I mean we’ve already started modern eugenics with gene therapies to cure genetic diseases and soon there will be services offering designer babies not unlike the movie Gattaca. Why would you not want to have your child’s IQ increased 20 points along with removing their asthma and near sightedness?
There’s no political system devoid of corruption and people willing to harm others to get what they want. We can prevent a lot of crime but we’re not preventing human behavior anytime soon. I mean we can but we won’t.
What is crime? How does it relate to undesirable outcomes? Why do you think laws, just threatening people and public punishment and awfulnes, are a good tool for anything you want?
Not even going to start on the ‘eugenics’. You get that gattaca was not a “we should do this!” Movie, right? Jesus buckets of frothy diarrhea Christ are you from fucking San Francisco or some shit?
It’s not always a crime necessarily but harming people to get what one wants is usually a crime. As for constraining human behavior there’s really only two tools, benefit the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don’t want. People will obviously be self interested and will sometimes cause a lot of harm to get what they want but they wouldn’t if they knew for a fact they would be caught and punished. It’s more so the likelihood of being caught than the punishment that’s actually the deterrent. You can have an extreme punishment for something but if it’s unlikely someone will be caught then they will take their chances. Downside is with a higher rate of catching bad behaviors we diminish privacy. An extreme would everyone being watched and recorded 24/7 would make it trivial to catch any bad behavior or crime but there would be zero privacy.
As for Gattaca,. I think it’s more so that they used it to differentiate society into two groups where one was treated very poorly more so than the gene editing itself being the issue. For sure we will cure genetic diseases and then move into grey area stuff like giving people perfect eyesight and so on. I think it’ll be far too tempering to make designer babies though, higher IQ, better looking (subjective), better physique, better health and so on. Of course anyone who’s ever bred animals knows you can breed them to constrain their behavior so one could theoretically alter humanity to be more compassionate and less of a jerk to itself.
The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.
You realize punishment is harm, right?
You understand nothing
I’m really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.
It’s all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that’s usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.
The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you’ve said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.
I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.
Where is he condoning these things or implying he doesn’t understand the things he’s describing? Reading comprehension bro.
Edit - oh he condoned it in the next comment. Yeah that’s stupid. He’s not wrong about gene therapy bring socially accepted eugenics though. Hell even genetic testing for pregnancies is eugenics if it results in terminating pregnancies due to various conditions. I don’t think anyone would argue in good faith that’s a bad thing though.
I’m not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It’s like the Gattaca example, I’m not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.
Okay but you get some of these things are like the core of the dystopianness?
Like reading diamond age and doing the ‘let’s make a pure ai kids toy!’ Or ‘I want a skull gun!’ Instead of any of the cool parts, when the book is exactly about how ‘this is dangerous/stupid/fundamentally evil/would suck’. You’re from the bay area, or work in tech. You have to be.
Also, we do not have parlor walls. How does someone get to be this stupid-evil and this confident in being stupid-evil? Like have you ever seen a torment nexus you didn’t want to stick your dick in?
I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn’t the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that’s not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I’m not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you’re free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I’m from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it’s essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.
I mean we’ve already started modern eugenics with gene therapies to cure genetic diseases and soon there will be services offering designer babies not unlike the movie Gattaca. Why would you not want to have your child’s IQ increased 20 points along with removing their asthma and near sightedness?
There’s no political system devoid of corruption and people willing to harm others to get what they want. We can prevent a lot of crime but we’re not preventing human behavior anytime soon. I mean we can but we won’t.
‘Prevent crime’
What is crime? How does it relate to undesirable outcomes? Why do you think laws, just threatening people and public punishment and awfulnes, are a good tool for anything you want?
Not even going to start on the ‘eugenics’. You get that gattaca was not a “we should do this!” Movie, right? Jesus buckets of frothy diarrhea Christ are you from fucking San Francisco or some shit?
It’s not always a crime necessarily but harming people to get what one wants is usually a crime. As for constraining human behavior there’s really only two tools, benefit the behaviors you want and punish the ones you don’t want. People will obviously be self interested and will sometimes cause a lot of harm to get what they want but they wouldn’t if they knew for a fact they would be caught and punished. It’s more so the likelihood of being caught than the punishment that’s actually the deterrent. You can have an extreme punishment for something but if it’s unlikely someone will be caught then they will take their chances. Downside is with a higher rate of catching bad behaviors we diminish privacy. An extreme would everyone being watched and recorded 24/7 would make it trivial to catch any bad behavior or crime but there would be zero privacy.
As for Gattaca,. I think it’s more so that they used it to differentiate society into two groups where one was treated very poorly more so than the gene editing itself being the issue. For sure we will cure genetic diseases and then move into grey area stuff like giving people perfect eyesight and so on. I think it’ll be far too tempering to make designer babies though, higher IQ, better looking (subjective), better physique, better health and so on. Of course anyone who’s ever bred animals knows you can breed them to constrain their behavior so one could theoretically alter humanity to be more compassionate and less of a jerk to itself.
The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.
You realize punishment is harm, right?
You understand nothing
I’m really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.
It’s all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that’s usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.
The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you’ve said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.
I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.
You get that ‘the giver’ is a dystopia, right? Of fucking course you don’t.
Where is he condoning these things or implying he doesn’t understand the things he’s describing? Reading comprehension bro.
Edit - oh he condoned it in the next comment. Yeah that’s stupid. He’s not wrong about gene therapy bring socially accepted eugenics though. Hell even genetic testing for pregnancies is eugenics if it results in terminating pregnancies due to various conditions. I don’t think anyone would argue in good faith that’s a bad thing though.
I’m not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It’s like the Gattaca example, I’m not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.
Okay but you get some of these things are like the core of the dystopianness?
Like reading diamond age and doing the ‘let’s make a pure ai kids toy!’ Or ‘I want a skull gun!’ Instead of any of the cool parts, when the book is exactly about how ‘this is dangerous/stupid/fundamentally evil/would suck’. You’re from the bay area, or work in tech. You have to be.
Also, we do not have parlor walls. How does someone get to be this stupid-evil and this confident in being stupid-evil? Like have you ever seen a torment nexus you didn’t want to stick your dick in?
I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn’t the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that’s not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I’m not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you’re free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I’m from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it’s essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.