= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, 7-14 July 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (232)
Interesting. I've assumed that the big risk of eugenics (especially if it includes genetic engineering) is that people will choose something stupid and/or we'll lose too much variation.
Any thoughts about whether we'll converge on tall, blond, lean, hypomanic, and good at multiple choice tests with a sprinkling of people who look like celebrities, or instead have a wild explosion of physical and mental variation?
Huh, I've assumed that the big risk of eugenics is that the ability to reproduce will be used as a measure of social control and status by a not-very-deserving upper class, and will make a lot of people very unhappy. But with genetic engineering, yeah, we could avert that.
That depends on what genetic engineering costs.
Does it matter when in ~1 generation we will have the ability to redesign our bodies at will?
Eugenics is a 20th century concern.
Where do you get the 1 generation estimate from?
Kurzweil-like graphs regarding advancements in molecular nanotechnology, plus an understanding of nanomedicine.
What exactly is nanomedicine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanomedicine