4 ms·

> I'm convinced nothing can stop genetic engineering in humans in the long run. Note: the article talked about human enhancement in general, and mentioned cybo

> I'm convinced nothing can stop genetic engineering in humans in the long run. Note: the article talked about human enhancement in general, and mentioned cyborg-esque options like titanium bones. It didn't mentioned the most radical option of all, mind uploading, but I guess that was to avoid scaring readers away. (Mind uploading also have this minor "will it be really me?" problem.) > This article suggests we will engineer away negative, selfish and competitive traits (Emphasis mine.) Err, I didn't read that. From what I read, the article said that we probably should engineer away such traits. And again, if a parent can enhance her child's school results by buying her the best arithmetic implant from Texas Neuro-Instruments, she will not limit herself to mere DNA modifications. Many of us already wear glasses, for instance. I do agree with your main point though: technology-aided evolution will probably take a sharp and nasty turn, if ran unchecked.

XorNot 13y ago
Nasty turn how? It's only a problem when combined with allowing other, existent problems to go unchecked - i.e. the stratification of wealth. Presuming the problem is that it's being done at all is fundamentally asking the wrong questions, not to mention strays far into violating rights like habeas corpus which creates a much bigger problem.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Technology can create new problems by itself. The most obvious ones are Risks of Blowing Ourselves Up (or existential risks). Drexlerian Nanotechnology? Gray goo accident. Strong AI? Skynet, only it'll kill us all before we even realise it. Biological research? Pandemic disease from the lab. And of course the more mundane World War III and environmental collapse, from which it is unclear our civilization can ever recover. The difference with the last two is that it can run on current technology. We could also create a universe that we wouldn't like at all, like Robin Hanson's vision of the future after mind uploading. We could also modify ourselves for the sake of competitivity alone, or pleasure alone, or anything that doesn't encompass all that we want to do and be. Sure, technology is only a catalyst. But it's one hell of a catalyst. Aim a knife in the wrong direction, and you might hurt someone. Aim a nuclear warhead in the wrong direction, and you might obliterate a whole city. In both cases, the root of the problem is that you aimed in the wrong direction. But technology makes quite a difference in terms of consequences. By the way, we're already aware of that to some extent: nuclear warheads tend to have more security around them than knives.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Catalyst yes, but there's degrees of problems. Within this scope, the question is "should people be allowed to improve themselves" - denying that because it would exacerbate an underlying social problem still exacerbates that problem.
Dewie 13y ago
> if a parent can enhance her child's school results by buying her the best arithmetic implant from Texas Neuro-Instruments, Judging by the prices of graphing calculators, an implant like that would only be affordable by millionaires :)
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Not in 4 decades from now, depending on how much progress we do on the relevant fields (such as neuroscience).

XorNot 13y ago

Nasty turn how? It's only a problem when combined with allowing other, existent problems to go unchecked - i.e. the stratification of wealth. Presuming the problem is that it's being done at all is fundamentally asking the wrong questions, not to mention strays far into violating rights like habeas corpus which creates a much bigger problem.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Technology can create new problems by itself. The most obvious ones are Risks of Blowing Ourselves Up (or existential risks). Drexlerian Nanotechnology? Gray goo accident. Strong AI? Skynet, only it'll kill us all before we even realise it. Biological research? Pandemic disease from the lab. And of course the more mundane World War III and environmental collapse, from which it is unclear our civilization can ever recover. The difference with the last two is that it can run on current technology. We could also create a universe that we wouldn't like at all, like Robin Hanson's vision of the future after mind uploading. We could also modify ourselves for the sake of competitivity alone, or pleasure alone, or anything that doesn't encompass all that we want to do and be. Sure, technology is only a catalyst. But it's one hell of a catalyst. Aim a knife in the wrong direction, and you might hurt someone. Aim a nuclear warhead in the wrong direction, and you might obliterate a whole city. In both cases, the root of the problem is that you aimed in the wrong direction. But technology makes quite a difference in terms of consequences. By the way, we're already aware of that to some extent: nuclear warheads tend to have more security around them than knives.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Catalyst yes, but there's degrees of problems. Within this scope, the question is "should people be allowed to improve themselves" - denying that because it would exacerbate an underlying social problem still exacerbates that problem.

Dewie 13y ago

> if a parent can enhance her child's school results by buying her the best arithmetic implant from Texas Neuro-Instruments, Judging by the prices of graphing calculators, an implant like that would only be affordable by millionaires :)

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Not in 4 decades from now, depending on how much progress we do on the relevant fields (such as neuroscience).