Genetically Modified Babies Born

[Traitorfish]

Fair enough, but what is the functional role of a caste system? To assigns people to different groups of power and prestige - by birth. The quality of one's gene designs may accomplish the same thing. What differentiates this from today is that genes could set in stone what today is "only" a subject of general tendencies. But the ability to choose your own path is one of the key ingredients of our modern societies - at least as far as ideology goes. In light of that, I think it is useful to make the comparison to a caste system, as the defining element of a caste system for the individual - to be given a specific type of economic and social role by birth - would be recreated. But okay, I guess to just call it a caste system is some considerable inaccuracy for the sake of emphasize.

Well, if that's the case, I would argue that this is self-defeating. Firstly, if you start talking about "caste systems" when any halfway informed person knows that you mean something that doesn't resemble a caste system in the least, you'll just look ridiculous. You may as well call it "Nazism", for all the good it would do you. Secondly, by using a term which is so heavily associated with pre-modern societies, you construct the inequalities you want to address as extra-structural, a resurgence of a blearily-defined "Old Corruption" rather than a product of the structural inequalities inherited in capitalism, and so prevent yourself from actually addressing them in any coherent manner. It just becomes a protest against vaguely "feudal" Bad Things, which is no basis at all on which to built a political orientation.

Put bluntly, to the extent the usage is technical, it's wrong, and to the extent that it's rhetorical, it's stupid. There's no winning with it.

I see two reasons: (1) Current differences in gene codes and their effects may not reflect the potential artificial design entails. (2) Even if gene codes don't define one's abilities, they still define the possible range of one's abilities. In an highly competitive environment, that then can easily be the deciding factor, even though it is only one of many regarding the end result.
Think of it in the terms of marathon runners. Most people are no marathon runners. And even less are good marathon runners. And even less are wold-class marathon runners. Obviously, for a person to be come a world-class marathon runner, many factors have to be right. Having a gene code which carries the simple potential doesn't make you one.
But what happens to the role of genes in a highly competitive environment?
Here is an illustration. Kenyan runners have come to basically own the Olympic discipline of 3000-metres-steeplechase. This caused interest in the scientific community, and the latest info is that the Kenian runners have a genetic advantage, which allows their blood to carry more oxygen / to do so more efficiently.
Now imagine we could tailor our genes to other professions than winning Olympic medals. Imagine the impact this may have on the job market. And I don't think I need to highlight to you the high relevance of ones job regarding ones social standing in general.

Well, if you're just arguing that establishing a direct relationship between the socioeconomic status of one's family and the genetic component of one's potential, then I have no disagreements. What I would contest, as I said, is the idea that this is a new or alien phenomenon, and not simply an expression of the already-existing class structure. Like private schools or nepotistic employment practices , this would be just one of a battalion of methods the powerful use to give their offspring a head-start over the rest of us.

 

[Winston Hughes]

@Traitorfish

Please define every single word you use in every one of your posts. And the words you use in the definitions. And the words in the definitions of the definitions. Etc.

Alternatively, give up trying to channel Wittgenstein and Socrates at the same time. There is no argument that cannot be rendered meaningless by such an approach.

 

[Traitorfish]

I already said,

I'm sorry to keep doing this, but we really need to define our terms, here.

So a bit of good faith wouldn't go amiss, y'know?

 

[Akka]

So a bit of good faith wouldn't go amiss, y'know?

Hu, please.
Your speciality is to systematically avoid/miss the actual main points made and rather either derail the reasoning by going completely tangencial, or enter a meaningless battle of semantics.

So you really REALLY should not give advice about "good faith".

 

[Traitorfish]

If that's what you think I'm up to, then either you're misinterpreting me, or I'm doing it poorly. (Probably both.) What I'm after is a bit of clarity, which necessarily means hacking away at our preconceptions. In this case, it means confronting our preconceptions about how the subject is constituted.

If I do that poorly, then more fool me, and if you can't understand that, more fool you.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Traitorfish
It appears to me that your real concern is that the bad consequences of genetic design are supposed to be associated with current modern societal structures, rather than with those of a past distance. A motivation for which I think it is fair to assume that it stems from the contempt you hold for those societal structures. May I conclude then, that you, knowingly or unknowingly, try to deny the term "caste-system" its at least partial legitimacy because you fear it threatens your ideological stance?
But you see, what you assume as the idealogical implication of the use of "caste-system" (to distract from the already present woes of the current system) is not an assumption I actually shared or share. I don't mean to threaten your ideological stance. I can see where this perception of a threat is coming from, but please realize, that I come from a different direction.
However, that is of course just me making allegations, not actually arguing your points. And maybe I am just imagining things. So just take it as food for thought rather than an attack or rebuttal. I know get to your points.

