Ethics of genetic engineering

[El_Machinae]

Unlikely to be true, Tim. Unless you consume only at the castaway level, you actually consume non-renewables without endeavouring to turn a portion of them into new production capacity. Limiting your consumption delays the onset of Peak Resource, and you can fit in more non-productives if they show restraint. But such a lifestyle doesn't build the new capacities to circumvent the natural barriers.

I mean, if you're going to be non-productive and turn your capabilities towards maximizing free time, I'd rather you not be resource-intensive (obviously). But wasted potential is wasted, if it's consuming non-renewables in the meantime. If you're destroying 160000 calories per day of fossil fuels, and returning nothing, those calories are still gone. The person who destroys 30000, but creates a 2% annualized return on that investment gets us out of the hole faster.

Uppi, if you've concerns regarding plasticity, you can actually proactively target it*. Like, spend a portion of your leisure time (or your leisure dollars) moving the ball forwards. Society is quickly moving towards needing on-going education, so keep an eye out how to augment those trends in a way you see beneficial.

*iirc, you spend a great deal of your mental energy pushing progress in other fields, so the 'you' is more generic in this case. Being proactive towards your concerns can be as simple as mentioning it and having good thoughts on it. This is especially true if the person has other fields of progress they're being aggressive with.

 

[Kozmos]

I know many people who's goal in life was to become not productive as early as possible, including myself. For any nation the freeing up of the wealth we have hoarded and the resources we continue to consume would be a blessing.

Well that's why we sterilize everyone with some way to reverse the procedure. The right to be a parent should be earned and allowed only if the global circumstances allow it.

Besides in the future...we'll be able to reprogram the 'unproductives'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well that's why we sterilize everyone with some way to reverse the procedure. The right to be a parent should be earned and allowed only if the global circumstances allow it.

Is there some connection here that I missed? What does people retiring have to do with sterilization? People have kids during their most productive years as a general rule. That has nothing to do with how much of their later years they spend being an unproductive burden. We successfully dispersed the burden of elders onto the general population rather than their own offspring a while ago.

By the way, if you want to talk about doling out the 'earned privilege' of being allowed to breed you are going to hit the most universal opposition possible on a single planet, so tread lightly.

EDIT for the ninja...if you want to 'reprogram' me I suggest you bring a lunch.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not trying to change you. Just disagreeing with your conclusions on what you're bragging about. You're going to live the lifestyle you choose, nothing I can do about that.

 

[Kozmos]

Is there some connection here that I missed? What does people retiring have to do with sterilization? People have kids during their most productive years as a general rule. That has nothing to do with how much of their later years they spend being an unproductive burden. We successfully dispersed the burden of elders onto the general population rather than their own offspring a while ago.

By the way, if you want to talk about doling out the 'earned privilege' of being allowed to breed you are going to hit the most universal opposition possible on a single planet, so tread lightly.

EDIT for the ninja...if you want to 'reprogram' me I suggest you bring a lunch.

Well longevity kind of implies we'll have to put the brakes on our reproduction. It also has to be the right kind of longevity, where people retain their capability to contribute to society.

I know my views are entirely reprehensible to majority if not all of the people, but I have always looked at the long game. Not just mere survival on the edge of existence for 8 or 10 billion people, but genuine prosperity for maybe 4 or 5.

No problem, we'll get some duck a la orange with sweet sour sauce and noodles while we both learn to love society. Maybe they'll even make us part of the same hive mind node

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not trying to change you. Just disagreeing with your conclusions on what you're bragging about. You're going to live the lifestyle you choose, nothing I can do about that.

What bragging was that, pray tell?

I'm just pointing out that since we live in a society that clearly honors the goal 'become unproductive' the extension of lifespan is not going to automatically turn the majority into virtuous former brain surgeons set on improving their communities.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well longevity kind of implies we'll have to put the brakes on our reproduction. It also has to be the right kind of longevity, where people retain their capability to contribute to society.

I know my views are entirely reprehensible to majority if not all of the people, but I have always looked at the long game. Not just mere survival on the edge of existence for 8 or 10 billion people, but genuine prosperity for maybe 4 or 5.

No problem, we'll get some duck a la orange with sweet sour sauce and noodles while we both learn to love society. Maybe they'll even make us part of the same hive mind node

We should perhaps have thought of that before we made the leaps of longevity that we have already made.

There is also a consideration you left out, which is willingness to continue to contribute to society...or even start. Very few people are actually motivated to contribute to society, no matter what they claim. Real motives are usually selfish.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, as automation increases we'll hopefully move towards an ever-better negative-income tax. Then people's contributions will mostly be on the Demand side of Creative Destruction.

