4 ms·

Yuval Harari makes an interesting point in one of his books: that many kinds of these inventions always start as a way to treat people with some kind of a medic

by maratc 2y ago

Yuval Harari makes an interesting point in one of his books: that many kinds of these inventions always start as a way to treat people with some kind of a medical condition and bring them into the "median" spectrum, but there's no stopping there and the same inventions are then used to bring "median" people into the "super-human" spectrum. What happens next is that the "regular" humans have to compete with these "super-humans", for example on a job market, or in Olympics.

amelius 2y ago
You can only switch a gene "on" once. So I'd like to see some examples. Or do you mean more people with all their genes switched "on" so to speak?
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  Epigenetics would like a word. A gene can be expressed but from what I rember from my college classes....the epigenetics can determine if the gene actually works correctly and how effective it is. Think of it as the ability to lower the overall expression of the gene
dotnet00 2y ago
You say that as if this has happened before ("many kinds of these inventions always start as..."), but what conditions have actually had this happen? I can't think of anything that started as something to help bring people up to a median level, to then end up bringing median people into a super-human level. Everything we've done so far have all been ultimately limited by the human body, so things that bring people up to the median level ultimately have diminishing returns such that they don't benefit median people so much.
- cush 2y ago
  steroids
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Most, even in the presented example of the olympics aren't having to compete against those on steroids though?
    - radlad 2y ago
      It's hard to know how many people are getting away with cheating. I'm more familiar with it in the context of cycling, where performance-enhancing drugs have long been a thorny issue. > In 2004, 4.6% of the anti-doping samples tested were positive, and that is taking into account that there were many dopers who never tested positive. https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-analysing-the-anti-doping-fight/ https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-an...
    - cush 2y ago
      Most people are competing against people on steroids. They’re incredibly common.
- maratc 2y ago
  Think of e.g. the development of optics that brought us the eyeglasses first, and the telescopic sight on a sniper rifle second. Now imagine an army of median humans that need to fight the army of genetically-modified humans that can see in the dark.
- Octokiddie 2y ago
  Breast augmentation could be one case.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Haha I guess that might technically fit.
    - PebblesRox 2y ago
      You could say the same for plastic surgery in general. Techniques developed to restore injured faces (e.g. of soldiers) are now used for cosmetic purposes.
- radlad 2y ago
  Implants, prosthetics, and exo-skeletons?
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Which implants and prosthetics currently exist that are such that a median person would want them and as a result would become super-human?
    - radlad 2y ago
      As was mentioned in another comment, breast augmentation and other forms of body modification in the context of influencers, broadcasters, actors, models, etc. Prosthetics may not quite be there yet, but do you seriously think they won't get there? Military is actively investing in exoskeleton R&D. Whether it's currently accessible to the median person is sort of besides the point.
      - dotnet00 2y ago
        Re-read my comment, I haven't said anything about the future. My point was just that it seems weird to talk about it as if it has already happened. It might happen in the future, but it's worth considering that a powerful prosthetic limb or exoskeleton that is superior to the biological version in every way makes both the disabled person and the perfectly healthy person equally superhuman.
