this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
723 points (95.9% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
33862 readers
4154 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is only because the word "eugenics" has been made a bad word because people assume that anything called "eugenics" must be similar to the horrible things the Nazis did. It's the non-central fallacy -- such things are eugenics only in the same way that Martin Luther king is technically a criminal (he did violate the law by protesting) or abortion is murder (a "human being" does "die").
Polygenic scoring on embryos is legal and eminently doable if you're wealthy enough to afford it; it's a very effective way to eliminate the risk of debilitating genetic diseases like Down's Syndrome, and can greatly reduce the risk of things like Alzheimer's or some types of cancer. It also can improve the IQ of your child by up to ~8 points or so, which correlates (plausibly causally) with higher education and income in life. So basically, it's an effective way to help make your child more privileged. Right now it's only affordable by the very wealthy though, but perhaps in ten years it will be very cheap.
Notice though that it's unrelated to race pseudoscience and murder, even though race pseudoscientists and nazis like to talk about genetics and IQ.
jsomae, do you want Gattaca ? Because that’s how you get Gattaca !
And next for sale we have this worker with very small hands, through multiple generation of human breeding we have developped this fine pure bred specimen perfectly adapted to reaching into tight spaces and machinery, its mind is docile and obedient and doesn't get spooked easily by the loud sound of working high speed hydraulic presses. Very agile with tools and can read schematics but no artistic ability nor speech as a side effect of the genetic modification, on the plus side, they cannot form unions.
Imagine if we got genetic engineering back when everybody inherited their parent's job. People named Smith would look like dwarves.
Yes, most humans would be genetically designed living tools to serve the few real, pure bred, unmodified humans
For them liberation would only mean death, not that they could imagine life in different way
for copyright reasons, they would also all be sterile of course
I find it surprising that you think the rich and powerful would not choose to genetically enhance themselves (their children) to be smarter, more attractive, etc. They would surely be the first to do so.
Yes it does make sense that they would give up their identity, their being, their humanity just for a leg up to win a place in the machine, for a shot at running the machine, king of the shit hill, that does explain a lot.
I don't really get how you're getting all that from polygenic selection -- the current state of the art in legal eugenics. Polygenic selection is just like, choosing the best of n embryos; any one of these babies you could have conceived naturally, it just boosts the odds a little. Anyway, it doesn't affect oneself, only one's children, so nobody actually gets a choice, and nobody's identity can be given up. One's identity isn't formed until well after birth. What you're saying doesn't even make a lick of sense.
I wonder how many steps of this kind of seemingly banal interference before the humans that come out are as broken as your average pug. We easily have made human monsters in the past, like the Hapsburg and sure you'll say it's inbreeding but I say no, it's any long term act of human selective breeding other than natural sexual mate selection, uncoordinated beyond the individual level.
I just hope the human GMO monsters aren't allowed to commit some kind of genetic neo-spinal catastrophe on humanity by growing an extra finger or something. Anyone who understand the subtext of "xmen" should understand where that's going to go even in the best case.
How bad could it be? Ethan Hawke succeeds in the movie even though he's got no real genetic qualifications.
Ask Jude Law inside the incinerator how things are going for him
And astronaut boy is not going to be normal
after the surveillance state twisted him like a pretzel so he could avoid detection
Gattaca is a great warning about what could happen if we have gene-elitism. If you've forgotten, the premise of Gattaca is that the main character isn't genetically enhanced, but he's still sufficiently capable; it's only stigma, not an actual lack of ability, which is a threat to his career. We already live in a world where some people are privileged and some people are not, and despite this, there's been a Black POTUS, women astronauts, and so on. That a lack of privilege is a barrier that can be overcome with hard work is basically central to liberal ideology; I don't see it disappearing in the west any time soon.
