There was a call around here to ban AI research too. Maybe the reason we don't do new things is that we are too afraid. I blame lazy and unimaginative sci-fi plots among other things.
Genetics could improve the inequality situation too, but that would require challenging elements of our economic system which is off the table.
You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable.
Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way to give an investment to the children of the current underprivileged .
(edit: think about it this way -- health care costs are currently a kind of regressive tax, as it takes a larger portion of the poor's income than the wealthy. so anything to lower overall treatment costs will help reduce inequality.)
Your final point is brilliant. If the traits that give rise to higher income are heritible and are also largely the inverse of poor health traits, health care is indeed a regressive tax.
If that's the case, augmentation and genetics are literally the only technologies that could have a lasting impact on inequality.
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more well-educated are the fittest?
Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought experiments.
Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them, like minimum wage laws (first enacted to stifle competition), drug laws (first enacted on racist grounds to jail minorities), welfare laws (first enacted to segregate minorities in ghettos). But god forbid we blame the State, it must be a "social" problem...
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more well-educated are the fittest?
IQ isn't nature, IQ is a testing system. IQ is essentially a test of whether you have been given a high-quality Western education.
Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought experiments.
People's intelligence does vary, but not as much as you think it does. A lot of it, again, is down to education.
Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them,
The legal system does not exist in isolation. It is influenced by US society (which is oppressive towards black people).
I am more convinced of Dr James Flynn's arguments than yours regarding IQ because I have gone over some of his work, which contradicts what you are saying. If you point me to some of yours or your sources I'd take a look.
I didn't state that clearly. What I meant is the other way around-- that if people had more universal access to this technology it would be less likely to lead to greater inequality. This in turn would involve challenging our economic system.
I do think in that case it would be more likely to have a leveling effect, since it would be technically easier to fix problems or boost capabilities to high but normal human levels than it would be to try to go beyond normal human ability. At the very least there would be less risk of a runaway divergence if anyone could access this technology as part of normal family planning.
I agree that in our present economic system this would join elite schools and trust funds as another way generational inequality is perpetuated. IMHO we jump to banning because any economic change is categorically off the table. If these scientists instead called for universal access to any human enhancement technology, that would be crimethink.
I mean, really? Poverty correlates far more strongly with negative health outcomes, lower educational attainment, increased risk of incarceration, unhappiness, decreased life expectancy--you name it--than any known genetic risk factor.
So if everyone were clones that would not be enough equality for you?
How would you go about your further goals in this clone society? Constant monitoring of citizens, tracking their lives, measuring disparities in the short and long term and either awarding or punishing certain activities at certain times by certain people to make sure everything is equal to everyone?
Seriously, what do you mean by equality that the ability to choose one's genes wouldn't fix?
Haha. I sensed this thread starting to take a turn towards nutcase-ville... aaaand here we are. If you really believe that there is absolutely no daylight between a) lessening pervasive, endemic inequality that exists the status quo and b) "1984 with clones", well, that says a lot about you and your world view. #ocra
Before you think about the possibilities for improvement, just think for once that there be more depth to the topic of genes than we have fully realized.
Comments
There was a call around here to ban AI research too. Maybe the reason we don't do new things is that we are too afraid. I blame lazy and unimaginative sci-fi plots among other things.
Genetics could improve the inequality situation too, but that would require challenging elements of our economic system which is off the table.
How, exactly, could genetics solve inequality? It is a social problem.
You should question your assumption. While there is without question a social element, there is growing evidence that IQ is at least 50/50 heritable.
Not to mention birth defects and other genetic disorders which can only be kept under control now by people with enough money to get their kids therapy, rehab, etc. So in fact putting people on an equivalent genetic playing field is a great way to give an investment to the children of the current underprivileged .
(edit: think about it this way -- health care costs are currently a kind of regressive tax, as it takes a larger portion of the poor's income than the wealthy. so anything to lower overall treatment costs will help reduce inequality.)
Your final point is brilliant. If the traits that give rise to higher income are heritible and are also largely the inverse of poor health traits, health care is indeed a regressive tax.
If that's the case, augmentation and genetics are literally the only technologies that could have a lasting impact on inequality.
IQ is heritable because IQ selects for the well-educated.
Also, everyone is fairly similar in intelligence anyway. It is not for lack of intelligence that black people suffer in the United States.
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur. When did Nature decide that the more well-educated are the fittest?
Your second sentence is wrong. People's intelligence vary widely which is why some people can't even answer a hypothetical question and engage in thought experiments.
Black people suffer in the US because the US has a ton of laws that harm them, like minimum wage laws (first enacted to stifle competition), drug laws (first enacted on racist grounds to jail minorities), welfare laws (first enacted to segregate minorities in ghettos). But god forbid we blame the State, it must be a "social" problem...
IQ isn't nature, IQ is a testing system. IQ is essentially a test of whether you have been given a high-quality Western education.
People's intelligence does vary, but not as much as you think it does. A lot of it, again, is down to education.
The legal system does not exist in isolation. It is influenced by US society (which is oppressive towards black people).
I am more convinced of Dr James Flynn's arguments than yours regarding IQ because I have gone over some of his work, which contradicts what you are saying. If you point me to some of yours or your sources I'd take a look.
I didn't state that clearly. What I meant is the other way around-- that if people had more universal access to this technology it would be less likely to lead to greater inequality. This in turn would involve challenging our economic system.
I do think in that case it would be more likely to have a leveling effect, since it would be technically easier to fix problems or boost capabilities to high but normal human levels than it would be to try to go beyond normal human ability. At the very least there would be less risk of a runaway divergence if anyone could access this technology as part of normal family planning.
I agree that in our present economic system this would join elite schools and trust funds as another way generational inequality is perpetuated. IMHO we jump to banning because any economic change is categorically off the table. If these scientists instead called for universal access to any human enhancement technology, that would be crimethink.
No it couldn't, and in any case that are infinitely more direct and efficient ways of addressing inequality if that is truly your goal.
There are more direct and efficient ways of addressing inequality than genetically changing people to be equal?
I mean, really? Poverty correlates far more strongly with negative health outcomes, lower educational attainment, increased risk of incarceration, unhappiness, decreased life expectancy--you name it--than any known genetic risk factor.
Forgot an "almost". There are some terrible hereditary diseases. But the point remains.
So if everyone were clones that would not be enough equality for you?
How would you go about your further goals in this clone society? Constant monitoring of citizens, tracking their lives, measuring disparities in the short and long term and either awarding or punishing certain activities at certain times by certain people to make sure everything is equal to everyone?
Seriously, what do you mean by equality that the ability to choose one's genes wouldn't fix?
Haha. I sensed this thread starting to take a turn towards nutcase-ville... aaaand here we are. If you really believe that there is absolutely no daylight between a) lessening pervasive, endemic inequality that exists the status quo and b) "1984 with clones", well, that says a lot about you and your world view. #ocra
Before you think about the possibilities for improvement, just think for once that there be more depth to the topic of genes than we have fully realized.
I studied genetics, so yes I realize that this stuff is harder than we likely think and is not a panacea.