5 ms·

I sometimes have a very cynical thought that some places should be given condoms, not food or money :(

Jach 14y ago
The problem is many people won't use them even if they're free, or they think it's a conspiracy to give them HIV... When I consider all the benefits of well-managed genetic engineering and population control at just the level we could implement right now (i.e. no sci-fi tech), I sometimes wish RISUG[0] was mandatory for all males that have gone through puberty, with 5-7 year followups to redo the treatment unless the male both wants to have a child, and passes the thresholds of various requirements (maturity, responsibility, financial security, whether they have or should have partners or not, good genetics, etc.) to be allowed to have a child. (Though if they want a child and only fail because their genes (or the genes of their chosen mother) suck, there are others who don't want a child but have good genes that can be used as donors, and initially there's still all the currently unwanted babies, and there will inevitably be people who illegally slip through or reverse the enforced treatment.) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_...
- precisioncoder 14y ago
  I used to subscribe to this belief until I had my eyes opened by a wise friend. Systems are always gamed by the powerful and a system like this could (and quite probably would) be gamed in order to suppress or even wipe out minorities. It's often best to favor the solution that requires the minimum reliance on an external authority. Currently the best proved solution for overpopulation seems to be increasing education, wealth, and life expectancy.
  - Jach 14y ago
    Some minorities should be eliminated. That's kind of the whole point of genetic engineering. Personally I'd be happy if the surface differences between humans were really just nothing more than cosmetics, rather than a non-negligible statistical correlate to other quite desirable/undesirable traits. I think the real danger of genetic engineering is humans creating an existential risk for themselves by doing it wrong, because maybe we're not smart enough right now to do the really cool stuff that goes well beyond simple, long-term projects like controlling who breeds with whom that we're already pretty good at with other lifeforms. Furthermore, having "minimum reliance on an external authority" would increase this risk, so long as humans as a species remain at the same general intelligence on the cross-species intelligence scale. It is a good thing that things such as nukes or highly contagious, highly deadly research viruses are entirely, maximally dependent on an authoritative process within each country that has them that you nor I have any influence over. It is a good thing high-energy physics experiments are restricted to the elite. Authority, and maximal reliance on it, aren't necessarily always bad. When humans become transhumans I'll likely think the average person should have far greater power--and therefore responsibility. By population control, I'm not so much concerned about overpopulation being a problem as I am of people in general giving birth when they probably shouldn't. All things equal more life is better than no life--an example of unequal being no life better than a life filled with 30 seconds of torture then extinguished--so nested in that I prefer "better" life over "worse" life, which I'm purposefully leaving undefined in the specifics (partly because I'm not certain myself about whether certain traits are better, worse, or insignificant, and whether and how much that value changes depending on the number of people with such traits). The earth can support many more humans, it's a shame highly intelligent people aren't having more/any kids. And when the earth does reach its limit, neighboring planets and beyond will be able to solve that problem.

Jach 14y ago

The problem is many people won't use them even if they're free, or they think it's a conspiracy to give them HIV... When I consider all the benefits of well-managed genetic engineering and population control at just the level we could implement right now (i.e. no sci-fi tech), I sometimes wish RISUG[0] was mandatory for all males that have gone through puberty, with 5-7 year followups to redo the treatment unless the male both wants to have a child, and passes the thresholds of various requirements (maturity, responsibility, financial security, whether they have or should have partners or not, good genetics, etc.) to be allowed to have a child. (Though if they want a child and only fail because their genes (or the genes of their chosen mother) suck, there are others who don't want a child but have good genes that can be used as donors, and initially there's still all the currently unwanted babies, and there will inevitably be people who illegally slip through or reverse the enforced treatment.) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_...

precisioncoder 14y ago
I used to subscribe to this belief until I had my eyes opened by a wise friend. Systems are always gamed by the powerful and a system like this could (and quite probably would) be gamed in order to suppress or even wipe out minorities. It's often best to favor the solution that requires the minimum reliance on an external authority. Currently the best proved solution for overpopulation seems to be increasing education, wealth, and life expectancy.
- Jach 14y ago
  Some minorities should be eliminated. That's kind of the whole point of genetic engineering. Personally I'd be happy if the surface differences between humans were really just nothing more than cosmetics, rather than a non-negligible statistical correlate to other quite desirable/undesirable traits. I think the real danger of genetic engineering is humans creating an existential risk for themselves by doing it wrong, because maybe we're not smart enough right now to do the really cool stuff that goes well beyond simple, long-term projects like controlling who breeds with whom that we're already pretty good at with other lifeforms. Furthermore, having "minimum reliance on an external authority" would increase this risk, so long as humans as a species remain at the same general intelligence on the cross-species intelligence scale. It is a good thing that things such as nukes or highly contagious, highly deadly research viruses are entirely, maximally dependent on an authoritative process within each country that has them that you nor I have any influence over. It is a good thing high-energy physics experiments are restricted to the elite. Authority, and maximal reliance on it, aren't necessarily always bad. When humans become transhumans I'll likely think the average person should have far greater power--and therefore responsibility. By population control, I'm not so much concerned about overpopulation being a problem as I am of people in general giving birth when they probably shouldn't. All things equal more life is better than no life--an example of unequal being no life better than a life filled with 30 seconds of torture then extinguished--so nested in that I prefer "better" life over "worse" life, which I'm purposefully leaving undefined in the specifics (partly because I'm not certain myself about whether certain traits are better, worse, or insignificant, and whether and how much that value changes depending on the number of people with such traits). The earth can support many more humans, it's a shame highly intelligent people aren't having more/any kids. And when the earth does reach its limit, neighboring planets and beyond will be able to solve that problem.