I think GATTACA is more a warning that gene editing will become a luxury of the wealthy, and inherently will be elitist, with no realistic way to separate the two. It will just become the new rich and connected qualifier, doesn't matter the actual capacities of the people, the one with the money, and connections, will be much more likely to get the thing.
In the USA, health-care is already a luxury of the wealthy. Perhaps if we improve the IQ of our population with free access to polygenic scoring and IVF, we'll stop voting in lunatics who benefit the wealthy. :P
Anyway, most medical advancements start out only available to the wealthy, and then trickle-down to the lower class. At least, that's how it works in countries that have good health care, not so much the U.S. (despite the U.S. holding so-called "trickle-down economics" on a pedestal). Still, sequencing a genome cost usd$1million in 2000, but is now like usd$50.
If polygenic selection follows the same curve as other genetic procedures and 25 years from now (that's 1 generation) it costs $50, then I can't really see it being something that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Why would somebody turn it down at that price, if they're going to have a kid? It would surely save them money in the long-run, since it reduces the risk of disease.
Yeah, you get the older, less advanced, gene editing tools, while the rich maintain their lock into the cutting edge. The new marker will be a combination of age and generation of genetic tech applied. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that make them better soldiers and laborers.
Imagine somebody saying this about any other form of healthcare:
"Yeah, you get the older, less advanced cancer-fighting drugs, while the rich maintain their lock on chemotherapy. The new marker will be a combination of lifespan and generation of hospital bed. This is also considering that it will be a broad application of the tech that is available to the lower classes, not just things that only help cure diseases in soldiers and laborers."
Yeah! Legitimate points! I could see some forward-thinking philosopher objecting to the notion of health-care with ideas like this 100 years ago. And yet, I'm so glad we live in a world with healthcare so I am much more likely to live a long and healthy life, and I still have a chance at finding the right treatment for chronic pain. 100 years from now, we'll all be grateful that we have genetically-boosted lifespans and intelligence and we don't suffer from genetic diseases just because somebody objected, "but what if this helped the rich more than the poor?"
We need to make genetic modification something that isn't gate kept by the rich. You might not think that horror scenarios where you will be genetically engineered to operate in a determined class/occupation, aren't possible, or probable, but I do. Without having some sort of regulation forcing genetic engineering to be universally available to everyone, with no exceptions, I see this being a very strong risk for the long term.
I'm not generally one to advocate for free-market capitalism, but in this case, I think you would need to explain to me why genetic engineering would be withheld from people given that free access would be more profitable.
the cost. everyone gets everything, no stratified application. The only way to keep genetically engineered casts from developing due to this would be if everyone gets it. Similar thing with very advanced automation. Once the technology hits a certain point ownership has to be shifted to the public at large. If some ownership, and others don't, for whatever reason, these technologies make a gap in power hitherto unknown. If the billionaire class exert outsized influence due to their resources now, then being able to simply decide how genetic engineering is used, or to own the machines that create almost all of our production, they will simply just be the god kings of an advanced tech era.
These types of things need to be completely socialized, no owners, no IP holders, no cost gates, etc.
Yes, I agree it should definitely be accessible to everyone. Just like any other kind of healthcare is already in my country. As for the cost, one could redirect funds from healthcare toward it. It should save money on healthcare in the long-run. At least, once the price is in the low-thousands of dollars, it should definitely balance out. It's still on the order of usd$10k though at present.
this is great if the IP holder continues wanting to play ball with socialized medicine
are you this skeptical every time a new treatment for something comes out?
No, because very advanced levels of genetic engineering are unlike anything we historically have done, as is automation that basically replaces all humans as the general work force. They are not apples to apples comparable.
Though, I guess I do feel we are at the point where holding IP for medicine has become too empowering to private entities in general, and should no longer be allowed. However, advanced genetic engineering is a special case.
advanced genetic engineering would be cool but that's not what polygenic selection is. Polygenic selection just lets you roll the dice a couple times and choose the best embryo available (a typical number of embryos to choose from is, like, 5). It's the safest, babiest steps toward actual genetic engineering.
yes, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We should already change our laws on ownership. I'm not sure how it's possible that I'm saying "we should improve healthcare and also change IP laws" and you're hearing me say "IP laws are good the way they are." The U.S. is past the threshold already.