Well, if that's the case, I would argue that this is self-defeating. Firstly, if you start talking about "caste systems" when any halfway informed person knows that you mean something that doesn't resemble a caste system in the least, you'll just look ridiculous.

If they just understand it as a means to illustrate a point (as it is meant), I don't think they will. The point being stipulated consequences of genetic design, meant to be highlighted by parallels to caste systems. And I strongly contest that to pick caste systems was arbitrary in that regard. That I could just as well pick Nazism or medieval relations of serfdom and landlord.
Let's examine again what I suggested as the possible consequence of genetic design as opposed to current conditions.

Let's start with current conditions:
Whatever you may think of modern Western societies, IMHO it is not just a fairy tale that everyone can achieve everything. It is a hyperbole to be sure. Not everyone can be a rock star, president, an astronaut or a millionaire. But everyone can successfully pursue virtually every profession which isn't limited to a negligible small group. Everyone can travel virtually everywhere and live virtually everywhere if it is really desired. It just doesn't come free, but requires sacrifice. And the level of sacrifice required is distributed highly unfair (for different levels of support and opportunities) - which makes our societies so unfair. But the basic possibility remains and is what characterizes and in terms of ideology legitimizes our societies. You may debate its practical weight, but I don't think you can deny its general existence.

Let's go on with the by me suggested impact of genetic design on current conditions: If, due to already present forces, as you correctly say - someone's genetic design would determine the profession one was suitable for, the individual would loose the ability to decide what profession to pursue. Its genetic design would. Consequently, the genetic design could also - on the long run - determine social prestige and determine the social groups one would belong to. Caste serves the same purpose. Just that in contrast to caste, genetic design can probably be savely assumed to be less consistent about this effects.
I think this lack of consistency is what causes you to reject my comparison to a Caste system. After all, as you rightly point out, our societies already do assign places in the social structure based on criteria assigned by birth in an inconsistent but present manner (causing in the statistical tendencies we can measure). That is - the family one is born in. Or more generally the race one has. The gender one has. Etcetera. But the point is, that all those factor only shape our frame of support and opportunity. They don't actually deny me any social positions outright (except the relative exclusive positions already mentioned above, and well, a lot of other stuff like exclusive private schools my parents can't effort or becoming a beauty queen if I am dead ugly etcetera etcetera - but I trust you get the point), they just determine how hard it will be. In the end it is still up to me to make a choice what I assign what worth and what I am willing to sacrifice for it.
If genetic design had the impact I suggest, this would not be the case. According to my design, I would be born into a given order of categories reserved for different qualities of gene codes I would be expected to subdue myself to. As in a caste system. No one expects to be a factory worker just because your farther was one, to not be able to do something else. Even though it practically will increase the likeliness of you not doing something else. But if your genes qualify for factory work above all else, this may be an expectation held and enforced by market forces. This is where the fundamental difference you miss becomes apparant. What today is a mere matter of likeliness and in the indivdual case subject to mayn varrying factors - above all your own state of mind (!) - would become a matter determined by the insutution of genetical design.

At last, why not call it Nazism, or a feudal system? Because we are not talking about a general relation of master and subdued and also not about a system of different values of human life in the sense of civil rights as in Nazism. We "merely" talk about a diverse structure of different classes of people, where merit decides about class membership and birth largely and directly decides about merit. I think this diverse set of classes assigned based on birth is what characterizes caste-systems in contrast to other social orders which assigned class based on birth.

But let me emphasize again that I recognize that caste-systems know other traits. I tried to pay tribute to that by saying defacto caste system, but it is fair enough that this was not enough. Social inclusion of those classes is after all not guaranteed by far by my scenario. So it is more about being a defacto caste system regarding specific dimensions. Such as profession.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Kozmos
Maybe you are right. Maybe I over-dramatize. But the thing: I don't think we can know. Because assuming that genetic design really is as powerful as I assert, I think that little moral concerns are save to not be swept away by its potential to enhance productivity and economic wealth (and means of physical violence).

