[ExI] Agoragenics was Are we getting too blase

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Sat Oct 13 05:05:13 UTC 2018

BillW wrote:

>> I am but one voice among many but since you asked, I hope future people
>> will be EVERY possible way.
> That's what we have now.  And it includes many different kinds of mental
> retardation, hundreds of genetic diseases that prevent most of them from
> being 'fit'.

No it is not what we have now. Right now we have minimal choice: abort or
keep the baby. I am talking about the option to fix any such disease and
then optionally add in the genes for a tapetum lucidum or "eyeshine" so
that the baby can see in the dark as a bonus.

> Who said they had to be all alike?  Different jobs,different genetics. 
> And we are not going extinct now and won't unless we destroy our
> environment.

We could all become born again tree-hugging recyclers and an asteroid, 
gamma ray burst, or supervolcano could still end civilization as we know
it. Until we have a diverse portfolio of (exo)planets that we have
colonized, we are at risk of extinction in the long term.

>> As an alternative to eugenics, I would propose the concept of
>> agoragenics. That is a fancy Greek way of saying the "genetics of the
>> marketplace".  What genes and associated traits should someone have? The
>> most useful and valuable that they can afford.
> Ideally, all people should have access to genetic technologies.

There is no mechanism able to deliver beneficial genetic technology to
more people more efficiently than the free market. All it takes is skills
and lab equipment. Neither of those come cheap. So at first only the rich
will be able to afford it but given time, automation and economies of
scale will make those technologies as commonplace as automobiles or

>> No planning = chaos; poor planning = the Chinese effort to curb
>> population by making one baby all you can have.  We know what happened
>> with that plan.

Right. Plan all you want for you and your kids and support the right of
others to do likewise. But also support their right to plan differently or
not to plan at all.

>> Instead, we should allow maximal morphological and functional freedom by
>> whatever means possible and let supply, demand, and healthy competition
>> sort out the winners from the losers. And if that means that humanity
>> evolves into numerous different species, then so much the better.

> Again, that's what we have now.  Where is the role for genetic
> manipulation to increase fitness?

No again that is not what we have now. As the state of the art currently
stands, a woman who is a cell biologist with access to a lab could in all
practicality clone herself and give birth to her clone without violating
anyone's rights for less than a million dollars. The largest expense of
which would likely be the medical costs of fertility treatments, oocyte
extraction, and implantation procedures.

Yet to my knowledge she would not be allowed to do so at least not in the
US. That is the problem we face right now. Not a lack of planning by some
genetic politburo.

>> To try to stay as we are in a changing universe is certain doom.
> Good.  So let's decide what environments we want and bring them about,
> and design people to fit them.  Potential problem (among many) - someone
> gets less than the full load of IQ genes and asks why.

Blessed are the losers for they are the martyrs of evolution and the
fodder of progress.

>  So why not make
> everyone as adaptable as possible?   But maybe if you want math geniuses
> you might have to ignore some other factors, or even repress them because
> they would interfere with the person'a math

Exactly. It should be every parents's right to choose between giving their
unborn children math skills or athletic ability or both or neither and
simply rolling the dice.

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list