        radlad 2y ago
        I re-read your comment, but I still disagree that the evidence provided by myself and others in response, as well as evident near-term future advancements, are irrelevant to the comment you responded to. > a powerful prosthetic limb or exoskeleton that is superior to the biological version in every way makes both the disabled person and the perfectly healthy person equally superhuman. I think I'm not following, or else failing to see the relevance to this comment. This is essentially what the GP was getting at: these advancements can/will lead to anatomically "correct" humans failing to compete.
- jonasdegendt 2y ago
  Someone mentioned steroids, but Epogen is another example.
rowanG077 2y ago
Isn't that already the case? Genetically the average Olympian is definitely super human compared to the population. Unless we start adding novel genetic data to humans I wouldn't be too worried.
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  I wouldn't say superhuman - just better than the "average" athlete who trains by maybe 5-10%. But when the difference between finishing first and last in a race is that 5-10%, thats huge.
qp11 2y ago
The Theory of Bounded Rationality tells us super humans are over rated. There will always be problems you throw in the lap of a super human, that they wont be able to solve cause of lack of time, or cash, or personality or missing info, or conflicting needs, or their belief system etc etc.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
I can't think of a medically relevant example except maybe stimulants and painkillers, but outside of medicine, this definitely is the case with technology: many inventions have a ratchet effect - they start as gimmicks, but when they reach a critical mass of users, they confer so much competitive benefits that they rapidly spread everywhere, and eventually become required to function. Examples range from agriculture to the Internet; currently, smartphones seem to be hitting this threshold, as more private and public services become designed primarily with smartphones in mind. I found it enlightening to ponder the history of clocks. There was a time nobody needed one; it wasn't actually useful for anything[0], because nothing in agricultural societies happened fast enough to require hour or minute accuracy. Some people eventually found use for more accurate and precise time tracking, then more, then those people realized they're able to coordinate better when they have synced clocks, which made new things possible, and few centuries later, our entire civilization runs on clocks, and it's near-impossible to live without minding what time is it. -- [0] - Use in sea navigation notwithstanding.
- maratc 2y ago
  > those people realized they're able to coordinate better when they have synced clocks, which made new things possible The development of clocks is related to industrialization and opening of plants that need all the workers to be there at e.g. 8 am for the shift to start. If you have to be at the factory at 8 am you'd better know what time it is. It's not that the development of clocks has brought us factories; rather, the development of factories has brought us clocks.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    It's a feedback loop; manufacturing couldn't scale without clocks, and neither transportation - think e.g. train time tables. Once it became possible to keep people in sync down to minutes, it immediately became popular, and those who avoided it were increasingly left behind. FWIW, I'm not saying it's a good development. I'm torn on this. Outside of direct progress, we seem to be running in Red Queen's races quite a lot, as improvements turn into baseline.
  - 2y ago
vunderba 2y ago
I mean this isn't really a novel point, this is true of everything not just biological enhancements, but technological enhancements as well. The privileged will always have first dibs. But historically the wealthy/first adopters help fuel the continued development of said inventions, which helps drive down the price, eventually allowing the larger public to have access to it.

