Ethicum colloquium, the thread on human conduct.

[JSGeneral]

There could quickly be a Gattaca style issue where society could be divided by "naturals" and "edits". But we have a long history of society having divides, often by power/money. This would probably just be another step down the same path...

I always enjoy reading your posts Dicknose--you are thoughtful, intelligent, and tend to be able to pare down exquisite scientific concepts and discoveries for the general populous (us) to easily understand and digest.

However, I think you missed the point of Gattaca.

In that movie, the true horror theme wasn't the division of "naturals" vs. "edits". Instead, it was the "edits" versus themselves! Each of them were subject to secretly DNA testing each other... seeing how "good" their genes were in comparison to themselves. Their job/profession was already determined by their dna stature... and how far they could go in that job (or in their life in general) was predetermined based on their DNA profile that anyone could access. And in this world of genetically enhanced/modified humanity, no one in that movie was happy.

I don’t agree with how this doctor went about it, but not sure I disagree with what he was trying to do.

In this real world case, all I think he was trying to do was just be THE FIRST. In that motivation, I disagree wholeheartedly with what he was trying to do.

[balki]

Where do you draw the line / where do cosmetic edits start?
Wanting a +6' offspring with a 6-pack sounds narcissistic, but their height and metabolism will very likely lead to a longer and healthier life. Same can be said about certain eye and skin colors being less susceptible to various cancers.

There could quickly be a Gattaca style issue where society could be divided by "naturals" and "edits". But we have a long history of society having divides, often by power/money. This would probably just be another step down the same path.

That's the problem, with mass automation and AI the divide may grow to an unprecedented gap.
Thorow in gene editing and that gap with expand even quicker and further.

[FaultyMario]

I have some ideas, but I think I need some reading, because my arguments are still gelatinous. For starters, I think that gene editing goes against the "all persons are created equal" bit found in liberal ideology.

[Crazed_Insanity]

In a world when all are literally created equally smart, tall, and beautiful/handsome..., relatively speaking, nobody will feel very smart, tall or good looking.

Indeed a recipe for unhappiness..., unless we can also genetically edit in happiness into our children...

Now, if gene mod is only accessible to the rich as Ivy league education, then yeah, gap between rich and poor can only grow wider and such society will only collapse faster.

These are only social issues assuming gene mod won’t result in any unforeseen genetic consequences...

[Cam]

Who sets and what would be the standards of a superior or inferior human? Would Stephen Hawking, arguably one of the most brilliant minds ever, yet suffered from a debilitating disease, be considered inferior or superior? If his genes were edited before he was even born, would he have been the same person?

[Crazed_Insanity]

Great questions Cam.

Who sets and what would be the standards of a superior or inferior human?

Depending on where you land on a curve. If you land somewhere below average, then you're inferior.

Would Stephen Hawking, arguably one of the most brilliant minds ever, yet suffered from a debilitating disease, be considered inferior or superior?

Both. So geneticists could fixed his disease because that's clearly below average. Whether if he'll have the time to think about the universe with a healthy body is anybody's guess.

If his genes were edited before he was even born, would he have been the same person?

Most definitely not.

[Dicknose]

However, I think you missed the point of Gattaca.

In that movie, the true horror theme wasn't the division of "naturals" vs. "edits". Instead, it was the "edits" versus themselves! Each of them were subject to secretly DNA testing each other... seeing how "good" their genes were in comparison to themselves. Their job/profession was already determined by their dna stature... and how far they could go in that job (or in their life in general) was predetermined based on their DNA profile that anyone could access. And in this world of genetically enhanced/modified humanity, no one in that movie was happy.

In this real world case, all I think he was trying to do was just be THE FIRST. In that motivation, I disagree wholeheartedly with what he was trying to do.

Thanks - very good point.
Yes I didnt want to get that far in the Gattaca example, it was more of a "possibly well known reference" rather than a best fit example - it can become an arms race! And in the movie that was used to control people (oh look, big brother manipulates!)
And that could be as big a problem as leaving the naturals behind.

This all could lead to much bigger differences between each of us than exist at the moment. We have just got to a place where we understand that "race" is a very flimsy construct and that we really are a big gene pool with some minor cosmetic differences. This could blow that all away and give significant differences.

What if at the extreme end, someone adds a gene that limits reproduction between naturals and the genetically enhanced. Basically creates a new species.
All well and good to "protect the enhanced from dilution" - but damn that would definitely be at the bad eugenics end of the scale.

Yes and I agree that this doctor was wrong, but it was HOW he tried to do it, rather than WHAT he tried to do.

I do think we as a society need to discuss these issues. But its really hard - often these sorts of discussions are shut down instantly as "nazi eugenics" or "playing god".
What if we could eradicate malaria or Alzheimers?

[Dicknose]

I guess "superior" would be chosen by the parents - since they are the ones likely yo make the choice.
Heck what if its not even gene editing, but simply embryo selection? Is that ok? What if they want to select sex of their child?

Stephen Hawking may not have had the same influence if he was "able bodied" - sure he had a huge disability but it freed him from teaching and gave him a level of novelty and fame that he may not have achieved otherwise. Not saying thats a bad thing, play the cards you have been dealt. But if he didnt have ALS he may not have had the impact on the general public. He may have actually achieved more in terms of science, but possibly a lot less in terms of bringing science to the general population.


Now just to throw a curve ball in here... at some point we will have AI that will out perform us. How do we stay relevant when we have created a new "lifeform" that is superior? Do we genetically modify ourselves improve, maybe even changes to help us integrate with it. This might still be hundreds of years away - but were will we be in 1000 years from now? (me - Ill be dead!)

What about potential immortality?
Ive heard it said thats its possible that a person alive today might be the first immortal being?
Ignoring "immortal" as forever - how about the first being to live say 200+ years. Could they be already be alive?
With gene editing we could possibly remove many cancer risks, fix dementia and other issues - what if the average lifespan goes to 100 and the oldest living to 150+? Sounds great in some ways, living healthy and mentally capable for and extra 30-50 years. But how does that help us when the 1st world is already suffering from a general ageing issue. Do we push retirement to 80, 90, 100? Fine for those doing white collar work they enjoy, but again a huge social disparity when you ask blue collar workers to keep working longer. And the longer they live the more likely they are to suffer from work place changes. Imagine living through the industrial revolution and the IT revolution!

Ah.. great topic - ethics of people, technology and the future!

[tigeraid]

You'd have to factor in that we'll soon be elbow-deep in the age of automation. So if, say, three billion of us live to 200, or even forever, then there isn't even REMOTELY enough paying long-term, livable jobs. Like, 90% of us would be unemployed.

As much as our current capital-obsessed society shudders at the thought, the reality is that we need to look at a "post-employment" society. It's a good thing, don't get me wrong--think of the creativity, think of the art and the innovation, that can potentially be unleashed when none of us CAN work for money. Star Trek here we come.



Or, post-climate change apocalypse and only the fabulously wealthy can afford immortality. Ala Altered Carbon.

[FaultyMario]

The edifice of capital accumulation is going to fall, eventually.

It remains to be seen in which way it'll topple.