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish
It appears to me that your real concern is that the bad consequences of genetic design are supposed to be associated with current modern societal structures, rather than with those of a past distance. A motivation for which I think it is fair to assume that it stems from the contempt you hold for those societal structures. May I conclude then, that you, knowingly or unknowingly, try to deny the term "caste-system" its at least partial legitimacy because you fear it threatens your ideological stance?
But you see, what you assume as the idealogical implication of the use of "caste-system" (to distract from the already present woes of the current system) is not an assumption I actually shared or share. I don't mean to threaten your ideological stance. I can see where this perception of a threat is coming from, but please realize, that I come from a different direction.
However, that is of course just me making allegations, not actually arguing your points. And maybe I am just imagining things. So just take it as food for thought rather than an attack or rebuttal. I know get to your points.

I don't think you understand me; I don't object to the term "caste system" because it "distract from the already present woes of the current system", I object to it because it seems to me a total misapprehension of how society actually works, and how social change occurs. My objections are theoretical, not ideological, and as much as they are in my case lent a certain weight by my belief that a clear understanding of how the world works is not just for academics, anyone with a handle in on sociology or social history would raise at least an eyebrow at this stuff. You'll note that Ajidica, no dyed-in-the-wool class warrior, already wrote this off as "bad cyperpunk" pages ago.

If they just understand it as a means to illustrate a point (as it is meant), I don't think they will. The point being stipulated consequences of genetic design, meant to be highlighted by parallels to caste systems. And I strongly contest that to pick caste systems was arbitrary in that regard. That I could just as well pick Nazism or medieval relations of serfdom and landlord.
Let's examine again what I suggested as the possible consequence of genetic design as opposed to current conditions.

Let's start with current conditions:
Whatever you may think of modern Western societies, IMHO it is not just a fairy tale that everyone can achieve everything. It is a hyperbole to be sure. Not everyone can be a rock star, president, an astronaut or a millionaire. But everyone can successfully pursue virtually every profession which isn't limited to a negligible small group. Everyone can travel virtually everywhere and live virtually everywhere if it is really desired. It just doesn't come free, but requires sacrifice. And the level of sacrifice required is distributed highly unfair (for different levels of support and opportunities) - which makes our societies so unfair. But the basic possibility remains and is what characterizes and in terms of ideology legitimizes our societies. You may debate its practical weight, but I don't think you can deny its general existence.

Let's go on with the by me suggested impact of genetic design on current conditions: If, due to already present forces, as you correctly say - someone's genetic design would determine the profession one was suitable for, the individual would loose the ability to decide what profession to pursue. Its genetic design would. Consequently, the genetic design could also - on the long run - determine social prestige and determine the social groups one would belong to. Caste serves the same purpose. Just that in contrast to caste, genetic design can probably be savely assumed to be less consistent about this effects.
I think this lack of consistency is what causes you to reject my comparison to a Caste system. After all, as you rightly point out, our societies already do assign places in the social structure based on criteria assigned by birth in an inconsistent but present manner (causing in the statistical tendencies we can measure). That is - the family one is born in. Or more generally the race one has. The gender one has. Etcetera. But the point is, that all those factor only shape our frame of support and opportunity. They don't actually deny me any social positions outright (except the relative exclusive positions already mentioned above, and well, a lot of other stuff like exclusive private schools my parents can't effort or becoming a beauty queen if I am dead ugly etcetera etcetera - but I trust you get the point), they just determine how hard it will be. In the end it is still up to me to make a choice what I assign what worth and what I am willing to sacrifice for it.
If genetic design had the impact I suggest, this would not be the case. According to my design, I would be born into a given order of categories reserved for different qualities of gene codes I would be expected to subdue myself to. As in a caste system. No one expects to be a factory worker just because your farther was one, to not be able to do something else. Even though it practically will increase the likeliness of you not doing something else. But if your genes qualify for factory work above all else, this may be an expectation held and enforced by market forces. This is where the fundamental difference you miss becomes apparant. What today is a mere matter of likeliness and in the indivdual case subject to mayn varrying factors - above all your own state of mind (!) - would become a matter determined by the insutution of genetical design.

Where did the bolded come from? I don't remember anyway ever agreeing that this was a reasonable scenario. What we agreed was that genetic engineering could have a malign impact on a meritocratic system of employment, so where does all this stuff about assigning peoples' status based directly on their genes come from? You're jumping straight to a dystopian hive-society scenario without covering any of the intermediate historical ground.

At last, why not call it Nazism, or a feudal system? Because we are not talking about a general relation of master and subdued and also not about a system of different values of human life in the sense of civil rights as in Nazism. We "merely" talk about a diverse structure of different classes of people, where merit decides about class membership and birth largely and directly decides about merit. I think this diverse set of classes assigned based on birth is what characterizes caste-systems in contrast to other social orders which assigned class based on birth.

