[michaelt]

It's impossible to have a steroids-optional elite sports league because all the non-steroid-users would get outcompeted, effectively turning it into a steroids-mandatory league. Either everyone uses steroids or they're completely banned - there's no middle ground.

In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium.

The fear is gene edited babies would trigger the same effect: If I'm in my country's richest 3% and I know parents in the richest 2% are gene-editing their children to be healthier/smarter/prettier, can I afford not to do the same?

And we can't rely on national governments to provide bans - if I'm Country A's leader, can I afford to ban gene editing if our rival, Country B, is making full use of it?

[Hermel]

I see the problem with steroids in sports. They are unhealthy and sports is a zero-sum game.

But what's the problem with manipulating people to be healthier, smarter and more attractive? Wouldn't that improve the world? Everyone benefits if humankind becomes less dumb.

[michaelt]

Well, this is all very hypothetical stuff. There might be no downsides at all! Hell, if I could safely make my future children 6 inches taller and 20 IQ points smarter, I'd do it.

But many people have imagined dystopian consequences - creation of a lifelong underclass; negative side-effects that take decades to manifest; having big corporations and government gatekeeping conception; monoculture and loss of genetic diversity; what would become of us pre-editing humans; impact of state control of genetically-predicated personality traits; and so on.

[wincy]

The movie GATTACA comes to mind which, while fictional raises some interesting ethical questions.

[zbrozek]

I watched that movie and wished that I could have been the beneficiary of such editing. Once it's possible it seems obvious to want to do it. What's the problem?

[wincy]

I don’t have a problem with it, but certain worldviews would driving motivators in the world would be very upset about gene editing. Like imagine if in 50 years billionaires are biologically immortal. That’d be quite something.

[nl]

What about the countries, ethnic groups and religions that can't afford to edit the genes of their children.

Is their destiny to be out-competed by those groups with the best gene editing technology?

What if a particular highly effective gene editing technique is perfected and patented in country A and they refuse a license to country B because they are rivals?

What if in country Z only ethnic group X is allowed to receive the treatment?

[s1artibartfast]

What do you mean by out-competed? For humans, reproduction has very little to do with the traits that people might want to select for. Just about every group that could afford such treatment is already has a low fertility rate.

[wincy]

The Uber-Han has arrived.

[8note]

It's not like there's a fair competition between people today. The richest babies already have extraordinary advantages over poor babies.

It really just exposes that people in power don't want to make it obvious that they've got an unfair advantage, and that basing society off of competition is what's bad.

[eunos]

>The fear is gene edited babies would trigger the same effect: If I'm in my country's richest 3% and I know parents in the richest 2% are gene-editing their children to be healthier/smarter/prettier, can I afford not to do the same?

Can't you say the same about private school?

[bobthebuilders]

Isn't this the exact same situation with nukes? Why are we banning gene editing when nuclear proliferation is all but expected at this point? Is it because MAD does provide some stability, or because we're more used to nukes as a concept?

[zamadatix]

I'm struggling to see the similarities with nukes to the point I'm not sure what to put forward as a key example of why they are different. Following with your call out though yes, nukes stopped being something you could do to further your position and turned into something that is very negative for everyone's position a long time ago. Even before this point nukes seem like a completely different dynamic though, they only move you "forward" in use by moving the other side back making the average worse and you can't exactly use them against a section of a population rather other geographic groups as a whole.

The only similarity I can draw is that both have been restricted internationally.

[nl]

> when nuclear proliferation is all but expected at this point

The (pretty effective) nuclear non-proliferation treaty does beg the question here...