• jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    13 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
      ·
      12 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
        12 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
          ·
          12 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
            12 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
              12 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
                ·
                9 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.

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

                  the cost. everyone gets everything, no stratified application. The only way to keep genetically engineered casts from developing due to this would be if everyone gets it. Similar thing with very advanced automation. Once the technology hits a certain point ownership has to be shifted to the public at large. If some ownership, and others don’t, for whatever reason, these technologies make a gap in power hitherto unknown. If the billionaire class exert outsized influence due to their resources now, then being able to simply decide how genetic engineering is used, or to own the machines that create almost all of our production, they will simply just be the god kings of an advanced tech era.

                  These types of things need to be completely socialized, no owners, no IP holders, no cost gates, etc.

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

                    Yes, I agree it should definitely be accessible to everyone. Just like any other kind of healthcare is already in my country. As for the cost, one could redirect funds from healthcare toward it. It should save money on healthcare in the long-run. At least, once the price is in the low-thousands of dollars, it should definitely balance out. It’s still on the order of usd$10k though at present.