Subsidized Universal Genetic Engineering [Biotech/Space]

[AlexanderHowl]

A thought had occurred to be that a rational society would subsidize the adoption of certain genetic upgrades among its population. The maximum bang for the buck, so to speak, would be upgrades that increase overall health, immune system, longevity, etc. For example:

Universal I (TL9) [22]

Attribute Modifiers: HT+1 [10]

Advantages: Fit [5]; Longevity [2]; Resistant (Disease+8) [5]

Features: Light Menses; Taboo Traits (Genetic Defects)

Availability: $47,000. LC4.

Universal II (TL10) [42]

Attribute Modifiers: HT+3 [30]

Advantages: Fit [5]; Longevity [2]; Resistant (Disease+8) [5]

Features: Light Menses; Taboo Traits (Genetic Defects)

Availability: $67,000. LC4.

With the first upgrade, overall health is improved modestly, but longevity and resistance to disease is increased greatly (average HT 20 against diseases). With the second upgrade, overall health is improved greatly, though longevity and resistance to disease only increases slightly compared to the first modification. In either case, the upgrades likely cause minimal outrage in the overall population, as they are focused on improving health rather than making a form of Homo superior.

Why would a society subsidize these modifications? First, they would result in a massive decrease in medical costs since most forms of health care deal with disease and problems associated with aging, reducing average annual health care costs by 50% (in the case of Universal I) and by 75% (in the case of Universal II). Second, they would greatly increase the well-being of the population, as people would suffer less health complications and less infections. Third, they would cheaply extend the average lifespan of the population without relying on expensive medicines.

What do you think? Would the societies in your future settings subsidize such genetic upgrades so they are common and/or ubiquitous? If so, how do you think it would impact the societies of your future settings? If not, why would the societies in your future settings not want to improve overall health?

[Donny Brook]

There is also an economic benefit to longevity; extending citizens' productive years increases the return on investments in training and education.

[AlexanderHowl]

That is true, though people will likely have long working retirements. At TL10, it will likely not matter, given the level of automation of even safetech societies.

[cptbutton]

For a nastier one, increased tolerance for common pollutants, so you don't have to worry about keeping your industry clean.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

There is also an economic benefit to longevity; extending citizens' productive years increases the return on investments in training and education.

That assumes that citizens are worth anything economically. At that technological level they probably aren't.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

A thought had occurred to be that a rational society would subsidize the adoption of certain genetic upgrades among its population.

That depends on what you mean by "rational" and "society." A society can certainly subsidize things through voluntary contributions from its individual members, via traditional charities, or routes such as Kickstarter or Gofundme (which may have boosted the efficiency of charity and largesse as much as e-commerce has boosted that of markets). Or it can subsidize things out of tax revenues. But I don't think it's ever rational to subsidize anything out of tax revenues. If it can't earn a profit in voluntary commerce, and it can't attract voluntary donations, then it has less value than other uses of the money and shouldn't be taking place.

And I expect that many people will disagree with me on this. But I say it, not to invite a debate in political philosophy, but to suggest that your view is not universal or neutral or a product of simple rationality; it's an expression of your personal preferences.

[cptbutton]

No, don't help people not get sick, just quarantine them when they get sick until they die or recover. (Recover only with the food, water and medical care they can afford to pay for, of course.)

[thrash]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

What do you think? Would the societies in your future settings subsidize such genetic upgrades so they are common and/or ubiquitous?

I would be concerned about creating a genetic monoculture, unless a lot of additional effort and expense were invested in developing multiple pathways to the same effects. There is also something to be said for maintaining a reserve of genetic diversity, in case (e.g.) Longevity 2 is a local maximum that prevents developing Unaging later on, or being a recessive carrier for Dyslexia proves to be a prerequisite for unlocking Astrogation (Hyperspace).

I would also be concerned that, in the real world at least, arriving at these modifications is a process of trial and error -- they don't just spring fully realized from a rule book. The consequences of an undetected "critical failure" during development could be catastrophic.

[Flyndaran]

Unless it's compulsory and draconian in enforcement, you will always have those who opt out leading to enclaves of default humans.

It also is a bit authoritarian for governments to essentially experiment on the entire population's offspring. In anything resembling reality, any genetic manipulation would involve risks, even if relatively minor for ultra tech societies.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That depends on what you mean by "rational" and "society." A society can certainly subsidize things through voluntary contributions from its individual members, via traditional charities, or routes such as Kickstarter or Gofundme (which may have boosted the efficiency of charity and largesse as much as e-commerce has boosted that of markets). Or it can subsidize things out of tax revenues. But I don't think it's ever rational to subsidize anything out of tax revenues. If it can't earn a profit in voluntary commerce, and it can't attract voluntary donations, then it has less value than other uses of the money and shouldn't be taking place.

And I expect that many people will disagree with me on this. But I say it, not to invite a debate in political philosophy, but to suggest that your view is not universal or neutral or a product of simple rationality; it's an expression of your personal preferences.

Every business depends on tax subsidies in the form of courts, defense, law enforcement, ports, roads, workforce education, etc. In fact, history shows us that every government provides some form of subsidy to businesses, as businesses always depend on the legal protections of governments. Even criminal enterprises depend on tax subsidies from governments, as their revenues depend on the illegality of their products, whether illegal drugs or underage girls.

As for enclave populations, they will likely exist, but they would probably be a minority, as government subsidies would allow people who wanted children with better health to have children with Universal 1 or Universal II. Of course, it could be as simple as allowing people to reduce their income taxes by 20% of the cost of their child's genetic engineering for the next five years as long as it was Universal I or Universal II.