= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, 7-14 July 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Sometimes I've tried to argue in favor of eugenics. The usual response I got has been something like: "but what if we create a race of super-human beings that wipes us out?".
It's interesting that people are much more prone to believe it's possible to create unfriendly human super-intelligence rather than an unfriendly artificial super-intelligence.
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