Like I said, if an aspect of 'people can live longer' bothers you, tackle it. If your solution is 'culling', it's wrong and is showing a lack of imagination.

 

[Senethro]

No....

See when you are messing with peoples genetics you have to justify why you are doing so not the other way around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osWnzRHiWkY

You cannot remove peoples free choice to do so on the grounds of some thoughts are wrong ... Is Orwellian really you are tying instead of making incorrect thoughts impossible via making incorrect language impossible:

You are suggesting people be genetically altered to make bigotry impossible!

Uhhhhh, no? I never suggested that was a good idea?

 

[Kozmos]

We should perhaps have thought of that before we made the leaps of longevity that we have already made.

There is also a consideration you left out, which is willingness to continue to contribute to society...or even start. Very few people are actually motivated to contribute to society, no matter what they claim. Real motives are usually selfish.

Well our current leaps are mostly unintentional, a side effect of various aspects of society improving and lowering mortality rates.

I don't know man, I've met very few people are completely disinterested at improving their society and I've met almost zero people who are uninterested in improving their own situation. We know people can't empathize beyond their own surroundings so we structure society that they help regardless when they improve their own lot in life.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well our current leaps are mostly unintentional, a side effect of various aspects of society improving and lowering mortality rates.

I don't know man, I've met very few people are completely disinterested at improving their society and I've met almost zero people who are uninterested in improving their own situation. We know people can't empathize beyond their own surroundings so we structure society that they help regardless when they improve their own lot in life.

It's that 'improve their own lot in life' part that has gotten us into trouble. Basically, you have to convince people that what society needs them to do is somehow in their own self interest, which is generally speaking not true. Extending lifespan in the face of making it necessary to maintain the fiction with more experienced individuals is taking on a challenge I see no preparations being made for facing.

Whether the current leaps of longevity are intentional or not, the consequences of those leaps have to be considered if you are proposing intentional further leaps.

 

[El_Machinae]

Alternatively, you should think of alternatives if you're proposing deliberately allowing my parents to die of degenerative illness.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Alternatively, you should think of alternatives if you're proposing deliberately allowing my parents to die of degenerative illness.

There is a huge difference between "deliberately allowing" and "not preventing". I'm not even interested in preventing my own timely death, why in the world should I be motivated to prevent theirs?

 

[Kozmos]

It's that 'improve their own lot in life' part that has gotten us into trouble. Basically, you have to convince people that what society needs them to do is somehow in their own self interest, which is generally speaking not true. Extending lifespan in the face of making it necessary to maintain the fiction with more experienced individuals is taking on a challenge I see no preparations being made for facing.

Whether the current leaps of longevity are intentional or not, the consequences of those leaps have to be considered if you are proposing intentional further leaps.

No, lack of structure has gotten us into trouble. Everyone doing what they want resulting in numberless variations of tragedies of the commons. Existential concerns can be overridden with suitable methods, me personally I also don't have a strong attachment to living, but I am aware that can be easily changed by manipulating the brain for the long term or shallow incentives for the short term.

Sure, but I am certain we are more or less over the decision point. It has been decided for us. All we can do now is prepare and optimize for the future.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is a huge difference between "deliberately allowing" and "not preventing". I'm not even interested in preventing my own timely death, why in the world should I be motivated to prevent theirs?

Not a huge difference at all. There's a major difference between 'causing' and 'allowing', I'll grant

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm in NM and we gave up a lawn years ago.

I'm a pretty firm believer in accepting a natural life span, but wouldn't be opposed to expanding youth shortening old age. Say youthful vigor until 50 and then 20 years of middle age followed by DNA generated death about 80.

 

[Borachio]

That's pretty much what does happen for most people in the West now, I'd say. Most deaths are DNA generated one way or another.

 

[Farm Boy]

I am not saying we need to be faster. I am just saying we will be slower with longevity.

Fair enough. I'm not totally sure, but I can at least roll with the sentiment.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's pretty much what does happen for most people in the West now, I'd say. Most deaths are DNA generated one way or another.

Perhaps most are caused by things influenced by DNA, but I'd argue that the general trend is in the other direction - where before we'd shrug our shoulders and talk vaguely about 'old age' or 'natural causes', we're increasingly able to put a finger on precisely what's wrong, and often how to fix it. For a fair few people, dying of old age is almost a medical choice, as the decision is made that fixing every problem as it breaks simply isn't worth it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not yet, anyway. There's a lot we cannot fix, and the time we buy fixing the stuff we CAN fix might be incredibly costly. The intuitions change as we drop the cost of fixing things and as we grow the number of things we can fix.