[ExI] Limits of human modification

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:52 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> I think that the most appropriate test for permissibility of human
>> germline modifications should be a composite of predicted net impact on
>> social utility assessed by a subjective measure
>>
>
> ​In the entire history of the world the human race has never agreed on
> what is good and what is bad, and although CRISPER may change many things I
> doubt it will change that.
>

### Thank you for sharing this insight.

----------------

>
>
>> ​> ​
>> and an objective measure.
>>
>
> ​And of course there is no objective measure of right and wrong.
>

### Abstracting from your somewhat glib comment, GDP in the eugenic
permissibility test is intended to measure externalities. GDP is a good
proxy for the overall level of achievement of human goals under many
conditions, and by measuring impact on GDP we can say if a eugenic
modification provides tangible benefits or inflicts net losses on our
society. If the GDP impact of e.g. a new gene that enables underwater
breathing is positive, we should allow underwater breathing because it is
in our common economic interest to do so. By using GDP rather than
individual impacts we assure that the globally useful change is not
scuttled by special interests, in this example, makers of scuba gear.

GDP impact of a genetic modification allows us to translate the description
from the language of armchair philosophising ("right and wrong") into the
language of efficient action.

Money is the language of truth. The objective test of the gene mod asks
"What's in it for all of us?" and the predicted GDP change is the straight
answer.

-------------------

> ​Choose any 2 economists ​
> ​and they will give you 2 mutually exclusive ways that they insist is the
> one and only way to increase the GDP. And that is even without CRISPER.
>

### This is incorrect. There is a near-unanimous agreement among economists
on many fundamental findings of economics, although, obviously, we hear
more about the marginal issues that they disagree on. All economists will
agree that cheaply eliminating e.g. childhood cancer will have a positive
long term impact on net GDP per capita.
-----------------------


>
>
>> ​> ​
>> A first-generation IQ boost could become a net drag on the economy where
>> third-generation boost is needed for an entry job, so it might become
>> unacceptable.
>>
>
> ​
> And if one nation is able to prevent its people from receiving a IQ boost
> you can be certain that nation will soon be a footnote to history because
> other nations will not have such anti intellectual tendencies. But they
> probably couldn't enforce their
> Luddite proclamation because the children of those who went to the black
> market and defied their rulers edict would be smarter than those who
> followed the law and thus would soon be running the show.
>

### Your comment doesn't seem to relate well to the example I gave.

Rafał
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151124/9b0c4d23/attachment.html>