Iron
-
jsomae, do you want Gattaca ? Because that’s how you get Gattaca !
And next for sale we have this worker with very small hands, through multiple generation of human breeding we have developped this fine pure bred specimen perfectly adapted to reaching into tight spaces and machinery, its mind is docile and obedient and doesn't get spooked easily by the loud sound of working high speed hydraulic presses. Very agile with tools and can read schematics but no artistic ability nor speech as a side effect of the genetic modification, on the plus side, they cannot form unions.
How bad could it be? Ethan Hawke succeeds in the movie even though he's got no real genetic qualifications.
-
Once again, the hypothetical that it's hidden, is only in your head, that sign doesn't say "hide birth control in meth", it's also fucking unrealistic, if it were to happen the only way it happens if it's legalized, controlled meth that has birth control added to it, or rather it could be that the users can get meth as long as they also take the birth control when they get the meth.
Also your worry about birthcontrol side effects with fucking meth users is goddamn laughable.
It's like going back to ww2 and telling the soldiers not to smoke because it's bad for their health, like the fucking bullets and explosives are way more detrimental to their health, don't you think?
These are all good points but they also apply to alcohol which is a hard drug and a teratogen (causes birth defects). I suspect that people would throw a hissy fit if this was suggested, yet it actually makes perfect logical sense. If meth comes with birth control then all known teratogenic recreational drugs should come with birth control, as no one should be consuming them while pregnant.
-
But the post does not say "sneakily". In fact, this could be a great anti-drug campaign, choose between having kids or drugs. Post also said meth, which makes me imply hard drugs only, not weed
If we are talking about hard drugs and teratogens then we should also add birth control to alcohol since it's a hard drug that causes birth defects.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I'm for this, not because I think they have bad genes, but because meth heads tend to make shitty parents
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
So this is like one or two steps removed from "sterilize people with ADHD lol." Kinda like RFK's super funny "work camp" idea.
Methamphetamine is literally still prescribed for ADHD under the name Desoxyn. Not as often as Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), etc... but it is.
-
jsomae, do you want Gattaca ? Because that’s how you get Gattaca !
And next for sale we have this worker with very small hands, through multiple generation of human breeding we have developped this fine pure bred specimen perfectly adapted to reaching into tight spaces and machinery, its mind is docile and obedient and doesn't get spooked easily by the loud sound of working high speed hydraulic presses. Very agile with tools and can read schematics but no artistic ability nor speech as a side effect of the genetic modification, on the plus side, they cannot form unions.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Gattaca is a great warning about what could happen if we have gene-elitism. If you've forgotten, the premise of Gattaca is that the main character isn't genetically enhanced, but he's still sufficiently capable; it's only stigma, not an actual lack of ability, which is a threat to his career. We already live in a world where some people are privileged and some people are not, and despite this, there's been a Black POTUS, women astronauts, and so on. That a lack of privilege is a barrier that can be overcome with hard work is basically central to liberal ideology; I don't see it disappearing in the west any time soon.
-
Yes, most humans would be genetically designed living tools to serve the few real, pure bred, unmodified humans
For them liberation would only mean death, not that they could imagine life in different way
for copyright reasons, they would also all be sterile of courseI find it surprising that you think the rich and powerful would not choose to genetically enhance themselves (their children) to be smarter, more attractive, etc. They would surely be the first to do so.
-
There are other hazards and i don't trust this society to deal with any of them in healthy ways.
I don't trust society to fairly give out any kind of health-related benefit. The USA just ended PEPFAR this year, condemning millions in africa to die of easily-preventable diseases. But you don't see me protesting the very notion of medical science.
-
Nah... just give it dash of ULTRA STRONG DOSE VIAGRA (or equivalent to it)
I mean, meth is already a powerful aphrodisiac
-
Gattaca is a great warning about what could happen if we have gene-elitism. If you've forgotten, the premise of Gattaca is that the main character isn't genetically enhanced, but he's still sufficiently capable; it's only stigma, not an actual lack of ability, which is a threat to his career. We already live in a world where some people are privileged and some people are not, and despite this, there's been a Black POTUS, women astronauts, and so on. That a lack of privilege is a barrier that can be overcome with hard work is basically central to liberal ideology; I don't see it disappearing in the west any time soon.
I think GATTACA is more a warning that gene editing will become a luxury of the wealthy, and inherently will be elitist, with no realistic way to separate the two. It will just become the new rich and connected qualifier, doesn't matter the actual capacities of the people, the one with the money, and connections, will be much more likely to get the thing.
-
I think GATTACA is more a warning that gene editing will become a luxury of the wealthy, and inherently will be elitist, with no realistic way to separate the two. It will just become the new rich and connected qualifier, doesn't matter the actual capacities of the people, the one with the money, and connections, will be much more likely to get the thing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]In the USA, health-care is already a luxury of the wealthy. Perhaps if we improve the IQ of our population with free access to polygenic scoring and IVF, we'll stop voting in lunatics who benefit the wealthy.
Anyway, most medical advancements start out only available to the wealthy, and then trickle-down to the lower class. At least, that's how it works in countries that have good health care, not so much the U.S. (despite the U.S. holding so-called "trickle-down economics" on a pedestal). Still, sequencing a genome cost usd$1million in 2000, but is now like usd$50.
If polygenic selection follows the same curve as other genetic procedures and 25 years from now (that's 1 generation) it costs $50, then I can't really see it being something that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Why would somebody turn it down at that price, if they're going to have a kid? It would surely save them money in the long-run, since it reduces the risk of disease.
