Genetic Enhancments and society

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Keiko

Not a fan of GURPS Transhuman Space?

Honestly not familiar with it. I've heard of it, but no one in my group ever got the books for it. Not even 3e versions. ;-)

A bit sensitive on the matter of how to "fix" healthcare, I suppose.

Unless you meant the comment about filtering out bad genes from the gene pool. Historically speaking, that's not been pleasant.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Honestly not familiar with it. I've heard of it, but no one in my group ever got the books for it. Not even 3e versions. ;-)

A bit sensitive on the matter of how to "fix" healthcare, I suppose.

Unless you meant the comment about filtering out bad genes from the gene pool. Historically speaking, that's not been pleasant.

Your comments on technology and its implementation made me wonder. Transhuman Space has a pretty optimistic outlook on it, all things considered.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Keiko

So far the assumptions has been pretty grim. Any more optimistic takes on potential events?

In order to be considered electable by the majority of the electorate all politicians have the "Limitless" package +

Broad-Minded
A trivial form of Xenophilia (p. 162). You get along well with other races and species, and strange looks rarely bother you.

Responsive
A mild case of Charitable (p. 125). You are able to imagine the feelings and motivations of others – and all other things being equal, you are inclined to help them.

Selfless (6 or less)

You are altruistic and self-sacrificing, and put little importance on personal fame and wealth. You must make a self-control roll to put your needs – even survival – before those of someone else. A Selfless race will have a “hive mentality.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Given what I perceive as the cause of said healthcare economic problems, I fail to see how Bio-Tech is going to fix anything more than superficial issues while ignoring the underlying causes for those issues.



Actually, that sounds more than a bit terrifying. I imagine much of it boils down to how you see that being carried out, and how I worry it might be.

"People get sick." isn't the underlying cause of healthcare expenses? "People don't get sick " is bound to be cheaper.

Gurps Bio-tech doesn't have rules in it for governments going around and shooting people whose genes they dislike. I don't think that book considers it part of a technological process and I agree.

It appears to me that these objections to a bio-tech future are rooted in a proposition similar to "It is impossible for humans to use any technology in a beneficial fashion. They will only use any new technology in a dangerous and stupid way.".

I don't believe this. In fact this sort of behavior always seems to get exaggerated in RPG settings for dramatic purposes no matter what that does to the credibility of said setting..

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Honestly not familiar with it. I've heard of it, but no one in my group ever got the books for it. Not even 3e versions. ;-)

A bit sensitive on the matter of how to "fix" healthcare, I suppose.

Unless you meant the comment about filtering out bad genes from the gene pool. Historically speaking, that's not been pleasant.

Historically speaking we haven't had access to easy and effective germline engineering.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

"People get sick." isn't the underlying cause of healthcare expenses? "People don't get sick " is bound to be cheaper.

You originally referred to them as "healthcare economic problems", not "expenses". As for the price of people not getting sick, that realistically could be more expensive... and some will either lack the means of paying for it or would prefer to spend that money elsewhere. It isn't even an automatically "unreasonable" thing; in game terms imagine getting a +1 to all Health Rolls for the year, but requiring a series of injections that are both expensive, time consuming, and have a serious risk of side effects.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Gurps Bio-tech doesn't have rules in it for governments going around and shooting people whose genes they dislike. I don't think that book considers it part of a technological process and I agree.

Why is that supposed to make using phrasing associated with such a practice not "creepy"? If it is "just me"... okay, go ahead and say that. S'cool, sometimes something can remind me of something but not anyone else.

Why is it not a part of the "process"? I certainly wouldn't consider it ethical, but what if I am indeed needing to work out the Bio-Tech path of an evil dictator that has both the power and worldly authority to at least attempt to remove people from the gene pool?

Then there is the question... what about such a government not shooting people with bullets, but with a genetically engineered retrovirus (go ahead and let me know if I messed up the hypothetical tech) so that whatever children they have will lack genetic defects... as defined by that government. Who determines what is a "feature" and what is a "defect"?

