> Who knows where it'll go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring or even survive on this planet beyond a few billion years.
So? I don't see how that's an argument for human genetic engineering. If we want to perpetuate life throughout the universe for some reason, we can send probes loaded with microbes, maybe even advanced probes that can incubate more advanced animal and plant species to create an ecosystem. In your scenario, humanity is presented with its extinction through either natural causes or by being the architect of its own destruction. I'd prefer the former.
* Made entire species extinct through hunting and deforestation
* As a side effect of industrialization, dumped enough CO2 to change the climate and will probably keep it up
* Domesticated multiple other species into being dependent on us, from crops to farm animals to dogs
* Started work on AI and machines which might even replace us one day
Genetic modification isn't a one-way street to destruction as much as AI is, or industrialization.
Also regarding perpetuating life: the one thing life has in common is that it perpetuates itself. We'd be a shitty species if we perpetuated machines or microbes instead of ourselves.
When I visited hawaii, I noticed that there were large trees all growing on one of the oldest islands. Due to erosion, the island will eventually submerge back into the sea, and all those tress will be dead. Those trees don't know it, but their time will be up soon.
I don't know what the future holds, but shying away from technological development means that we as a species are like the trees. At least venturing to other planets would be like if the trees could send seeds across the ocean.
As far as escaping the heat death of the universe, who knows.
We can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering
Sounds good enough for me. Fuck cancer, fuck heart disease, fuck diabetes, fuck obesity. Full steam ahead!
Five decades is nothing in historical terms, and it was by no means a foregone conclusion that nuclear weapons would not be used in that time period. The reason they have not has been due to extraordinary effort, chance, and non-proliferation efforts. The future decades and centuries look much grimmer unless we can dismantle existing stockpiles and do what we can to enjoin future generations to not create them.
> The Cold War is over.
The Cold War is over, but the Pax Americana enforced by American hegemony will not last forever. If history teaches us anything, it is that all peacetimes eventually end.
> Sounds good enough for me. Fuck cancer, fuck heart disease, fuck diabetes, fuck obesity. Full steam ahead!
If eliminating heart disease means the extinction of human beings, or the death and suffering of billions of others, is that really worthwhile to you? What if heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity can eventually be dealt with through other, safer, means?
The weaponry cold war did happen: how do you feel about a genetic enhancements cold war?
Then of course the risk is that a lack of genetic diversity wipes people out all at once, so some care is needed.
Also there already is a competition to become super beautiful, it's called sexual selection.
I am sure you would agree that if science, say, discovered a simple way to make large amounts of antimatter at home, it would be better to suppress that knowledge by whatever means necessary so that one crazy guy somewhere doesn't decide to obliterate the European continent.
welcome to the new arms race.
In an ideal world, humanity would be scattered and numerous enough that the engineering of any one population would leave the others unaffected. But as it is, we're all stuck on Earth in a global, interconnected civilization without central authority, so once this technology is introduced, the incentives are aligned against us.
But I don't know what else to try.
> even if that class lacks genetic diversity, that seems like exactly the kind of issue that genetic engineering exists to solve.
Why would anyone choose to have genetically diverse children if that diversity led to immediate short-term problems? Who would bite the bullet and have 100IQ child who had to compete in a world of 150IQ children for the sake of genetic diversity?
I personally don't think we'll tend toward monoculture. Different needs, goals and cultural biases will promote different people toward different genetic ends.
Yes, we can eliminate many classes of disease with genetic engineering. But as you allude, it won't stop there. People will pick and choose external characteristics for their children. The idea that doctors will somehow be able to keep this in check is to ignore history and the huge incentives that are set up here. First, it will be diseases. Then it will be, for instance, the genetic propensity to obesity. Then 'disadvantages', like being too short or a little too dull. Then it will be external traits, like blue eyes or blonde hair. Then it will be mental traits and personality characteristics. And where it will end will be totally inhuman and beyond our present comprehension.
The result will be massive suffering, inequality, and possibly even the extinction of humanity as human genetic diversity is replaced with an ever-accelerating social competition that ends in a monoculture that will probably be ill-suited for survival the same way modern dog breeds often end up unsuited for survival.
Yes, it would be lovely if we could use genetic engineering technology safely and responsibly. We can't. That's to say nothing of the risks inherent in the technology if it became simple and cheap for anyone to use even on non-humans.