this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
722 points (95.9% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
33710 readers
2752 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
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.