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It appears to me that these objections to a bio-tech future are rooted in a proposition similar to "It is impossible for humans to use any technology in a beneficial fashion. They will only use any new technology in a dangerous and stupid way.".

I don't believe this. In fact this sort of behavior always seems to get exaggerated in RPG settings for dramatic purposes no matter what that does to the credibility of said setting..

Perhaps one should not oversimplify or attempt to extrapolate broader positions from what I say?

I would hopefully lose credibility if I claimed you had the stance that "It is impossible for humans to use any technology in a harmful fashion. They will only use any new technology in safe and intelligent ways.". This thread's focus was having roughly modern society, the world as we see it now, experience a sudden and rapid development of advanced biotech. The world that we have at present will most likely result in people that use such advances well, others that use it poorly, and still others that will blatantly abuse it. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Historically speaking we haven't had access to easy and effective germline engineering.

Indeed... but that didn't stop people from trying using less effective methods, even methods doomed to failure.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Historically, humanity's track record with safely and reasonably applying technology is lackluster at best. To draw a parallel, how do you think the world of the early 1900s would have developed if suddenly nuclear sciences and technologies had suddenly matured then instead of during WW2? I am doubting that WW1 and WW2 would have been prevented, save by a prior war turning into a nuclear holocaust.

Do you actually think humanity was better in 1945 than in 1900? Didn't think so. And yet, the world hasn't turned into a nuclear holocaust.

The human track record actually is not that bad judged as a whole. Few things are applied perfectly, but the worse disasters are always avoided, and most of the bad side effects get more or less remediated eventually.

There are after all always predictions of utter ruin, and it never materializes, so either those predictions were total nonsense in the first place, or people were less than totally idiotic about the implementation and avoided them.

[starslayer]

I think a good question is 'where are the advancements coming from'.

If the advancements are being carefully distributed by a benovolent individual (IE brillliant scientist who wants to change humanity for the better) then they could release the right combination in the right order to radically reduce the number of abuses.

If instead they are the product of a secret underground reasearch facility, intent on profit or world domination, that is advancing because of there willingness to ignore ethics and animals trials in favor of faster results then some sort of dystopia is all but guaranteed.

In a more moderated approach if the advancements are series of steps by varying labs across the globe then you can largely expect to see things being largley the same as they are now: In non-socialized healthcare location the rich get to become immortal never-ailing individuals while the poor before serfs, in socialized healthcare everyone gets made as resistant to disease and aging as is cost effective- but everyone is REQUIRED to get those mods, and seeking further mods might require some black market deals, or true immortality/age reversal might be termed 'cosmetic' and put under something that a person can purchase.

Places like Japan and Canada would welcome the ability to administer an unaging treatment. Canada spends an average of $600,000 on an individual in there final years of life from socialized healthcare. Japan I believe is more in the realm of 1.2 million- thus if the treatment is less then 600,000 the Canadian government can be expected to spring for it as a cost savings measure. Japan would do likewise, but for the more impressive value of 1.2 million.

Similarly most insurance companies in pure capitalist societies will calculate out the average cost of caring for a person in there final years due to age related illness and if the cost of the unaging treatments are less then it will be used.

Side note: Governments may still fund it regardless; most first world nations are experiencing population decline, and make up the differnece in immagrants, being able to tighten borders by making the work force able to work longer is an attractive option.

This is for unaging, which is one of the most tantalizing technologies of t 9+biotech, but the same rules apply for limb regrowth, disease resistance, etc. All of these things have costs for the individual, for the govenrment and for society- if its cheaper to fix it with bio-tech then leave it alone, it will get done; add in ethical considerations and its almost guaranteed to get done.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Indeed... but that didn't stop people from trying using less effective methods, even methods doomed to failure.

Yeah but that's like criticizing brain surgery on the grounds that trepanation doesn't really let evil spirits out and endangers the life of the patient.