Have her back on and ask her why she shilled for a bullshit 'weight loss' tea. Follow up by asking her why she hid the dislike counter when the negative comments started rolling in.
I don't think the "imbalance" of making kids genetically (physically) built for certain things is going to be as big an issue as he's thinking. Mainly because being genetically built a certain way is only really physical (for the most part). For example I'm physically built for being a sprinter or swimmer but I had no desire for either sport. Instead I did basketball and lacrosse. Both which require I lot of more ability to distance run. So I think the factors of personal desire and natural talent are still gonna play enough of a role to even out with genetically modified kids
Roaming millennial only life begets life evolution disregards that basic fundamental about biology the most fundamental law of all only life begets life so you going to forget that
Maybe Rohan can find a too tall Asian Indian girl dating website or at least a Too Tall Asian website. Roaming on the other hand will have to carry the label "Exotic" for the rest of her life.
Worrying about the "imbalance" created by the rich being able to genetically modify their children is a red herring. Think about how mobile phones have changed. When they were first marketed in the 1970s a phone cost tens of thousands of dollars (in today's money), and only the rich could afford them or make use of them. It was only _because_ the rich bought the products and services that the free market worked its magic, reducing prices, driving innovation, improving standards etc. Today you can see homeless people with mobile phones, and the average person uses exactly the same models of phone as the super rich. Now consider how things will go with gen-modding of children - yes at first it will cost millions per child and be a big deal and only the rich will do it, but in doing so, the technology will become more commonplace in just the way mobile phones did, and eventually everyone will have smarter, healthier kids. Trying to control or restrict it for the sake of "equality" will ironically just mean that average people are stuck with plain old evolution 1.0 kids, while elites are of course able to get around government restrictions and use the tech, and then they really _will_ become an isolated higher class. Ultimately (long term), I think it will be the only thing to truly improve/save Africa - the continent at large will never outgrow corruption, tribal conflict and lack of innovation, when the average IQ is 70-80. Somebody check this comment in 100 years and give it a thumbs up if I turn out to be right.
That's a fair point about competition. One argument I (regrettably) didn't bring up was are the repercussions of breeding people for certain tasks. Would breeding people for soldiers be ethical? What if they don't want to be soldiers? Would indoctrination from birth ruin someone's life if they didn't subscribe to the ideals? Like I said, I don't have a solid opinion on this yet and I'm still in the gray. I have so much research still left before I even form an outline of an opinion.
Genetic modification would put a new twist on it, but I think the basic ethical questions are ones which we have always had. _Would breeding people for soldiers be ethical?_ In countries with mandatory military service, this is arguably what happens, in a certain sense. People are born in a certain country and then they are forced to join the army and maybe fight, kill and/or die. A lot of them probably didn't want that. _Would indoctrination from birth ruin someone's life if they didn't subscribe to the ideals?_ We don't have to look to a possible sci-fi future to find people indoctrinated from birth, whose lives have been either blessed or ruined by the indoctrination. What if they don't want to be soldiers? Parents today might push their child to become a doctor or lawyer, is that ok? Venus and Serena Williams' parents decided that they wanted their kids to be tennis stars, and they raised them with that goal in mind. Did the girls have any choice? Was that ethical parenting? If they flunked out of tennis school and were miserable, maybe in hindsight we'd say it was terrible parenting, but it seems to have worked out ok for them so far, so maybe we can say it was good parenting. Do _any_ children have any choice over how they are raised? Why draw a line between the meals the parent feeds the child and the genes they give them? It's like when people worry that people these days spend too long on the internet, but when you read what people were saying 100 years ago, they were concerned that everyone was reading newspapers too much and weren't talking to one another. Same concerns, just expressed in the context of new technology.
"In countries with mandatory military service, this is arguably what happens, in a certain sense. People are born in a certain country and then they are forced to join the army and maybe fight, kill and/or die. A lot of them probably didn't want that." That's a completely different situation. Fulfilling citizenship based requirements cannot be conflated to genetic engineering for a specific purpose. "Venus and Serena Williams' parents decided that they wanted their kids to be tennis stars, and they raised them with that goal in mind. Did the girls have any choice? Was that ethical parenting? If they flunked out of tennis school and were miserable, maybe in hindsight we'd say it was terrible parenting, but it seems to have worked out ok for them so far, so maybe we can say it was good parenting. Do any children have any choice over how they are raised? Why draw a line between the meals the parent feeds the child and the genes they give them?" Again, huge difference in amplifying natural talent and breeding for it. You're conflating two separate occurrences as one. If my child shows an aptitude for programming, I'm going to push them. If they do the same for lacrosse, I'm going to push them for it. Some children are better suited to become athletes over programmers and vice versa. Drawing a line between what they're fed and how they were designed is a huge difference. What a child is fed is dynamic and can be tailored to their natural tastes vs. giving them the makeup to become a linebacker instead of a pole vaulter. "It's like when people worry that people these days spend too long on the internet, but when you read what people were saying 100 years ago, they were concerned that everyone was reading newspapers too much and weren't talking to one another. Same concerns, just expressed in the context of new technology." Conflation again.