-
In the USA, health-care is already a luxury of the wealthy. Perhaps if we improve the IQ of our population with free access to polygenic scoring and IVF, we'll stop voting in lunatics who benefit the wealthy.
Anyway, most medical advancements start out only available to the wealthy, and then trickle-down to the lower class. At least, that's how it works in countries that have good health care, not so much the U.S. (despite the U.S. holding so-called "trickle-down economics" on a pedestal). Still, sequencing a genome cost usd$1million in 2000, but is now like usd$50.
If polygenic selection follows the same curve as other genetic procedures and 25 years from now (that's 1 generation) it costs $50, then I can't really see it being something that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Why would somebody turn it down at that price, if they're going to have a kid? It would surely save them money in the long-run, since it reduces the risk of disease.
Yeah, you get the older, less advanced, gene editing tools, while the rich maintain their lock into the cutting edge. The new marker will be a combination of age and generation of genetic tech applied. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that make them better soldiers and laborers.
-
Yeah, you get the older, less advanced, gene editing tools, while the rich maintain their lock into the cutting edge. The new marker will be a combination of age and generation of genetic tech applied. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that make them better soldiers and laborers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Imagine somebody saying this about any other form of healthcare:
"Yeah, you get the older, less advanced cancer-fighting drugs, while the rich maintain their lock on chemotherapy. The new marker will be a combination of lifespan and generation of hospital bed. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that only help cure diseases in soldiers and laborers."
Yeah! Legitimate points! I could see some forward-thinking philosopher objecting to the notion of health-care with ideas like this 100 years ago. And yet, I'm so glad we live in a world with healthcare so I am much more likely to live a long and healthy life, and I still have a chance at finding the right treatment for chronic pain. 100 years from now, we'll all be grateful that we have genetically-boosted lifespans and intelligence and we don't suffer from genetic diseases just because somebody objected, "but what if this helped the rich more than the poor?"
-
Imagine somebody saying this about any other form of healthcare:
"Yeah, you get the older, less advanced cancer-fighting drugs, while the rich maintain their lock on chemotherapy. The new marker will be a combination of lifespan and generation of hospital bed. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that only help cure diseases in soldiers and laborers."
Yeah! Legitimate points! I could see some forward-thinking philosopher objecting to the notion of health-care with ideas like this 100 years ago. And yet, I'm so glad we live in a world with healthcare so I am much more likely to live a long and healthy life, and I still have a chance at finding the right treatment for chronic pain. 100 years from now, we'll all be grateful that we have genetically-boosted lifespans and intelligence and we don't suffer from genetic diseases just because somebody objected, "but what if this helped the rich more than the poor?"
wrote last edited by [email protected]We need to make genetic modification something that isn't gate kept by the rich. You might not think that horror scenarios where you will be genetically engineered to operate in a determined class/occupation, aren't possible, or probable, but I do. Without having some sort of regulation forcing genetic engineering to be universally available to everyone, with no exceptions, I see this being a very strong risk for the long term.
-
I don't trust society to fairly give out any kind of health-related benefit. The USA just ended PEPFAR this year, condemning millions in africa to die of easily-preventable diseases. But you don't see me protesting the very notion of medical science.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Im seconding the 'this is how you get gattaca' comment.
If i could crispr myself in my garage, there's some shit I'd absolutely do right now. Like wonder when i got a garage.
But we cannot, as a socisty, be trusted with this tech until the billionaire class are exterminated.
If you want to have it and not have a dystopian nightmare shit show, get started on hunting the filth.
-
Im seconding the 'this is how you get gattaca' comment.
If i could crispr myself in my garage, there's some shit I'd absolutely do right now. Like wonder when i got a garage.
But we cannot, as a socisty, be trusted with this tech until the billionaire class are exterminated.
If you want to have it and not have a dystopian nightmare shit show, get started on hunting the filth.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't really see why billionaires change the calculus. So what if they get slightly genetically superior children? They already have everything. As much as I want to tear down billionaires, I'm more interested in seeing the lower class be elevated than I am in not letting billionaires get further ahead.
-
We need to make genetic modification something that isn't gate kept by the rich. You might not think that horror scenarios where you will be genetically engineered to operate in a determined class/occupation, aren't possible, or probable, but I do. Without having some sort of regulation forcing genetic engineering to be universally available to everyone, with no exceptions, I see this being a very strong risk for the long term.
I'm not generally one to advocate for free-market capitalism, but in this case, I think you would need to explain to me why genetic engineering would be withheld from people given that free access would be more profitable.
-
I don't really see why billionaires change the calculus. So what if they get slightly genetically superior children? They already have everything. As much as I want to tear down billionaires, I'm more interested in seeing the lower class be elevated than I am in not letting billionaires get further ahead.
You haven't actually read/watched any of the media we're talking about here, have you?
Like, we could get the full 'echopraxia' dystopian suite if we arent careful.
And with billionaires around, we can't be.
-
You haven't actually read/watched any of the media we're talking about here, have you?
Like, we could get the full 'echopraxia' dystopian suite if we arent careful.
And with billionaires around, we can't be.
Gattaca is one of my favourite movies. Is there another thing you're talking about?
-
Gattaca is one of my favourite movies. Is there another thing you're talking about?
I liked the way posthuman society was portrayed in the 'firefall' novels, how fucking bleak and horrible it got, but omg.
Are you from the SF bay area? Is this the thing where you only ever got STEM education and now can't like piece of art, even a dystopian one, without trying to make it real?
