[greenrd]

New technologies face the same risk when unproven. Capitalism has a simple solution to that - people just stop buying them if they turn out to be worse than what was on offer before.

In the future, genetic enhancements will be available in a regulated competitive marketplace, and the ones that have unforseen bad consequences will fall out of favour.

[mantas]

What if some enhancement gets applied to (virtually) everybody and side effects are learned only when it's too late? Naturally there's a big, uncontrolled variety of possible changes and natural selection comes into play. Meanwhile gene editing is prone to become a monoculture.

[crististm]

Technology does not answer to questions about ethics. Technology dispenses with any value propositions.

Capitalism doesn't either. Capitalism answers to profits and not necessarily to _everybody_'s profits.

[mantas]

Technology doesn't have wide variance too. Thus it hinders natural selection.

[crististm]

How do you know your premise is true?

[mantas]

If gene A is applied artificially, it always gets applied. Or should we add rand() to ensure some sort of natural selection-like variance?

[crististm]

I have yet to see someone with a proven record of reading into the future.