Political Crossfire Forums

[ieatfood]

perdidochas wrote: ieatfood wrote: gattaca is wrong

gattaca assumes that the world is zero sum gain--one man's gain is another man's loss

the world is NOT SO

having smarter people will benefit society as a whole by making a better economy, creating more jobs for the smart and dumb alike

there will be no oppression--just an increase in wealth for all through economic expansion.

Nope, it will result in instability. Smart people in brain dead jobs (and I see no way of eliminating them in the near future) just causes frustrated smart people.....

Also, the main problem with genetic engineering is unintended consequences (i.e. murphy's law and related corollaries). Manipulation of nature has it's costs.

I think that you are underestimating the impact that genetic engineering will have on society. Sure, there will always be a need for certain mundane jobs. But many of them will be replaced by robots due to the better technology that the smarter people will invent.

I don't know what type of "unintended consequences" you are talking about. Perhaps youd care to ellaborate

[ieatfood]

slitedeviance wrote:

How long do you think it would be before they could afford this in Africa? How would you address the imbalance created there between the (mostly) white wealthy westerners able to alter their childrens appearances and the black guys who can't afford food?

Secondly, do you not think it would rob people of part of their humanity? We are meant to be imperfect, it forms part of our personality and drives how we live our lives. If your ugly, deal with it. If your chunky, deal with it. If you have a slightly odd birthmark above your right ass-cheek, deal with it. Grab your balls (whatever size) and live your goddamn life.

Thirdly, what gives parents the right to decide how their children would look? Parents make crap choices all the damn time. What happens when they get bored of their blue eyed blonde hair baby girl? Feed her another pill to change it all so they remain interested?

It would be another example of the church of the self winning out over basic grubby mucky humanity.

See, you don't understand how the economy wil change because of this technology. This technology will make economies far more efficient so that the poor Africans WILL be able to afford food.

Now you will never achieve equality. But equality is not everything. Not starving is more important than equality. And if this technology can feed more people, then that, by itself, makes it worthwhile.

As for "robbing of humanity", that's bs. If you are ugly, deal with it?? What kind of ignorant advice is that? If you are 350 pounds, deal with it?? Have you ever met anyone who is 350 pounds? You think its that easy to have to deal with that problem? Being forced to carry around 350 pounds is not "humanity". I would call it inhumane. We fix those problems today through surgery. Is that destroying "humanity?" Gimme a break.

And what gives parents a right to decide how their children look? What gives a parent a right to decide anything? Every person is the summation of their genetics and their environment. Both are equally important. If parents have a right to decide their child's environment, why is it morally different if they get to decide their child's genetics?

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
How long do you think it would be before they could afford this in Africa? How would you address the imbalance created there between the (mostly) white wealthy westerners able to alter their childrens appearances and the black guys who can't afford food?

Methinks the people in Africa have more problems to deal with than their appearence.

Quote:
Secondly, do you not think it would rob people of part of their humanity? We are meant to be imperfect, it forms part of our personality and drives how we live our lives. If your ugly, deal with it. If your chunky, deal with it. If you have a slightly odd birthmark above your right ass-cheek, deal with it. Grab your balls (whatever size) and live your goddamn life.

Why should I have to deal with it?



Do you tell someone born with, say, Sickle Cell Anemia to just "Deal with it"? What about someone with cancer? "Just deal with it". If your kid breaks their leg, do you tell them to "deal with it" or do you take them to the hospital?



Quote: Thirdly, what gives parents the right to decide how their children would look? Parents make crap choices all the damn time. What happens when they get bored of their blue eyed blonde hair baby girl? Feed her another pill to change it all so they remain interested?


If parents want to f**k up their childrens' lives, they can anyway. Besides, if it worked like you said, the kids could always change it back when they were 18.



Quote: It would be another example of the church of the self winning out over basic grubby mucky humanity.


OH NOES! People are getting the idea that a practice with tangible, real benefits is superior to a vague, baseless idea (humanity).

Tell me how "humanity" helps me in any way.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Green wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course I would engineer a child, and so will most of the people of the future.

Ok, I admit it, I agree with Genetic Engineering, only if everybody gets it, and not just half or one third.

Oh and btw, somebody will get born the natrual way, and they may be opressed, because no matter how hard they work, they will always be inferior.

Naturally only the rich will be able to genetically engineer their children, it is expensive.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Green wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Highly doubtful.

By the time we are good enough at such genetic engineering, it will be so cheap/easy to do that it will not really be out of the price range of anyone. s**t, they'll be like vaccinations.


Of course people born the natural way would be at a big disadvantage in life, but then again, it's the same thing with diseases, etc. People born naturally will still be able to function in the real world.



And I am doubting this "being oppressed" bulls**t. Being born naturally when your neighbor was engineered to have great intelligence would be similar to a retarded kid vs a regular kid. We haven't put retards in forced labor camps yet.

