Originally Posted by protonitron
The difference between image based merchandise (practically vital to capitalism) and being genetically modified is that you can't take away the genetic modification to see what lies behind it. It isn't haves and have nots anymore, something determinable by your own decisions in life, it is "are and are nots". It takes the effort out of self improvement and makes success (or more importantly the lack thereof) much more determinable before birth. It is possible that anyone who wasn't GM would be discriminated against based on the assumption that they are worse (although they are likely to be, there will always be non GM hard workers who are treated unfairly). And saying that the NHS could cover everyone is ridiculous, they can't handle organ transplants let alone genetic modification of the entire population. And ynvaser, humanity can move on without the weak dying, as long as enough people die we can keep advancing, it doesn't matter if it is just the weak.
By the way, I am a little confused as to what kind of genetic modification we are talking about here, could someone post some links or just explain it please.
Why does something taking more effort make it intrinsically better?
What about things like fitness, looks, hair color, laser eye surgery, education, travel, experiences, etc, there's many things that I'm sure you want to separate away from 'material goods' which can still be considered image based merchandise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
In short, the conversation seems centered around modifying the genetics of humans, eg to raise lifespan, IQ, health, etc.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
I just think humans are good enough already, sure disease sucks but I can't see a future involving GM where some people don't take it much too far. Gene pool based elitisism would really trouble me whichever side I was of it. I have nothing against removing or repairing the serious genetic defects of a baby, but being able to make them cleverer or stronger is far too easy to abuse. And you can use your imagination to work out how this could be abused.
Good morning sweet princess
Well, how about everything I've been arguing (social instability from new divisions) and Proto's "Gene pool based elitisism"?
I bet you could find dozens of sci-fi books/stories that delve into possible dystopic scenarios.
Like I said before, we don't know the impact this will have on society - we're all speculating. It's ridiculous to suggest that out of all the known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns, there will be no negative effects from gm.
I bet you could find dozens of sci-fi books/stories that delve into possible dystopic scenarios.
Like I said before, we don't know the impact this will have on society - we're all speculating. It's ridiculous to suggest that out of all the known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns, there will be no negative effects from gm.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Yes, what if they make people too clever or too strong?! What a horrible future!!
Sorry mate I don't see what you are getting at. What exactly are the terrible outcomes of such a scenario?
Originally Posted by Redundant
Some of social negative effects that come to mind are:
• Only certain groups of people are able to afford certain treatments, thus creating classes of people who are financially and biologically superior
• Once technologies become more affordable some companies could start selectively recruiting people with certain traits for certain jobs. That would mean that parents have to pre-determine the fate of their children in many instances by choosing which traits they want to give their children that a company might be interested in.
Some environmental problems:
• Same principle as genetically modified plants: They are made immune against certain pesticides, pesticides get applied, many plants and animals die, pests become resistant, new and stronger pesticides have to be made yada yada.
I don't think it would be beyond reasoning that the same engineering could ultimately be applied to cheap labour forces, thus creating the same vicious circle.
Once very advance, the technology could have another negative effect. Genetic engineering could potentially remove many genes from the genepool, thus making our species more susceptible for changes of the environment.
This. this is why it's a problem. Another thing that Redundant didn't mention that stems from the environmental problem: When those pests and/or diseases become strong enough to make the GM'ed people able to be sick again, these sicknesses will be lethal to regular humans. And if this moronic anti-vaccination movement goes any further and intersects with an age of genetically modified people, herd immunity won't help anyone.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
