= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz 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)
I'm dubious about designer babies being an existential threat (is anyone arguing that?), even after they grow up. Designer microbes are much scarier.
However, one real problem might be just having more variation among people, and having to invent ways for them to get along well with each other, if this is even possible.
How about people who aren't susceptible to superstimuli? That could lead to quite a cultural divide.
As technology advances, I expect wars will get more devastating. So things that cause divisive conflict, e.g. trouble in the Middle East, will constitute stronger existential threats. I figure LW isn't well positioned to tug ropes in the Middle East, but there might be opportunities to gain leverage over designer baby related stuff if no one is paying attention because it's still decades out.
Interesting, want to elaborate? When I think of modern people who aren't susceptible to superstimuli, I think of Buddhist monks. It doesn't seem like they are causing too many problems.
The -potential- for war to be more devastating will increase (the link does a good job justifying this position, and there are other reasons to believe this), but this is not the same as war actually getting more devastating.
Sure.
I didn't think it out in detail, but it seems to me that people bond over superstimuli, so people who are immune to superstimuli and people who are subject to superstimuli will have a harder time feeling connected to each other.
I think it's more likely to be possible to create people who are immune to a list of superstimuli rather than people who are immune to all superstimuli.
People bond over strong shared emotions.
If you are willing to equate superstimuli to strong emotions then "people who are immune to superstimuli" are common -- we call them "depressed", "anhedonic", and "possessing a flat affect".
I expect that after an initial short transient, widespread availability of human genetic enhancement will lead to less variability rather than more: some modifications will be mandated by the law, other will be prohibited, and among those which are voluntary, most people will go for some popular set of modifications.
Increased variation could be possible if there is a high price difference between techniques (this could be caused by patents, for instance). In that cases, the rich will become superhumans while the poor remain unenhanced or only get basic enhancements. After some time, the rich and the poor could effectively become separate species.
It's hard to say because of advantages to specialization. I think it's very unlikely that you would be able to just get all the gains without trading off something in other areas. This implies (to no surprise) that people genetically specialized for a particular class of tasks will be superior at them. And this implies that people, given the chance, will genetically specialize. To what degree is an interesting question.
It can't actually - Medical patents are already borderline in terms of "political viability". A system of patents that gave the rich this kind of advantage would result in the end of patents. Heck, it is already law in many places that you cannot hold IP in human genes.
Perhaps. But never underestimate the political clout of the wealthy.
In this case they would have to change already existing law in a way that is blatantly against the interests of the majority and manage to do so it globally - because if any country defects from a policy of limiting top mods to the upper class, every country has to, or get buried 20 years later. This is not a winnable political struggle.