• StopTech@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      As well as the military contractors, insurance companies, big food, big media, big think tanks and consultancy, etc

  • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Transhumanity would be exciting if they had cool visions. I’d be all over raising a creche of draconic children.

    But no, it’s just rich people gluing a Palm Pilot to their cerebrllum or doing a dance to shoo away the reaper.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The overall goals of mind-controlling a computer and not aging are quite ok.

      They just can’t do anything good because of who they are. If those people set out to cure cancer, they will do that through a subscription service that require complete subservience.

      • StopTech@lemmy.todayOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I think they will give us the cancer cure which may even be cheap, but it will come with lots of other downsides for society and your individual physical and mental health. Technology is like black magic that solves the problem you asked it to but gives you a thousand new issues that end up being worse than the original situation.

  • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I don’t mind designer babies, personally. Hot people with fewer genetic disorders? Sounds alright to me. Though I’m worried our eugenic future might lead to diminishing gains in science.

    With all due respect to scientists everywhere, the fact that people look the way that they do certainly pushes some away from special interests like sports and interpersonal skills and instead toward producing nanosheets under specific constraints.

    • jws_shadotak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It will be used to separate the wealthy from the poor even further. The wealthy people will afford it and make their families healthier and better looking.

      I support the idea of eliminating genetic disabilities via gene editing, but the second you add in the option of picking eye or hair color, height, or skin color, you’re going down a path of eugenics that only works to put down those unable to pay for it.

      • StopTech@lemmy.todayOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Genetic engineering every little detail could become dirty cheap, but it will still be terrible for humanity because it will remove diversity, we’d be messing with forces we don’t understand that could lead to diseases or greater population-wide susceptibilities and the government would also like to have its say on how your baby is made so that they will be a good little order follower

      • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I mean, until costs fall, sure. Unless you project human society to fall within 40 years, it will eventually reach common use in modern countries. Workers with fewer sick days are a government’s wet dream. Though I’m also worried about us becoming the next walnut tree, if we accidentally open a vulnerability.

        I’m not going to weigh in on its use as a style decision. Hopefully a country with the ability to create a code of ethics takes the lead on the technology.

      • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Damn, man. I didn’t realize that designer babies, a developing field with only a few present applications, had already been set in stone. Evidently you got the dr Manhattan gene, given your foreknowledge.