Iron
-
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?
-
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.
the cost. everyone gets everything, no stratified application. The only way to keep genetically engineered casts from developing due to this would be if everyone gets it. Similar thing with very advanced automation. Once the technology hits a certain point ownership has to be shifted to the public at large. If some ownership, and others don't, for whatever reason, these technologies make a gap in power hitherto unknown. If the billionaire class exert outsized influence due to their resources now, then being able to simply decide how genetic engineering is used, or to own the machines that create almost all of our production, they will simply just be the god kings of an advanced tech era.
These types of things need to be completely socialized, no owners, no IP holders, no cost gates, etc.
-
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?
I'm canadian. I have heard that san fran is Canada's 4th biggest city by population or something like that, but no, I don't live there.
Something I wonder is why people treat gattaca like it's exactly and completely prescient, but at the same time have no worry at all about AI x-risks because "terminator was science fiction, so there's nothing to worry about."
-
the cost. everyone gets everything, no stratified application. The only way to keep genetically engineered casts from developing due to this would be if everyone gets it. Similar thing with very advanced automation. Once the technology hits a certain point ownership has to be shifted to the public at large. If some ownership, and others don't, for whatever reason, these technologies make a gap in power hitherto unknown. If the billionaire class exert outsized influence due to their resources now, then being able to simply decide how genetic engineering is used, or to own the machines that create almost all of our production, they will simply just be the god kings of an advanced tech era.
These types of things need to be completely socialized, no owners, no IP holders, no cost gates, etc.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, I agree it should definitely be accessible to everyone. Just like any other kind of healthcare is already in my country. As for the cost, one could redirect funds from healthcare toward it. It should save money on healthcare in the long-run. At least, once the price is in the low-thousands of dollars, it should definitely balance out. It's still on the order of usd$10k though at present.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Everyone else is thinking eugenics while I'm thinking about how birth control is a feminizing drug and this will be forcibly feminizing meth users, which is also a violation of bodily autonomy
-
This post did not contain any content.
Put birth control in ivermectin
-
Yes, I agree it should definitely be accessible to everyone. Just like any other kind of healthcare is already in my country. As for the cost, one could redirect funds from healthcare toward it. It should save money on healthcare in the long-run. At least, once the price is in the low-thousands of dollars, it should definitely balance out. It's still on the order of usd$10k though at present.
this is great if the IP holder continues wanting to play ball with socialized medicine
-
it is eugenicsy if people in power arbitrarily decide that all drug (only those that poor people use) users shouldn't breed.
I do think that people in objectively shitty conditions should wait to get better before having children. but straight up sneaking birth control in their drugs? that's eugenics,.give poor people access to free healthcare? that's better.
Put birth control in uncut Colombian coke, too.
-
Put birth control in uncut Colombian coke, too.
instructions unclear, I put birth control on coca cola
