

rthomas6 18y ago

I'm just happy we're starting to have this conversation at all.

sh1mmer 18y ago

I think the author's methodology (or at least the article's synopsis of it) seems a somewhat flawed premise. Suggesting that we focus less on conventional medicine in order to raise the bar in other areas neglects the massive waste and allocation in the market system. One of the fundamental things that increases lifespan is diet. I've read in numerous sources the approx life span of humans should be 120 years if they don't suffer a medical trauma. Now we have the ability to deliver the optimum diet to achieve that we don't. Instead we subsidize meat until people get fat heavy diets, etc. The Macdonalds culture has created a culture where non-nutritious foods are the cheapest to consumers, despite the real cost of production. The author can try to justify leeching resource from numerous areas of society to create "competitive advantage" but until governments remove the impediments to have healthy food cost less nothing much else we do will mean much.