In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical quandaries beyond "but, that's cheating!"
Or creating a permanent underclass from those who were unfortunate to have parents who couldn't or wouldn't give them the enhancements - and for that to carry forwards as jobs, and the wealth to advance your children, increasingly go to those who have been modified.
In effect, if you found something and it really worked, you might well lock a large portion of the population out of any realistic chance of meaningfully participating in the future.
(Though I suppose one might argue that this is the case now, with education and good environments going primarily to the wealthy. The difference would be in the degree to which the path was locked in.)
Sounds a lot like the plot of Gattaca, and I agree that would be an awful potential effect. I do not think it's insurmountable, however, and I agree that it's unfortunately fairly close to today's current class divide.
However, I don't think such a thing could happen "overnight" as you suggest. In order for those genetic enhancements to become commonplace they will need at least several generations of trials, especially to explore how various genes interact. This long process could well lower the barrier for the less privileged to participate.
The cost of a germ-line genetic enhancement is front-loaded on the first generation to get it. After that, the cost of sperm is incredibly cheap.
Newly-developed gene modifications will first appear in children of the wealthy. The sons of the rich will have plenty of one night stands. Many of them will be with women who have timed their ovulation and will collect the used prophylactics on their way to the bathroom. If you're poor, you just need to teach your daughters how to pick the right marks, and your grandchildren can inherit many of the traits that the rich are willing to pay for.
But this problem will only last a few generations due to purely technical limitations. The politics now will only determine whether gene modifications will be available on the open market or grey market in the future, because they will definitely be available on the black market and in the "secondary" market.
Who's creating any underclass? There's no reason to expect you won't just take a pill to change our eye color etc. It could be cheap and available. Not yet time to pull the emergency stop cord, because of imagined inequalities in a system that's not even been engineered yet.
Have you observed how the real world works? There are many diseases whose cures/preventions are "cheap and available" yet still continue to kill millions in the "underclasses."
GP made a fair point, and was not overly sarcastic.
EDIT: I appreciate the urge to have a kinder and gentler HN, but let's not start cluttering up threads more than we have to with references to the guidelines. It's meta, and meta kills.
Have you seen the unregulated medical systems in 3rd world countries? Easier access to antibiotics etc than in Malibu. Failure to cure diseases may be more about culture than price. Not warranted to jump straight to Gattica horror stories.
There are indeed many examples of this, especially in third-world countries ruled by dictators or superstitions, or a combination of the two. But that doesn't stop us from creating those cures/preventions for ourselves, because it's still the right thing to do.
We may eventually get through to them, at any rate. See Bill Gates and Polio vaccines, for example.
Hardly permanent, I'd say; eventually they would be outcompeted to extinction by H. s. mutabamus, in the same way H. s. sapiens (is thought to have) outcompeted neanderthalensis.
I agree. "Survival of the fittest" does not bode well for that underclass. At best they will naturally go extinct. At worst they will be exterminated or enslaved.
Comments
Or creating a permanent underclass from those who were unfortunate to have parents who couldn't or wouldn't give them the enhancements - and for that to carry forwards as jobs, and the wealth to advance your children, increasingly go to those who have been modified.
In effect, if you found something and it really worked, you might well lock a large portion of the population out of any realistic chance of meaningfully participating in the future.
(Though I suppose one might argue that this is the case now, with education and good environments going primarily to the wealthy. The difference would be in the degree to which the path was locked in.)
Sounds a lot like the plot of Gattaca, and I agree that would be an awful potential effect. I do not think it's insurmountable, however, and I agree that it's unfortunately fairly close to today's current class divide.
However, I don't think such a thing could happen "overnight" as you suggest. In order for those genetic enhancements to become commonplace they will need at least several generations of trials, especially to explore how various genes interact. This long process could well lower the barrier for the less privileged to participate.
The cost of a germ-line genetic enhancement is front-loaded on the first generation to get it. After that, the cost of sperm is incredibly cheap.
Newly-developed gene modifications will first appear in children of the wealthy. The sons of the rich will have plenty of one night stands. Many of them will be with women who have timed their ovulation and will collect the used prophylactics on their way to the bathroom. If you're poor, you just need to teach your daughters how to pick the right marks, and your grandchildren can inherit many of the traits that the rich are willing to pay for.
But this problem will only last a few generations due to purely technical limitations. The politics now will only determine whether gene modifications will be available on the open market or grey market in the future, because they will definitely be available on the black market and in the "secondary" market.
Who's creating any underclass? There's no reason to expect you won't just take a pill to change our eye color etc. It could be cheap and available. Not yet time to pull the emergency stop cord, because of imagined inequalities in a system that's not even been engineered yet.
Have you observed how the real world works? There are many diseases whose cures/preventions are "cheap and available" yet still continue to kill millions in the "underclasses."
This point could have been made without the sarcasm, please see guidelines on being overly negative: http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline
GP made a fair point, and was not overly sarcastic.
EDIT: I appreciate the urge to have a kinder and gentler HN, but let's not start cluttering up threads more than we have to with references to the guidelines. It's meta, and meta kills.
Have you seen the unregulated medical systems in 3rd world countries? Easier access to antibiotics etc than in Malibu. Failure to cure diseases may be more about culture than price. Not warranted to jump straight to Gattica horror stories.
There are indeed many examples of this, especially in third-world countries ruled by dictators or superstitions, or a combination of the two. But that doesn't stop us from creating those cures/preventions for ourselves, because it's still the right thing to do.
We may eventually get through to them, at any rate. See Bill Gates and Polio vaccines, for example.
Hardly permanent, I'd say; eventually they would be outcompeted to extinction by H. s. mutabamus, in the same way H. s. sapiens (is thought to have) outcompeted neanderthalensis.
I agree. "Survival of the fittest" does not bode well for that underclass. At best they will naturally go extinct. At worst they will be exterminated or enslaved.
Thus we see the moral trainwreck that is Social Darwinism.