No, but we deny them jobs.

Some jobs. There are also government programs to help them, and they can generally survive without having to work. The same is not true of those who are not retarded. Making the non-genetically engineered into a protected minority might not be so bad.

[Demonic Spoon]

How is it expensive? It's actually a very simple process.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Demonic Spoon wrote: How is it expensive? It's actually a very simple process.

Simple maybe, but not cheap. And not so simple either as far as engineering for higher intelligence, higher sociability, etc.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Wish I was born 100 years later. I am f***ing ugly :lol:

Take heart, Spoon, Abraham Lincoln was ugly too, beauty isn't always an asset and ugly isn't always a detriment. For instance I like men for who they are not what they look like--I'll take an ugly angel over a foxy scumbag any day.

[Bolshevik]

What if he turns out to be some kind of angelic scumbag?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Demonic Spoon wrote: And I am doubting this "being oppressed" bulls**t. Being born naturally when your neighbor was engineered to have great intelligence would be similar to a retarded kid vs a regular kid. We haven't put retards in forced labor camps yet.

How elegantly and sensitively put, Spoon, you have a real way with words. Actually, mentally challenged people have historically been abused terribly, exploited, enslaved, institutionalized, chained in basements, confined in bedlam, or just killed outright. It is only quite recently, historically speaking, that there has been any concern for these unfortunate people.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Bolshevik wrote: Well, first off, it's definitely ethical to change the human genome. I would go for superhuman strength. And if I could rebuild my genes, I would add kahunas the size of grapefruits.

However, the gene pool would still need to be balanced out. You simply can't have a world without underachievers and morons. The easiest way to balance everything out would be to make 1 out of every 100 or so syringes containing these altered-genes; also contain the stupid gene. Let's throw muscular dystrophy in there too, for good measure.

Of course, superhuman genetic alterations should be reserved for military use only. Babies would have to be stolen at birth and forced into the military, then pumped up on superhuman genes their whole lives. It would also help if they were rabid.

The applications and possibilities are far, far too immense for me to explain in one post, but I think you get the jist of what I'm saying.

I do get what you are saying and I have to tell you that your syringe was that 1 out of the 100.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Bolshevik wrote: What if he turns out to be some kind of angelic scumbag?

There are no guarantees in life, so if that happens, then it's Adios, Tonto, and the horse you rode in on.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Simple maybe, but not cheap. And not so simple either as far as engineering for higher intelligence, higher sociability, etc.

Not cheap NOW, because it's a brand new technology. All we have to learn to do is to engineer intelligence, etc... Once we understand how to do it, it will be exceedingly simple and cheap. Please explain to me how replacing a few genes in a few cells is "expensive" Quote:

I do get what you are saying and I have to tell you that your syringe was that 1 out of the 100.

Flaming makes you look worse than the person you flamed.


Quote: How elegantly and sensitively put, Spoon, you have a real way with words. Actually, mentally challenged people have historically been abused terribly, exploited, enslaved, institutionalized, chained in basements, confined in bedlam, or just killed outright. It is only quite recently, historically speaking, that there has been any concern for these unfortunate people.
No moreso than any other group of people, I should have said.


Quote: Take heart, Spoon, Abraham Lincoln was ugly too, beauty isn't always an asset and ugly isn't always a detriment. For instance I like men for who they are not what they look like--I'll take an ugly angel over a foxy scumbag any day.

thanks, but I'm really not too worried about it. If I was really that concerned about my appearence, I would (well, when I hit 18) probably be spending thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgery. It's probably a good thing I don't care that much.

[Mare Tranquillity]

This discussion is really moot, genetic engineering will happen if our civilization lasts long enough. And just like all the other technological miracles we've learned to live with this one will have good and bad aspects. Greedy, fearful, and powerful people will abuse the technology and try to deny it's benefits to the rest while imposing it's detriments on the weakest segment of the poplulation. How long will it be before poor mothers are required to have their male babies engineered for soldiering or their females modified for servility and sexual attractiveness?

We can see this kind of abuse of power happening today. The idiot in the White House is blocking FDA approval of a successful new vaccine against cervical cancer because he says it may cause young women to experiment sexually. To promote his religious agenda he is willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of women to death by this terrible cancer. If you think that genetic engineering will not be abused in the same way, then you are incredibly naive.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Demonic Spoon wrote: I do get what you are saying and I have to tell you that your syringe was that 1 out of the 100.

Flaming makes you look worse than the person you flamed.[/quote]

Are you familiar with the term "hoist on your own petard"? Well, he was.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Mare Tranquillity wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Wish I was born 100 years later. I am f***ing ugly :lol:

Take heart, Spoon, Abraham Lincoln was ugly too, beauty isn't always an asset and ugly isn't always a detriment. For instance I like men for who they are not what they look like--I'll take an ugly angel over a foxy scumbag any day.