But let me emphasize again that I recognize that caste-systems know other traits. I tried to pay tribute to that by saying defacto caste system, but it is fair enough that this was not enough. Social inclusion of those classes is after all not guaranteed by far by my scenario. So it is more about being a defacto caste system regarding specific dimensions. Such as profession.

Again, social stratification, even quasi-hereditary stratification, does not equate to a caste system. That specifically implies a society divided into hereditary and endogamous groups, explicitly defined as discrete and mutually exclusive (if not explicitly defined as castes, the Jim Crow South). Any realistic scenario lacks any of that, it merely has a quasi-hereditary system of stratification upon which it is possible, as in contemporary society, to impose certain largely abstract socioeconomic categories. Simply saying that "it fulfils the same purpose" isn't enough, because by that logic whisky is a de facto beer because they both get you drunk.

 

[Winston Hughes]

If that's what you think I'm up to, then either you're misinterpreting me, or I'm doing it poorly. (Probably both.) What I'm after is a bit of clarity, which necessarily means hacking away at our preconceptions. In this case, it means confronting our preconceptions about how the subject is constituted.

This doesn't wash. Akka's meaning was obvious enough, resting upon a web of conventional assumptions for which he is not obliged to provide detailed exposition every time he wishes to set out an argument. Demanding such represents a denial of his (and, by extension, everybody else's) ability to argue any point without being drawn back to the first principles of definition. If you wish to challenge the conventional bases of his argument, then the onus is upon you to set out both the definitions with which you disagree and the preferred alternatives. Only if you genuinely do not understand how someone is defining a term is it reasonable to ask them to clarify, and I don't believe for one second that that was the case here.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Where did the bolded come from? I don't remember anyway ever agreeing that this was a reasonable scenario. What we agreed was that genetic engineering could have a malign impact on a meritocratic system of employment, so where does all this stuff about assigning peoples' status based directly on their genes come from?

It is pretty easy. We already assign peoples' status directly based on criteria that is supposed to objectively measure merit. Notes in school, university degrees, different kinds of qualifications to able to do a job. But they all constitute measurements anyone can - theoretically - achieve. A gene code on the other hand is not something you can achieve, but something you just have. Thus if gene codes were designed and if it was efficient to tailor this design to more or less specific professions - a division of labor manifested on the genetic level so to speak - the nature and impact of merit would be a lot different than nowadays. What nowadays is swayed by some vague potential due to socio-economic factors, could be fixated by the concrete merit of a genetic design. And I think it is not far off to assume that such a new nature of merit would have significant consequences for other social spheres than the job market.
Consequences which overall - if no totally reflect - resemble the nature of a caste-system. And there the reflection is obviously not just about the purpose, it is about the way to serve the purpose and the degree to which it is achieved. Genetic design would likely fails to live up to the degree of being caste-like as an actual caste-system establishes, but the point is it would move a lot close to it than we are nowadays, and in case of profession maybe more than close enough.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Akka (saw your response just now)
You are absolutely right with the grave consequences genetic design can have. That environmental factors shape us doesn't change a bit that our gene code is what has the giant bad-ass lion-share in how we turn out. It is the range of our potential as I said elsewhere.
What I strongly object to is your objectification-argument. If I understood you right, it was about how to view humans as objects would change our emotional relationship to humans in a bad way. I argue that we can objectify humans for a given aim without loosing a healthy relationship to what it means to be human.
I mean - what does it even mean to objectify a humans? It means to view humans as a mere object. And what does that mean? Well, I would say that it means to reduce humans to a mere tool which is used.
In warfare, we objectify humans as targets, in economics, we objectify humans as means of earning money and so on.. We objectify humans if we transform them into a mere tool. I don't see it established how genetic design is supposed to cause that. Can I not temper with a human without objectifying this human or any humans in general? While a physician operates on a human, he arguably objectifies him. But afterwards he can still talk to him and treat and view him like a person.

- We're going to modify and alter the very essence of other people. Would you accept to have the way your mind or your body tempered by someone without having any say in the matter ? Because engineering a baby is just that.

I don't think I have a say as a baby because I am baby to begin with. I am not self-aware. I am not a person. Would I mind? Not in principle, no. I see also no reason too. After all, how I would have turned out without tempering would in the end be just a matter of pure chance.

