Think Gene - Latest Comments in “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Samantha Parkington — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:47:56 -0000

A more intellectual individual is more likely to develop enough wealth to support themselves and take care of any life-threatening emergencies that may arise. This would have been a bigger deal in previous eras when threats were more common. However, in our current extra-safe society, this is not so much the case anymore. However, when space travel becomes easily feasible, it may begin to crop up again.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

SEO Services India — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:04:33 -0000

A larger investment means that the period and rate of childbirth will continue stratify by one’s desire to invest in themselves and their family —especially for couples without extended family support.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Vacations in Israel — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:00:45 -0000

This would have been a bigger deal in previous eras when threats were more common. However, in our current extra-safe society, this is not so much the case anymore. However, when space travel becomes easily feasible, it may begin to crop up again. Earth, by being a relatively closed system, has limited resources and can theoretically only sustain so many people.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Air Conditioner Prices — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:03:27 -0000

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Escape games — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:08:17 -0000

A more intellectual individual is more likely to develop enough wealth to support themselves and take care of any life-threatening emergencies that may arise.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

online games — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:16:57 -0000

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

auditions — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:44:47 -0000

Likewise, some children in family A get teen-pregnant and choose not to attend university like their parents. The net effect is that the ability and motivation to achieve intellectual pursuits increasingly necessary in our highly specialized society is biologically deselecting itself out of both families when compared to the total population.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Leaflet Printing — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:35:04 -0000

I tend to keep politics out of Think Gene, but I have bad news for the libertarian-leaning technologists of the Internet alarmed by the obvious asymptotic exponential limits in the human population function.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Gadgets — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:37:06 -0000

However, reproductive technologies will only exasperate that correlation because they make socially fit children more expensive

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Andrew Yates — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:26:36 -0000

Making genetic engineering "free" doesn't make it equally available to all people, though it may help amortize the costs. First and foremost is the decision when and how to participate. For example, birth control is "free," yet some populations continue to have unwanted pregnancies. Second, consider different levels of service. More comprehensive care may be more expensive than basic subsidized care, but further, genetic engineering of children is an extremely complex and emotionally engaging subject. Even if the exact same service was available to all people at no cost, some people will be more willing and more able to participate in the planning than others.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Mo — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:42:41 -0000

The solution is make it free. The only way to avoid stratification is to make genetic engineering freely available to every parent at no cost and to an extent it should be required in order to get rid of diseases. We should also redefine disease. Notice whenever one trait is deficient compared to another but the deficient trait is in the majority it's not regarded as a disease or disability. Instead the other trait is regarded as a gift. Why should percentages determine disease? Let's objectively define disease. If with available technology it could be better without diminishing another trait it should be defined as a disease and treatment should be required in the womb(adults on the other hand should be free to do what they want with their own bodies once gene therapy becomes effective on adults). There may be some tradeoffs and that's where the element of choice would come in. I'd expect that to lead to quite a bit of diversity, since there will probably be a lot of tradeoffs. But people's chances of success would become more equal. Choice would also come in regarding neutral traits. In the end we'd have a more fair society, since people's chances in life would be the same at birth. Some would fail and work at the bottom due to their own choices and some would succeed and make it to the top, but the important thing is it would be due mostly to effort since the genetic factor would no longer be an issue.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Andrew Yates — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:41:32 -0000

"Civilized" isn't a scientific term, but I specified "civilized" to keep my opinion to what I know: modern, urban, literate, specialized society. Start subtracting those traits and my thesis becomes less relevant.

I'm not going to name a specific nation because:
- it would provoke a potential opinion battle that's not relevant or interesting to my thesis and
- I don't have the concrete evidence to defend any such claim
- Naming a politically recognized state would be misleading since often many different social bodies that could be "nations" exist in a single state. For example, by "Americans," do you mean upper east side Manhattan? "Deliverance" rural south? The Bronx projects? A midwestern suburban housing development?

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

curious — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:20:03 -0000

" Face it, the trend in civilized nations is radical non-directed social stratification"

Can you give me an example of an uncivilized nation?

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Sciphu — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:11:30 -0000

No, you probably wouldn't have the same life, but that IMO is not the same as not having equal opportunity, a tougher route maybe, but still opportunities are not actively blocked by authorities. I think what you are arguing is a lack of equal possibilities (in the lack of a better word) or maybe a lack of equal access, in which case I agree, equality is an (undesirable ?) utopia.

That said, in contrast to US, Europe (and especially my region) is approaching equal possibilities too.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Andrew Yates — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:24:55 -0000

Not in America. I can't speak about attitudes in Europe, but I assume that they're not radically different.

You'd certainly get in trouble if you stated "people are not created equal" on the television news in the USA. Also, "equal opportunity" is silly, too. Something as simple as where you are born and raised clearly nixes that idea. Are you telling me that you'd have the same life in Concordia, MO as in Toledo, OH, as in Palo Alto, CA as in Manhattan, NY? Again, that people do NOT have equal opportunity is one of those "so obvious" things about life that it seems one can't think about it directly.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Andrew Yates — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:19:10 -0000

I don't know, this reads to me like the same "technology will save us" hopeful dodge. Extra-planetary colonization? Come on, bring it back down to Earth.

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Sciphu — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:01:09 -0000

"Face it, the trend in civilized nations is radical non-directed social stratification."

Is it ? I was under the impression that more and more people have access to education, - which means that more and more people have equal opportunities, which is what matters, - we moved away from "everyone created equal" some time ago didn't we ?

Re: “Genetic Engineering” will not “save” population trends

Me — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:53:06 -0000

The only way I see a counteracting trend happening is resources necessary for continued living. A more intellectual individual is more likely to develop enough wealth to support themselves and take care of any life-threatening emergencies that may arise. This would have been a bigger deal in previous eras when threats were more common. However, in our current extra-safe society, this is not so much the case anymore. However, when space travel becomes easily feasible, it may begin to crop up again. Earth, by being a relatively closed system, has limited resources and can theoretically only sustain so many people. The requirements to surviving in a extra-planetary environment requires careful management of resources and environment and a better intelligence. In short, once extra-planetary colonization because easily accessible, genetic evolution may turn back towards the evolution of greater intelligence.