[ExI] Limits of human modification

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

​>> ​
>> ​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.
>

​You are entirely welcome. ​Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

​
>> ​>> ​
>> 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,


In the USA the Federal Reserve is thinking about raising interest rates in
December, half the world's economists think that would be a wonderful idea,
the other half thinks it would be a terrible idea, there are Nobel Prize
winners on both sides and everybody is absolutely positively 100% certain
they are right. And you expect them to reach a consensus on the long term
effects on GDP of a genetic modification of the human germline?? There is a
reason economics is called the dismal science.

​> ​
> All economists will agree that cheaply eliminating e.g. childhood cancer
> will have a positive long term impact on net GDP per capita.


​Do all economists agree that forcing people to have stupider children than
what modern medicine would allow them to have will result in ​
a positive long term impact on net GDP per capita
​? ​


> ​> ​
> 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
>

​I agree, but the GDP depends on the economy which depends on the vagaries
of the natural world as well as the collective output of billions of
brains, the most complex object in the known universe.  All this makes the
economy rather difficult to predict, especially in the long term.  ​



> ​> ​
> Money is the language of truth. The objective test of the gene mod asks
> "What's in it for all of us?"


​I agree. So let group X decide to have stupid children and let group Y
decide to have smart children and let the market objectively decide which
group ends up with more money and if the statement "being stupid will make
you richer than being smart" is objectively true.


> ​> ​
> 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.
>

​Allowed? We're not talking about nuclear weapons with their huge isotope
separation factories, genetic engineering is getting easier to do every day
and will soon be done in individuals garage labs; so how do you intend to
enforce your reproductive edict worldwide? You must realize that the one
group or nation that is successful in defying your edict will be the group
or nation that inherits the future.

  John K Clark   ​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151125/12e3c54b/attachment.html>