by maratc 2y ago

amelius 2y ago

You can only switch a gene "on" once. So I'd like to see some examples. Or do you mean more people with all their genes switched "on" so to speak?

tonetegeatinst 2y ago
Epigenetics would like a word. A gene can be expressed but from what I rember from my college classes....the epigenetics can determine if the gene actually works correctly and how effective it is. Think of it as the ability to lower the overall expression of the gene

dotnet00 2y ago

You say that as if this has happened before ("many kinds of these inventions always start as..."), but what conditions have actually had this happen? I can't think of anything that started as something to help bring people up to a median level, to then end up bringing median people into a super-human level. Everything we've done so far have all been ultimately limited by the human body, so things that bring people up to the median level ultimately have diminishing returns such that they don't benefit median people so much.

cush 2y ago
steroids
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Most, even in the presented example of the olympics aren't having to compete against those on steroids though?
  - radlad 2y ago
    It's hard to know how many people are getting away with cheating. I'm more familiar with it in the context of cycling, where performance-enhancing drugs have long been a thorny issue. > In 2004, 4.6% of the anti-doping samples tested were positive, and that is taking into account that there were many dopers who never tested positive. https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-analysing-the-anti-doping-fight/ https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-an...
  - cush 2y ago
    Most people are competing against people on steroids. They’re incredibly common.
maratc 2y ago
Think of e.g. the development of optics that brought us the eyeglasses first, and the telescopic sight on a sniper rifle second. Now imagine an army of median humans that need to fight the army of genetically-modified humans that can see in the dark.
Octokiddie 2y ago
Breast augmentation could be one case.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Haha I guess that might technically fit.
  - PebblesRox 2y ago
    You could say the same for plastic surgery in general. Techniques developed to restore injured faces (e.g. of soldiers) are now used for cosmetic purposes.
radlad 2y ago
Implants, prosthetics, and exo-skeletons?
- dotnet00 2y ago
  Which implants and prosthetics currently exist that are such that a median person would want them and as a result would become super-human?
  - radlad 2y ago
    As was mentioned in another comment, breast augmentation and other forms of body modification in the context of influencers, broadcasters, actors, models, etc. Prosthetics may not quite be there yet, but do you seriously think they won't get there? Military is actively investing in exoskeleton R&D. Whether it's currently accessible to the median person is sort of besides the point.
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      Re-read my comment, I haven't said anything about the future. My point was just that it seems weird to talk about it as if it has already happened. It might happen in the future, but it's worth considering that a powerful prosthetic limb or exoskeleton that is superior to the biological version in every way makes both the disabled person and the perfectly healthy person equally superhuman.
      - radlad 2y ago
        I re-read your comment, but I still disagree that the evidence provided by myself and others in response, as well as evident near-term future advancements, are irrelevant to the comment you responded to. > a powerful prosthetic limb or exoskeleton that is superior to the biological version in every way makes both the disabled person and the perfectly healthy person equally superhuman. I think I'm not following, or else failing to see the relevance to this comment. This is essentially what the GP was getting at: these advancements can/will lead to anatomically "correct" humans failing to compete.
jonasdegendt 2y ago
Someone mentioned steroids, but Epogen is another example.

rowanG077 2y ago

Isn't that already the case? Genetically the average Olympian is definitely super human compared to the population. Unless we start adding novel genetic data to humans I wouldn't be too worried.

SJC_Hacker 2y ago
I wouldn't say superhuman - just better than the "average" athlete who trains by maybe 5-10%. But when the difference between finishing first and last in a race is that 5-10%, thats huge.

qp11 2y ago

The Theory of Bounded Rationality tells us super humans are over rated. There will always be problems you throw in the lap of a super human, that they wont be able to solve cause of lack of time, or cash, or personality or missing info, or conflicting needs, or their belief system etc etc.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

I can't think of a medically relevant example except maybe stimulants and painkillers, but outside of medicine, this definitely is the case with technology: many inventions have a ratchet effect - they start as gimmicks, but when they reach a critical mass of users, they confer so much competitive benefits that they rapidly spread everywhere, and eventually become required to function. Examples range from agriculture to the Internet; currently, smartphones seem to be hitting this threshold, as more private and public services become designed primarily with smartphones in mind. I found it enlightening to ponder the history of clocks. There was a time nobody needed one; it wasn't actually useful for anything[0], because nothing in agricultural societies happened fast enough to require hour or minute accuracy. Some people eventually found use for more accurate and precise time tracking, then more, then those people realized they're able to coordinate better when they have synced clocks, which made new things possible, and few centuries later, our entire civilization runs on clocks, and it's near-impossible to live without minding what time is it. -- [0] - Use in sea navigation notwithstanding.

maratc 2y ago
> those people realized they're able to coordinate better when they have synced clocks, which made new things possible The development of clocks is related to industrialization and opening of plants that need all the workers to be there at e.g. 8 am for the shift to start. If you have to be at the factory at 8 am you'd better know what time it is. It's not that the development of clocks has brought us factories; rather, the development of factories has brought us clocks.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  It's a feedback loop; manufacturing couldn't scale without clocks, and neither transportation - think e.g. train time tables. Once it became possible to keep people in sync down to minutes, it immediately became popular, and those who avoided it were increasingly left behind. FWIW, I'm not saying it's a good development. I'm torn on this. Outside of direct progress, we seem to be running in Red Queen's races quite a lot, as improvements turn into baseline.
- 2y ago

vunderba 2y ago

I mean this isn't really a novel point, this is true of everything not just biological enhancements, but technological enhancements as well. The privileged will always have first dibs. But historically the wealthy/first adopters help fuel the continued development of said inventions, which helps drive down the price, eventually allowing the larger public to have access to it.