- Again, we're going to "construct" people, according to our own view of what is good and bad. That's just a very unhealthy mindset. Again, you don't treat people like object, unless you completely cast aside any idea of ethics and morality.

Ah, the object-argument again.... What is so healthy about people being a product of pure chance rather than intention anyway?

- Even if we could agree on what would be "good", it would be with our human minds and limitations. How could we tell what someone made with a mind working in a different way than us would actually find it an improvement ?

What ever kind of state of mind we would create, the resulting person would only exist after having done so. Just as you can not wish to be a tree because a tree simply would not be you, this person could not wish to have another state of mind, because then it wouldn't be this person anymore. That is like not wanting to conceive children in the first place because you can't ask them if they want to live.

But I recognize all the practical issues with genetic design. We could easily create weird mutants which have a miserable existence. But well - if they don't want to exist, we can aways allow them to kill them self. Problem solved. At least they had a chance to exist, which is more than most persons have.

 

[Traitorfish]

This doesn't wash. Akka's meaning was obvious enough, resting upon a web of conventional assumptions for which he is not obliged to provide detailed exposition every time he wishes to set out an argument. Demanding such represents a denial of his (and, by extension, everybody else's) ability to argue any point without being drawn back to the first principles of definition. If you wish to challenge the conventional bases of his argument, then the onus is upon you to set out both the definitions with which you disagree and the preferred alternatives. Only if you genuinely do not understand how someone is defining a term is it reasonable to ask them to clarify, and I don't believe for one second that that was the case here.

Honestly, yeah, I'm going to cop to this one. If I had a point to make, I should just have made it, and spared everyone the bargain-basement Socrates act. It's impressing nobody.

It is pretty easy. We already assign peoples' status directly based on criteria that is supposed to objectively measure merit. Notes in school, university degrees, different kinds of qualifications to able to do a job. But they all constitute measurements anyone can - theoretically - achieve. A gene code on the other hand is not something you can achieve, but something you just have. Thus if gene codes were designed and if it was efficient to tailor this design to more or less specific professions - a division of labor manifested on the genetic level so to speak - the nature and impact of merit would be a lot different than nowadays. What nowadays is swayed by some vague potential due to socio-economic factors, could be fixated by the concrete merit of a genetic design. And I think it is not far off to assume that such a new nature of merit would have significant consequences for other social spheres than the job market.
Consequences which overall - if no totally reflect - resemble the nature of a caste-system. And there the reflection is obviously not just about the purpose, it is about the way to serve the purpose and the degree to which it is achieved. Genetic design would likely fails to live up to the degree of being caste-like as an actual caste-system establishes, but the point is it would move a lot close to it than we are nowadays, and in case of profession maybe more than close enough.

The bolded seems to be the heart of it, so: how? How do we get from an individual meritocracy, to a system of work-allocation based directly on ones genetic code? It's not enough to simply say that this is conceivable, you have to map out some route from here to there, and explain why this is a significant enough possibility for us to be concerned about.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Significant enough possibility: If a difference in genes can mean a difference between a potato and a human being, it seems only plausible that through further manipulation great potential can be unveiled. Further on, it to me seems equally plausible that this further manipulation would be most effective when specialized on economical valuable trades rather then some kind of universal super human. A simple matter of efficiency.
Route: Survival of the fittest. Like Japan was forced to either go with the times or be colonized, future groups of humans will have to move with the times or be subdued - only to eventually go with the times anyway. That is at least a theory plausible enough I think.

So no I don't think I need to map out some specific route. Especially as I am not saying "Stop genetic tampering - it will destroy us" or whatever, but am merely highlighting the long-term inherent threat this poses. Can I actually say how likely? Of course not. I don't have the hubris to believe in prophetic abilities I hold. I can from what I see merely ponder if there is anything which makes it particular unlikely and then speculate. I see no such thing, as survival of the fittest seems to be the most powerful source of change in the universe. In deed, I would say it is the prime source of change for anything. Just that survival must be understood as an abstract concept rather than the actual death of a life form.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Honestly, yeah, I'm going to cop to this one. If I had a point to make, I should just have made it, and spared everyone the bargain-basement Socrates act. It's impressing nobody.

Much respect for your humility and intellectual honesty here.

You are absolutely right with the grave consequences genetic design can have. That environmental factors shape us doesn't change a bit that our gene code is what has the giant bad-ass lion-share in how we turn out. It is the range of our potential as I said elsewhere.

