posted
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them". I think everyone knows who that was, hmm? Big hair, good at numbers.
He was right about that, about gasoline, tobacco, and nuclear waste. No doubt we would fuck up the future-genome if we changed our base genes now, without care, thinking in short-term as humans always have.
Of course, some scientists believe we have reached our peak at physiological evolution since we won't subject ourselves to the same obstacles as 1000 years ago. Other say we have a long way to go yet, it's a pretty big debate.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
eliminating deadly diseases will lead to overpopulation. By reducing the amount of suffering we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.
That same argument could be used to argue against helping hungry children in poor third-world countries. It's also the same argument that's lead to millions of cases of infanticide in China.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's a bit of a leap to say that the mere avoidance of overpopulation leads to Chinese infanticide. It's the cultural desire for male children in China that's the problem, and you can be sure that as genetic screening becomes more advanced, just being able to choose the sex of your children will become child's play (if you'll excuse the term) in comparison.
However, I agree with what Nimrod said - just with increased health care, and the ability to sustain life no matter what disabilities that life might have, is effectively removing evolutionary pressures. In fact, the way the world is going, it sometimes seems to me that humanity is actively breeding intelligence out of the gene pool.
posted
In the short term, anyway, this won't be an issue that anyone but the wealthy will have to deal with. If genetic tinkering/engineering becomes at all acceptable in the next few decades, it will only be available to the super rich. The children of the poor to middle class will continue to face life with genetic "impurities" for the next 30 to 60 years until the technology develops to the point of making it standard pre-natal care.
Now, I don't pretend to be a sociology expert or anything, so all of this, as usual, comes with a big ole IMHO attached to it.
posted
I'm not suggesting any of this is good or bad, by the way, which is why I don't think this is Flameboard material. Simply...inevitable. Beyond that, I personally see nothing sacred about evolution or our genetic code. Moreover, I think that when the issue is examined dispassionately, we would find that giving children benefits is almost always good, and denying them such is almost always bad. Making sure they have the best possible genome*, to me, seems no different than making sure they know how to read.
*: Of course, the real question is "What's the best possible genome?" Nobody knows. Yet. I'm not suggesting everyone rush out and start screwing around with their genes today. That would be both futile and suicidal. (And I'm not really suggesting anyone should alter their genes ever. Just examining the issue.) But just because our understanding of how genes work is limited today does not mean it will always continue to be so.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sol...I gotta ask.... what's the story behind the note that you link to in your signature...?
I don't necessarily believe that they're good or bad either. Trying sincerely to improve people's lot in life is usually a noble effort. However, I guess I don't believe that humanity will eve be able to apply it such a way that everyone will benefit from it fairly and equally.
posted
I came across the image in my daily trawl for unusual things, and thought it mindbending enough to share, albeit in an oblique way. Found Magazine contains all sorts of items people, well, found, which contain information no doubt very important to the people who first held them, but which is incomprehensible to the rest of us. I'm fond of that sort of thing.
As far as equality goes, I suspect there have been very few technologies or discoveries of any kind that have been applied fairly, and see no real reason why that should change in the future. If it makes us feel any better, I do think that it is harder to perpetuate such gross inequalities on an informed populace. I also think our track record of dealing with technology has improved over time, as laughable as that may seem. I'm a hopeless optimist, I guess.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Dealing with technology over time? I really don't think that it's improved THAT much.
Let's start with just you and me. I don't know that much about you, but I can assume that you own a computer. I own a computer. For some people, the Internet is now considered a basic staple of existence, for information and other material.
Yet how many people out there do not have a computer, have no access to the World Wide Web... and for that matter have yet to have sufficient shelter, food, clothing...
We have a long, long way to go.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