Ugly people stand out and are more likely to be noticed. This can be good or bad, depending on what you do with it.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
Simple maybe, but not cheap. And not so simple either as far as engineering for higher intelligence, higher sociability, etc.

Not cheap NOW, because it's a brand new technology. All we have to learn to do is to engineer intelligence, etc... Once we understand how to do it, it will be exceedingly simple and cheap. Please explain to me how replacing a few genes in a few cells is "expensive"

targetting the genes is a complex and expensive process, ensuring that additional genes are not cut out is difficult, creating genes period is currently expensive. Once genetic engineering becomes available it will start out as an expensive option, only available to the super rich and then slowly it will be developed until it is widely available. However, at that point, there will already be a few generations of genetically engineered children and an overclass will already have been created.

[Tepic]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: targetting the genes is a complex and expensive process, ensuring that additional genes are not cut out is difficult, creating genes period is currently expensive.
Coding mp3's is a complex process that would have been impossible 50 years ago...

Babylon_Horuv wrote: Once genetic engineering becomes available it will start out as an expensive option, only available to the super rich and then slowly it will be developed until it is widely available. However, at that point, there will already be a few generations of genetically engineered children and an overclass will already have been created.
But unless they use force to deny others treatment, the overclass could expand rapidly. Like the middle class after the industrial revolution. But I suspect our speculation isn't overly accurate, because we're calculating according to certain rules.

And genetic engineering changes those rules. It changes natural selection itself, probably the longest acting force on human society.

What is it that makes someone the child of another person? Why do people want the best for their children? Because selection favours genes which care for genes like themselves. (Perhaps a similar idea with memes - people try to instill their ideals in their children)

But if you change your children's genes - are they still your children? Does it matter? Maybe people will start looking past tribalisms, or classisms, and treat all members of the human race as fellow intelligent beings.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Tepic wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: targetting the genes is a complex and expensive process, ensuring that additional genes are not cut out is difficult, creating genes period is currently expensive.
Coding mp3's is a complex process that would have been impossible 50 years ago...

mp3's are a software issue. Computers used to be extremely expensive and used only by the upper class or corporations, I am sure the same will be true of genetic engineering
Quote:
Babylon_Horuv wrote: Once genetic engineering becomes available it will start out as an expensive option, only available to the super rich and then slowly it will be developed until it is widely available. However, at that point, there will already be a few generations of genetically engineered children and an overclass will already have been created.
But unless they use force to deny others treatment, the overclass could expand rapidly. Like the middle class after the industrial revolution.


Unless genetic engineering remains expensive by the standards of the underclass while becoming cheap to the overclass. This seems quite likely, not because they would be charged different amounts, but because the financial potential of the genetically engineered would be much higher.
Quote:
Genetic engineering changes the game. It changes natural selection itself, probably the longest acting force on human society. What is it that makes someone the child of another person? Why do people want the best for their children? Because selection favours genes which care for genes like themselves. (Perhaps a similar idea with memes - people try to instill their ideals in their children)

But if you change your children's genes - are they still your children? Does it matter? Maybe people will start looking past tribalisms, or classisms, and treat all members of the human race as fellow intelligent beings.

I think this is unlikely, I doubt people would choose to remove the genes that are responsible for genetic loyalties.

[Tepic]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: mp3's are a software issue. Computers used to be extremely expensive and used only by the upper class or corporations, I am sure the same will be true of genetic engineering
Yes, they were ... but not for long! And genetic engineering will be a software issue too, as I understand it. Fiddling around with genes will be the easy part; calculating which genes you want to fiddle around with will be the hard part.

Babylon_Horuv wrote: Unless genetic engineering remains expensive by the standards of the underclass while becoming cheap to the overclass. This seems quite likely, not because they would be charged different amounts, but because the financial potential of the genetically engineered would be much higher.
I don't know about financial potential - my guess is, one of the first things people would change would be intelligence. But intelligence doesn't always equate to material success ... scientists often earn far less than fast-talking salesmen :wink:

Babylon_Horuv wrote: I think this is unlikely, I doubt people would choose to remove the genes that are responsible for genetic loyalties.
Who said anything about removing? I think they'll just disappear naturally, since they'll be redundent. Because genetic engineering itself is the ultimate genetic disloyalty.

Genetic loyalty's harmful side can be seen in historical warrior tribes which pillaged and raped and spread their seed at all cost. Genetic engineering could allow humanity to step back and think - allow people to say "yes, I will have children, but not with with gene or that gene - instead I'll copy genes from that healthy person, and this intelligent person to give my children a better future."

Genetic engineering could replace the mantra "my genes for my children" with "better genes, in the aspects that matter, for my children". And that, thankfully, could be the death knell of tribalism.