Comment on Iron
Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoyes, I have been trying to express that what we have at the moment is not so much the problem as the advancement and what is to come. I am also not saying that we should not do these things, I am saying when do do them we must not allow it be controlled, via IP ownership, or otherwise, by a private entity. As things stand the medical industry holds far too much sway with their ownership of things people need to live, or live well. They are also actively working against social medicine, with a current focus on the UK, and a variety of developing nations. They should not be afforded the power imbalance such ownership allows them now, and as things like this progress, it will only make that power imbalance worse. Every technology is a double edged sword, and the more one affects society the more we need to prevent the cutting edged aimed at us. I could not dare to guess the ways in which we could be impacted by future technology, much how people in the 90s could not have envisioned the societal issues that are arising now, such as the loneliness epidemic, and the structural loss of actual ownership, or any rights to anything we have. Sure we had a pretty good guess that propaganda would run wild, and it has, but many other things that have huge impacts are things no one was thinking about even 20 years ago.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Well, I do agree we should completely rework IP law in general. But I wouldn’t want to delay progress in genetic engineering until we can restructure society. It’s important to improve the human condition, even if society isn’t able to allow equitable access to every technology yet.
Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Tell me, what exactly is the threshold where a private entity owning society directing technology crosses to where it should no longer have that control over it? Define when allowing technology to be privately owned goes from where we are, to “oh shit, they already have complete control”? Because I would prefer to restructure how ownership of ideas works before we have to destroy society in order to course correct.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Well, the current situation in the U.S. is pretty bad. But I’m happier that at least some people are able to get, say, insulin for their diabetes, than that nobody can. I would of course greatly prefer free or at least cheap access to insulin for all, but I would not press a magic button to remove insulin entirely in order to screw over big pharma. I know someone with diabetes – how could I say their life is not worth the cost to society that comes capitalists exploiting a monopoly on insulin?
Similarly, in the future, I hope to be able to say that in expectation somebody I know would have had down syndrome had it not been prevented by (the non-evil kind of) eugenics programs such as polygenics.
Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
So where is the threshold? Also, you are talking to someone who is likely to die from the government’s recent bill stopping the supply of medicine, and other treatment, I will need. This is the result of private ownership of the medicines, and machines, needed to deal with this, and their power to affect the government. So I am currently in the situation I propose will happen, in a much larger manner, in the future as these technologies develop, and society becomes more intertwined with it. So, where is the threshold were we stop this, and change our laws on owning ideas? I propose that we crossed it some time ago, and this shift into IP law is long over due. I would rather get this done earlier, rather than later, because the only thing that will happen is this dependency will grow. Your appeal to emotion with your anecdote about your diabetic will only worsen the type of situation I find myself in, as society becomes more dependent on the tech. The longer we wait the more catastrophic it will become due to pussy-footing around, and kicking the can down the road, as people don’t want to make hard decisions.