• jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    This is only because the word “eugenics” has been made a bad word because people assume that anything called “eugenics” must be similar to the horrible things the Nazis did. It’s the non-central fallacy – such things are eugenics only in the same way that Martin Luther king is technically a criminal (he did violate the law by protesting) or abortion is murder (a “human being” does “die”).

    Polygenic scoring on embryos is legal and eminently doable if you’re wealthy enough to afford it; it’s a very effective way to eliminate the risk of debilitating genetic diseases like Down’s Syndrome, and can greatly reduce the risk of things like Alzheimer’s or some types of cancer. It also can improve the IQ of your child by up to ~8 points or so, which correlates (plausibly causally) with higher education and income in life. So basically, it’s an effective way to help make your child more privileged. Right now it’s only affordable by the very wealthy though, but perhaps in ten years it will be very cheap.

    Notice though that it’s unrelated to race pseudoscience and murder, even though race pseudoscientists and nazis like to talk about genetics and IQ.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      jsomae, do you want Gattaca ? Because that’s how you get Gattaca !

      And next for sale we have this worker with very small hands, through multiple generation of human breeding we have developped this fine pure bred specimen perfectly adapted to reaching into tight spaces and machinery, its mind is docile and obedient and doesn’t get spooked easily by the loud sound of working high speed hydraulic presses. Very agile with tools and can read schematics but no artistic ability nor speech as a side effect of the genetic modification, on the plus side, they cannot form unions.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Gattaca is a great warning about what could happen if we have gene-elitism. If you’ve forgotten, the premise of Gattaca is that the main character isn’t genetically enhanced, but he’s still sufficiently capable; it’s only stigma, not an actual lack of ability, which is a threat to his career. We already live in a world where some people are privileged and some people are not, and despite this, there’s been a Black POTUS, women astronauts, and so on. That a lack of privilege is a barrier that can be overcome with hard work is basically central to liberal ideology; I don’t see it disappearing in the west any time soon.

        • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I think GATTACA is more a warning that gene editing will become a luxury of the wealthy, and inherently will be elitist, with no realistic way to separate the two. It will just become the new rich and connected qualifier, doesn’t matter the actual capacities of the people, the one with the money, and connections, will be much more likely to get the thing.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            In the USA, health-care is already a luxury of the wealthy. Perhaps if we improve the IQ of our population with free access to polygenic scoring and IVF, we’ll stop voting in lunatics who benefit the wealthy. :P

            Anyway, most medical advancements start out only available to the wealthy, and then trickle-down to the lower class. At least, that’s how it works in countries that have good health care, not so much the U.S. (despite the U.S. holding so-called “trickle-down economics” on a pedestal). Still, sequencing a genome cost usd$1million in 2000, but is now like usd$50.

            If polygenic selection follows the same curve as other genetic procedures and 25 years from now (that’s 1 generation) it costs $50, then I can’t really see it being something that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Why would somebody turn it down at that price, if they’re going to have a kid? It would surely save them money in the long-run, since it reduces the risk of disease.

            • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Yeah, you get the older, less advanced, gene editing tools, while the rich maintain their lock into the cutting edge. The new marker will be a combination of age and generation of genetic tech applied. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that make them better soldiers and laborers.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 hours ago

                Imagine somebody saying this about any other form of healthcare:

                “Yeah, you get the older, less advanced cancer-fighting drugs, while the rich maintain their lock on chemotherapy. The new marker will be a combination of lifespan and generation of hospital bed. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that only help cure diseases in soldiers and laborers.”

                Yeah! Legitimate points! I could see some forward-thinking philosopher objecting to the notion of health-care with ideas like this 100 years ago. And yet, I’m so glad we live in a world with healthcare so I am much more likely to live a long and healthy life, and I still have a chance at finding the right treatment for chronic pain. 100 years from now, we’ll all be grateful that we have genetically-boosted lifespans and intelligence and we don’t suffer from genetic diseases just because somebody objected, “but what if this helped the rich more than the poor?”

                • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  We need to make genetic modification something that isn’t gate kept by the rich. You might not think that horror scenarios where you will be genetically engineered to operate in a determined class/occupation, aren’t possible, or probable, but I do. Without having some sort of regulation forcing genetic engineering to be universally available to everyone, with no exceptions, I see this being a very strong risk for the long term.

                  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 hours ago

                    I’m not generally one to advocate for free-market capitalism, but in this case, I think you would need to explain to me why genetic engineering would be withheld from people given that free access would be more profitable.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Imagine if we got genetic engineering back when everybody inherited their parent’s job. People named Smith would look like dwarves.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Yes, most humans would be genetically designed living tools to serve the few real, pure bred, unmodified humans
          For them liberation would only mean death, not that they could imagine life in different way
          for copyright reasons, they would also all be sterile of course

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I find it surprising that you think the rich and powerful would not choose to genetically enhance themselves (their children) to be smarter, more attractive, etc. They would surely be the first to do so.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I don’t trust society to fairly give out any kind of health-related benefit. The USA just ended PEPFAR this year, condemning millions in africa to die of easily-preventable diseases. But you don’t see me protesting the very notion of medical science.

        • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Im seconding the ‘this is how you get gattaca’ comment.

          If i could crispr myself in my garage, there’s some shit I’d absolutely do right now. Like wonder when i got a garage.

          But we cannot, as a socisty, be trusted with this tech until the billionaire class are exterminated.

          If you want to have it and not have a dystopian nightmare shit show, get started on hunting the filth.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            I don’t really see why billionaires change the calculus. So what if they get slightly genetically superior children? They already have everything. As much as I want to tear down billionaires, I’m more interested in seeing the lower class be elevated than I am in not letting billionaires get further ahead.

            • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              You haven’t actually read/watched any of the media we’re talking about here, have you?

              Like, we could get the full ‘echopraxia’ dystopian suite if we arent careful.

              And with billionaires around, we can’t be.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Gattaca is one of my favourite movies. Is there another thing you’re talking about?

                • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  I liked the way posthuman society was portrayed in the ‘firefall’ novels, how fucking bleak and horrible it got, but omg.

                  Are you from the SF bay area? Is this the thing where you only ever got STEM education and now can’t like piece of art, even a dystopian one, without trying to make it real?

                  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 hours ago

                    I’m canadian. I have heard that san fran is Canada’s 4th biggest city by population or something like that, but no, I don’t live there.

                    Something I wonder is why people treat gattaca like it’s exactly and completely prescient, but at the same time have no worry at all about AI x-risks because “terminator was science fiction, so there’s nothing to worry about.”