[tablespoon]

> I have seen Gattaca and don't find human genetic engineering to be horrific. It's cool and exciting that people will be able to have better children than they would have otherwise.

Did you even pay attention to the movie? The horrific aspect was the human genetic engineering led 1) to the the unengineered to be turned into an underclass that was blatantly and unfairly discriminated against, and 2) that same discrimination would be turned against the engineered if they had an accident that caused them to fall short of the expected perfection.

I have little doubt that the reality of genetic engineering (that was is effective as that depicted) would rhyme with that movie. It's also nearly certain that any such technology would not be distributed in an egalitarian way, so the sentiment should be more like "it's cool and exciting that [well off] people will be able to have [genetically superior] children than [the plebs]."

[o_____________o]

I understood the intention of the movie, but I'm also in the camp that thinks engineering ourselves is the way forward, and a given. Genetic and silicon advances have a real potential to make us super/transhuman and immortal.

> It's also nearly certain that any such technology would not be distributed in an egalitarian way

This argument could have been made about early computers as well. But time and its economies of scale come into play. We can't limit our species based on shortsighted fairness, there's a longer view to take.

[tablespoon]

> I understood the intention of the movie, but I'm also in the camp that thinks engineering ourselves is the way forward, and a given. Genetic and silicon advances have a real potential to make us super/transhuman and immortal.

Techno-optimism hasn't really panned out as promised.

And I really doubt it will be "us." If trans-humanism pans out (though I suspect it's bunk), we'll be the Homo erectus populations to their Homo sapiens.

> This argument could have been made about early computers as well. But time and its economies of scale come into play. We can't limit our species based on shortsighted fairness, there's a longer view to take.

Capital got automation from computers, the plebs got distraction boxes that push ads.

[o_____________o]

This response would have been perfect if you had signed off with "Sent from my iPhone"

[tablespoon]

> This response would have been perfect if you had signed off with "Sent from my iPhone"

Because it's a distraction box or so amazing that it shows technology should not be criticized and everyone who does is a hypocrite?

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Hrm. So what? How is that different from the uneven distribution of money/wealth/power/medicine/upbringing/private schools/university/"connectedness" today?

This will be just another currency. And there will be some flops, busts, unintended consequences. Just like with anything else.

Ist mir scheissegal!

[tablespoon]

> Hrm. So what? How is that different from the uneven distribution of money/wealth/power/medicine/upbringing/private schools/university/"connectedness" today?

Vague resemblance does not an equivalency make.

Right now, there may be an unequal distribution of wealth, etc.; but the wealthy by and large aren't actually better models of human. Genetic engineering has the potential to ossify that (both morally via "meritocracy" and physically) with biological superiority. It stops being Homo sapiens vs Homo sapiens, and becomes something more like Homo erectus vs Homo sapiens.

[sneak]

We have underclasses based on genetics now. Let's not pretend mate selection on Earth in 2022 is a meritocracy. It's mostly just racism, a slower form of deliberate genetic engineering of one's offspring.

If anything, this would increase the amount of opportunity in the world, as then your child could have whatever traits you (or your culture) deems superior. It would perhaps eliminate racism by rendering traditional race markers completely obsolete.