= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dagon comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - October 2015 - 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 (114)
If genetic engineering proves effective and expensive parents should have the right to sign a contract binding on their future genetically engineered child which transfers a percentage of this child's future earnings to the company that financed the child's genetic engineering. Besides benefiting society by promoting genetic engineering, such contracts could be freely traded and would have a market price that would provide a powerful signal about the value of different types of genetic engineering.
What does "should have the right" mean? Should current parents who invest heavily in prenatal (or other pre-competence) improvements to a child have this right?
I'm generally uncomfortable with the idea of long-term contracts that don't have fairly clear termination options. I think people and cultures change too much over a few decades to have any clue what's going to be right for them (let alone others) in the far future.
And if you do include the standard options (primarily bankruptcy), it's pretty easy to game: declare bankruptcy immediately, before you have any earnings.
"Should have the right to enter a contract" means, generally speaking, that the legal system will enforce this contract.
People can enter into any contracts they want, the question is whether these contracts are enforceable.
In this case there is, of course, the issue of the contract binding a third party (the child).