Comment on Iron
Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoYeah, 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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, are 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.