3 ms·

I guess nothing will happen to you, but it's a bit like being naked on the internet?

by xyproto 1y ago

ysofunny 1y ago
a person is not their DNA
- gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
  pictures of a person's private bits are more closely linked to their identity (or self-concept) than DNA? One is alterable, the other isn't ..
  - thfuran 1y ago
    More closely linked to their phenotype at any rate. And though DNA is in fact alterable, that's pretty irrelevant, culturally speaking.
    - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
      Oops should have said raw, uncompiled, bits I agree DNA isn't that culturally relevant to an identity but that just seems to be due to anti-intellectualism Separate from the idea that the easier to alter something is, the more it should considered as a healthy part of identity..
      - GTP 1y ago
        > I agree DNA isn't that culturally relevant to an identity but that just seems to be due to anti-intellectualism I think that the actual reason is that we know that a person isn't determined by their DNA alone, but there are many epigenetic factors at play, like the environment a person lives in while growing. Why you say it's due to anti-intellectualism?
        gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
        Not alone, but I do believe the variation in personality (to the extent verifiable by twins studies) is at least half genetic https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118970843.ch139 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118970843.ch... So it should be at least "50% relevant"? Anti-intellectualism.. meaning the idea that "common sense" is all that is needed to understand or work with the "self", no need to venture near abstract/symbolic models of "objective reality" I do think altering epigenetics is the most efficient way to improve character-- but that some people don't think about this way is imho a sign that they don't think biological abstractions should be relevant to their everyday life :)
  - bagels 1y ago
    Both are alterable. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
    - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
      That there is a optimal fluidity to a person's self-concept that is worth thinking about, in the unacknowledged gap between the performative extremes of preferred vs genotypic gender. (DNA isn't as alterable as pics of your private bits, or even your actual private bíts.. Or we would have cured cancer by now. Without either resorting to surgery or diluting the term "biohacking")
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

I guess nothing will happen to you, but it's a bit like being naked on the internet?

ysofunny 1y ago

a person is not their DNA

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
pictures of a person's private bits are more closely linked to their identity (or self-concept) than DNA? One is alterable, the other isn't ..
- thfuran 1y ago
  More closely linked to their phenotype at any rate. And though DNA is in fact alterable, that's pretty irrelevant, culturally speaking.
  - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
    Oops should have said raw, uncompiled, bits I agree DNA isn't that culturally relevant to an identity but that just seems to be due to anti-intellectualism Separate from the idea that the easier to alter something is, the more it should considered as a healthy part of identity..
    - GTP 1y ago
      > I agree DNA isn't that culturally relevant to an identity but that just seems to be due to anti-intellectualism I think that the actual reason is that we know that a person isn't determined by their DNA alone, but there are many epigenetic factors at play, like the environment a person lives in while growing. Why you say it's due to anti-intellectualism?
      - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
        Not alone, but I do believe the variation in personality (to the extent verifiable by twins studies) is at least half genetic https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118970843.ch139 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118970843.ch... So it should be at least "50% relevant"? Anti-intellectualism.. meaning the idea that "common sense" is all that is needed to understand or work with the "self", no need to venture near abstract/symbolic models of "objective reality" I do think altering epigenetics is the most efficient way to improve character-- but that some people don't think about this way is imho a sign that they don't think biological abstractions should be relevant to their everyday life :)
- bagels 1y ago
  Both are alterable. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
  - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
    That there is a optimal fluidity to a person's self-concept that is worth thinking about, in the unacknowledged gap between the performative extremes of preferred vs genotypic gender. (DNA isn't as alterable as pics of your private bits, or even your actual private bíts.. Or we would have cured cancer by now. Without either resorting to surgery or diluting the term "biohacking")
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]