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.
Comments
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.