Excepting outliers, the variance in potential of human beings as defined by genetics alone is rather limited. Every person cannot be a brilliant athlete or mathematician, but, assuming the requisite environmental factors, most people are quite capable of becoming very able athletes or mathematicians. And, crucially, we as a species do not stand to gain nearly so much from increasing the numbers of brilliant individuals as we do from increasing the opportunities for average individuals to reach their potential in whichever niches they find or carve out for themselves. From this perspective, the limiting factors are overwhelmingly environmental, with genetic differences playing a far less important role.

To my mind, the key danger posed by transhumanism lies in the tendency to regard genetic 'improvements' as having the potential to make the world a better place under their own power. There is no reason to believe that giving our descendents superior computational intelligence, improved physical prowess, or greater resistance to disease will result in anything more than marginal benefits to the species as a whole. We are already quite capable of surviving, thriving, and reproducing without any such manipulations. What it is quite easy to imagine them granting, however, is considerable competitive advantages to the descendents of those who can afford the best treatments.

Taken on its own, this expectation is merely an extension of our present tendency to reproduce de facto inequality. Where the transhumanist agenda poses a far greater threat is in the inherent assumption that those who receive the direct benefit from genetic modifications are not merely better for themselves, but are in fact better for humankind. This recreates almost exactly the underlying assumption behind traditional notions of de jure aristocracy - the rule of the best.

To be clear, it is not my intention here to argue against genetic manipulation per se. If directed to address specific problems resulting from particular iterations of the human genetic code, then the emergent technology has much to offer our species. The danger lies in assuming that certain aspects of our inheritance should be afforded a privileged status (intelligence being the most obvious and striking example), and misrepresenting the benefits to individuals as benefits to the species as a whole.

 

[GenMarshall]

So long as we don't start making designer babies, I have no issue so long as this process is used to root out inherited genetic diseases and that it's confirmed that the process is safe and hold no I'll effects to the human genetics.

 

[innonimatu]

To my mind, the key danger posed by transhumanism lies in the tendency to regard genetic 'improvements' as having the potential to make the world a better place under their own power. There is no reason to believe that giving our descendents superior computational intelligence, improved physical prowess, or greater resistance to disease will result in anything more than marginal benefits to the species as a whole. We are already quite capable of surviving, thriving, and reproducing without any such manipulations. What it is quite easy to imagine them granting, however, is considerable competitive advantages to the descendents of those who can afford the best treatments.

Taken on its own, this expectation is merely an extension of our present tendency to reproduce de facto inequality. Where the transhumanist agenda poses a far greater threat is in the inherent assumption that those who receive the direct benefit from genetic modifications are not merely better for themselves, but are in fact better for humankind. This recreates almost exactly the underlying assumption behind traditional notions of de jure aristocracy - the rule of the best.

Yes, you've convinced me that there's some danger from the "transhumanist" view. But, quite frankly, I think that most people regards them, and will continue to regard them, as quacks. People will want for their children individual advantages, or at least to avoid disadvantages. But I don't see that morphing into "eugenics episode II". Transumanists do believe that there can be "better" human beings, and would have such new humans put in a position of power. But they're a minority of middle-aged and old people clinging to pipe dreams in their fear of death. They don't even want such "improvements" for their children, they want some magic that would apply to themselves!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Excepting outliers, the variance in potential of human beings as defined by genetics alone is rather limited.

The natural variance.

 

[Winston Hughes]

The natural variance.

The artificial as well, unless we're talking science fiction here. When we limit ourselves to realistic terms, the debates to be had on this matter are concerned with relatively minor genetic tweaks, rather than the ascendency of MAN+. (The point of my post was that a preoccupation with the latter is far more likely to cause harm than good in this context.)

 

[El_Machinae]

The 'natural' variance of the nature+nurture combo is pretty strong, but it's got an amazingly long tail in the 'sucky' end of the spectrum. Using science to clip that side of things is certainly worth it.

 

[innonimatu]

I feel that I should revise my dismissal of the expectations for "transhumanism" as magic. It took well over ca century but some scientists are taking the first steps towards making the old "dr. Moreau" fiction conceivable. We're seeing no longer only a manipulation of DNA, but also a manipulation of morphology and physiology.

Will we be seeing furry functional and biocompatible manufactured replacement organs for humans some time in the future? Perhaps even better organs than the natural kind? Are the cybernetic expectations about to be surpassed by the bioengineering expectations?

I don't know, but I want to see it! However scary the consequences in dystopian scenariso, it is worth doing it for the possible good consequences!