= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Thoughts on minimizing designer baby drama - 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 (194)
If there a social consensus against designer babies they get outlawed.
Regardless of the law, would it be far-fetched to say that a certain percent of the population would be enhanced anyway?
In the beginning stages It's quite easy to write laws that make it a disadvantage to be genetically modified. Bruce Sterlings novel Distraction deals with the protagonist having a "personal background problem" because he's genetically modified in a world where that's outlawed. As a result he can't run for office and just do PR for a politician.
It's easy to write the laws, but it may be hard to enforce them.
It isn't easy to identify people who are just modified to be in the upper end of normal human capacities.
People normally have parents. It's easy to say when the genes of the parents don't correspond to the genes of a child.
Apart from that I think you underrate the ease of doing genetic engineering without leaving traces. Especially with a decade between the moment of birth and the moment that someone analyses the DNA for traces of manipulation.
Is there anything that would prevent that number from increasing?
Do people have really low amounts of libertarian-ish instincts to have at least some gray zone of "disliked but not outlawed" ? I guess cigarettes are in this zone.
Gradually in the process of moving into the "outlawed" zone.
Would you count "legal but with Pigouvian taxes on it" count as "libertarian-ish"?
Yes. At least a choice is offered. Current EU level taxes, although fairly insane (€3-€7 a pack on the average and without the taxes it would be under 50 cents), are still low enough to compete with the black market, the black market did not get very big yet. So this is more or less inside normalcy.
When a choice is not offered, such as the categorical ban of smoking at bars in most EU countries, the typical choices are to either to engage in something illegal and black-marketish, or to obey, and to obey has two versions, either to go there for a drink and not smoke, or to not go at all.
The difference between the two that the outcomes of the first are fairly calculable, predictable, and easily amendable. You can notch up a Pigovian tax until you notice the black market is too big of an annoyance, then turn it down a notch or two. The second option leads to unpredictable chaos, anything from bars closing down to public parks becoming impromptu drinking and smoking avenues.
So for the sake of a predictable order, it would be safer if bans would be replaced with special taxes that allow more granularity, such as allowing smoking in a bar that pays hazard pay and extra health insurance to the waitstaff. The market can price that in. While the non-smokers can enjoy lower prices in the smoke-free establishments who can compete better this way. Again the goal would be to fine-tune it until you reach a balance where both types of establishments flourish.
Now I realize there is something weird calling a plan that involves the governmental micromanagement of market libertarian-ish, but the point is it is still more so, still more market oriented, than categorical bans.
If you have a minimum wage, that might not work. What if the free market price of bar staff is $X per hour, the free market price of bar staff under poor health conditions is $Y but the minimum wage is greater than X and Y?
Also the legal use being restricted from more and more spaces.
Of course, the fully libertarian thing would be allowing the owner of each bar to decide whether or not to forbid patrons from smoking; allowing them would drive certain perspective patrons away and forbidding them would drive other perspective patrons away, and it is in the interest of each bar owner to figure out which ones outnumber the others.
I find that less Pigouvian and less libertarian-ish. Bit of an analysis here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/m6b/thoughts_on_minimizing_designer_baby_drama/cdfp
It is odd - I received this message in my inbox.
In the parent of that comment, is the little envelope green? If so, it means that accidentally or deliberately, you asked to be notified of replies to that comment.
Thank you. I mostly come here from my smartphone, and sometimes miss the correct buttons. Sorry for the trouble.
Don't focus on the abstract but on actual issue.
Given that I can't even legally grow genetically engineered plants on my balcony in most of Europe. growing genetically engineered humans is likely not something we will allow.
That's why genetically engineered Chinese will soon buy Europe and turn it into a theme park. With authentically unenhanced natives, no less.