Comments on: Genetic Enhancement: Hardening or Softening Inequality? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/genetic_enhance.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Nate Oman http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/genetic_enhance.html/comment-page-1#comment-47334 Nate Oman Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:48:40 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/genetic-enhancement-hardening-or-softening-inequality.html#comment-47334 I'm not sure why assortive mating is a more speculative concern than a Brave New World of genetically engineered hedge fund managers... I’m not sure why assortive mating is a more speculative concern than a Brave New World of genetically engineered hedge fund managers…

]]> By: Brett Bellmore http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/genetic_enhance.html/comment-page-1#comment-47333 Brett Bellmore Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:20:15 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/genetic-enhancement-hardening-or-softening-inequality.html#comment-47333 Of course, a key point is that the wealthy function as critical early adopters for new technologies: If you prohibit such advantageous techniques from being used unless they're available to everyone, they never will become available to everyone, because they'll die at during the period when only the wealthy could afford them. And the advance of technology, which will so immeasurably improve the lives of our descendants, crawls to a halt. We're already seeing this as a result of the FDA's ever more protective regulation of drugs and medical techniques. I think it's inherent in a rapidly advancing society that early adopters will accumulate massive advantages over late adopters. Especially when we get into genetic technologies, which aren't so much a matter of making sure children achieve their potential, (Subject to diminishing returns!) as increasing that potential in the first place. But that's just a normal process. Successful species become clades, why should we fear it happening to us? Of course, a key point is that the wealthy function as critical early adopters for new technologies: If you prohibit such advantageous techniques from being used unless they’re available to everyone, they never will become available to everyone, because they’ll die at during the period when only the wealthy could afford them. And the advance of technology, which will so immeasurably improve the lives of our descendants, crawls to a halt. We’re already seeing this as a result of the FDA’s ever more protective regulation of drugs and medical techniques.

I think it’s inherent in a rapidly advancing society that early adopters will accumulate massive advantages over late adopters. Especially when we get into genetic technologies, which aren’t so much a matter of making sure children achieve their potential, (Subject to diminishing returns!) as increasing that potential in the first place.

But that’s just a normal process. Successful species become clades, why should we fear it happening to us?

]]>