aelf
Ashen One
Then you missed the context of the post, which was in reply to the argument that such a society wouldn't be fair as only the rich would be able to afford augmentation.
Hypothetical prodigy offspring - 1000$
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
Then you missed the context of the post, which was in reply to the argument that such a society wouldn't be fair as only the rich would be able to afford augmentation.
The technology is there regardless of your choice, if I understood the OP.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
No. I have nothing against genetic engineering to 'cure' fetus defects but I do with improving them to make them 'all smart'.
Living beings are meant to be a varied and diversified lot, some with more abilities, some with less. Genetic engineering of this respect only makes it blander. If all the rich and middle class families on earth create children with perfect athleticism, musical talent, brain power and so, it will make exceptional art and skill produced more unnoticeable. What becomes of Art if every child is a Van Gogh? Would beautiful works become mediocre? Will we stop appreciating great talent because there is so much of it?
The value of a degree in society has already dropped. Lets not do it with art and skill.
Children from wealthy families already have more access to better education, experiences and lifestyles. Families from other classes already have so much to compete against to try and rise to the top, for many, pure skill is the only thing they have that can use to out-compete the privilege. Do you want to take that away from them and worsen the position of the bottom classes by making talent a product?
Another thing is, when we speak of talent and skill, we acknowledge that this is something that is either earned through hard work or by lucky stars, a blessing. If we can bypass this then talent becomes less valuable.
In a world of super-humans, are the Olympics a competition of training and skill? Or a competition of who's family has the best genetic engineer?
In a more relate-able context, is a beauty Queen with plastic surgery, beautiful because she is? Or is she beautiful because the surgeon is good at his job.
Living beings are meant to be a varied and diversified lot, some with more abilities, some with less. Genetic engineering of this respect only makes it blander. If all the rich and middle class families on earth create children with perfect athleticism, musical talent, brain power and so, it will make exceptional art and skill produced more unnoticeable. What becomes of Art if every child is a Van Gogh? Would beautiful works become mediocre? Will we stop appreciating great talent because there is so much of it?
The value of a degree in society has already dropped. Lets not do it with art and skill.
Children from wealthy families already have more access to better education, experiences and lifestyles. Families from other classes already have so much to compete against to try and rise to the top, for many, pure skill is the only thing they have that can use to out-compete the privilege. Do you want to take that away from them and worsen the position of the bottom classes by making talent a product?
Another thing is, when we speak of talent and skill, we acknowledge that this is something that is either earned through hard work or by lucky stars, a blessing. If we can bypass this then talent becomes less valuable.
In a world of super-humans, are the Olympics a competition of training and skill? Or a competition of who's family has the best genetic engineer?
In a more relate-able context, is a beauty Queen with plastic surgery, beautiful because she is? Or is she beautiful because the surgeon is good at his job.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Is this supposed to suggest that it's happening frequently? Because it's a pretty different question, I think, if there are ten opportunities for this, compared to it being routine for 30%, or 70%, of babies.
Leifmk
Deity
No.
In fact I would rather have kids on the above-average to smart end of the normal scale, than on the genius part of the scale. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that an unusually high IQ rapidly runs into diminshing returns both when it comes to quantifiable success (academic, financial, etc) and when it comes to personal happiness.
In fact I would rather have kids on the above-average to smart end of the normal scale, than on the genius part of the scale. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that an unusually high IQ rapidly runs into diminshing returns both when it comes to quantifiable success (academic, financial, etc) and when it comes to personal happiness.