No, that is not what I am hearing, I am hearing "we should change IP law, but not if it interrupts development/production of medical tech"
I didn't say that at all. I never said those were mutually exclusive. You are the one who came along and asserted that medical advancements could only be made under current IP law.
That is also not what I said. Like, it is almost the opposite of my argument.
Okay, well, to be clear, my position is: let's do medical advancement and let's replace current IP law. Whether or not billionaires get a profit doesn't enter my calculus. I care only about improving the life of the lower class; redistributing the wealth of billionaires would definitely be good for that goal, but if there is something that benefits both the lower class and billionaires I will not reject it on the principle of not helping billionaires.
I do not believe that stripping them of IP rights can go off without disrupting the system in place. I am not saying we should never do anything again. I am saying we are going to have to shift ownership from the private entity, to the public. This will cause a lot of corporations to shut down, leave industries, etc. They will also use their ability to manipulate vital technologies, like drugs, and dialysis, etc., to cause pain in order to scare people into compliance with them. The longer we wait to stop them from owning everything, the more catastrophic this change could be.
So I think we agree?
There are other hazards and i don't trust this society to deal with any of them in healthy ways.
I don't trust society to fairly give out any kind of health-related benefit. The USA just ended PEPFAR this year, condemning millions in africa to die of easily-preventable diseases. But you don't see me protesting the very notion of medical science.
Im seconding the 'this is how you get gattaca' comment.
If i could crispr myself in my garage, there's some shit I'd absolutely do right now. Like wonder when i got a garage.
But we cannot, as a socisty, be trusted with this tech until the billionaire class are exterminated.
If you want to have it and not have a dystopian nightmare shit show, get started on hunting the filth.
I don't really see why billionaires change the calculus. So what if they get slightly genetically superior children? They already have everything. As much as I want to tear down billionaires, I'm more interested in seeing the lower class be elevated than I am in not letting billionaires get further ahead.
You haven't actually read/watched any of the media we're talking about here, have you?
Like, we could get the full 'echopraxia' dystopian suite if we arent careful.
And with billionaires around, we can't be.
Gattaca is one of my favourite movies. Is there another thing you're talking about?
I liked the way posthuman society was portrayed in the 'firefall' novels, how fucking bleak and horrible it got, but omg.
Are you from the SF bay area? Is this the thing where you only ever got STEM education and now can't like piece of art, even a dystopian one, without trying to make it real?
I'm canadian. I have heard that san fran is Canada's 4th biggest city by population or something like that, but no, I don't live there.
Something I wonder is why people treat gattaca like it's exactly and completely prescient, but at the same time have no worry at all about AI x-risks because "terminator was science fiction, so there's nothing to worry about."
Because ai bros aren't people anymore.
I've heard a useful explanation that a llm can't automate anything that isn't already like 95% no-human-in-the-loop already, and i find this is convincing. I think there could be a lot of humans who were already total (or very nearly) philosophical zombies; just zero critical thinking, zero interiority, zero understanding mother fuckers. Or just severed from anything important; idk. This shit must be rapturous to them.
But also that using this shit makes you stupid. Searching with it and chatting with it in particular. If thats true, something in their heads fucking d>es. Maybe it'll be recoverable when we stop subsidizing this crap and their chatbot waifu shuts down, maybe they're just soup-headed forever now. Idk.
Some combination of these things, and the aforementioned 'i read 1984 and was inspired to put cameras in your tv' bullshit literally every tech exec does compulsively.
Plus where the industry is, they're kind of jacking off to 'terminator'; they're very interested in edging skynet. One-to-many power is kind of their favorite thing.