The distribution of upgrades (Rar!)

[Zor]

Here is this little scenario i have been thinking about that may be an issue latter in this century.

Lets say its the year 2060 and along with various other advances two things have come from technological advancement. The first being reliable Genetic Engineering, capable of giving a person better natural dexterity, strength, eyesight, a longer life span (lets say 25-35 more years), look better and increase there chances at being more intelligent (test scores on Genetically engineered kids are on average two grade points above those of non genetically modified kids coming from the same school). The second being cybernetics, which are also able to augment humans by boosting reflexes, reinforcing bones and augmenting the brain, but also recently full prosthetic bodies similar to those in Ghost in the Shell have hit the market. However, Genetic Engineering and Cybernetics cost large amounts of money (lets say $15,000 for gene therapy on an embryo that will give the kid what was described above and $200,000 to $500,000 for prosthetic bodies) making these upgrades accessible only to the wealthy.

Now hears the thing, Since someone needs considerable finances for these upgrades only the wealthy in society can get them if we simply treat upgrades as simple retail, which could end up in yet another gap between the Superhuman wealthy and the mere human lower classes. So the question here is this, is it moral and financially practical to try to ensure an equal distribution of genetic therapy and cybernetics?

This is not speaking out against cybernetics or genetic engineering, but is about distribution of enhancement.

Zor

[Darth Raptor]

Whether intentional or not, you're essentially creating a master race by making the augments inaccessable to certain people. And unless you've got a post-scarcity economy to work with, augmenting everyone will be an extreme burden on the state. Neither outcome is desirable, but niether is outlawing augmentation altogether. Thus, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Just like extant state healthcare systems, the gene therapy goes toward those with a predisposition for disease and the prosthetics go to those missing parts. I see no reason to broadly categorize all forms of genetic and cybernetic enhancement under the same category. Some forms will be a medical necessity while others will be a strict luxury. There's no social imperative for weaponizing people, but any augments that would enhance intelligence should be distributed as broadly as economically feasible (that would be an investment, not an expenditure).

[Jalinth]

I'll assume the genetic engineering is not inheritable, but must be renewed each generation.

The embryo treatments are actually not that out of reach - about the price of a 4 or 5 year old used car, especially if we assume that the treatments reduce future medical expense. Given the expenses that most current governments can spend on geriatric care, if you can lop off even a couple of years from that with the treatments, it is a bargain.

If I was the health minister when this came along, this is how I'd sell it to the finance minister - I'd also mention the extra 20 to 30 years of tax revenue, the ability (the need in fact - if someone is healthy and productive until 95, you can't really let them retire at 65 anymore at government or employer expense) to raise the retirement age by those 20 to 30 years, coupled with some reduction to annual medical costs excluding the treatment.

You might want to raise your figure to around $100K to $150K - since this amount does become cost prohibitive for a government to sponsor.

[Vain]

If such genetic therapy were available, and I intended to have children, there is no way I would go about producing them until I could afford it, whether out of pocket or through financing. 100K (let along 15K) is a pittance next to what such improvements would offer them in terms of quality of life, even without considering the vastly increased earning potential of their extended lives.

[Xuenay]

And unless you've got a post-scarcity economy to work with, augmenting everyone will be an extreme burden on the state.

Not necessarily a burden, but maybe an investment that'll pay itself back. Anything increasing the average health would increase productivity and make national healthcare programs cheaper. Similiarly, it'd seem like intelligence enhancement would lead to an increased rate of new innovations, and so on.

If the enhancement are big enough to really matter, common sense would suggest that it'd hurt the state more not to heavily subsidize them and make them available to everyone.

[Darth Raptor]

Not necessarily a burden, but maybe an investment that'll pay itself back. Anything increasing the average health would increase productivity and make national healthcare programs cheaper. Similiarly, it'd seem like intelligence enhancement would lead to an increased rate of new innovations, and so on.

Did you even read what I posted? Intelligence enhancements would be an investment. Those were my precise words. I also said that those genetically predisposed toward illness should get the gene therapy. There's no return on making everyone "ZOMG uber!" physically though. Those advances would be better applied to the automated aspects of industry. There's also no sense in extending everyone's lifespan unless you can also improve the quality of life for the elderly.

[Xuenay]

Whoops, read too quickly and missed the last couple of sentences in your post. We're an agreement, then.

Anyway, I'd like to especially emphasize the point that it seems unlikely that enhancement would create all that much of a social problem - if the enhancement is so darn expensive that the state simply can't afford to subsidize it for the majority of the population AND so limited in effect that it wouldn't pay itself back, then only the rich getting it is hardly a problem - sure, they'll be getting a bit of a boost, but it won't set them so apart from the others that they couldn't be brought down by sheer force of numbers anyway. It'd only be a problem if the costs of the enhancement would be huge (like, say, millions? billions?) and give the subjects godlike intelligence/power.

[wolveraptor]

I'll assume the genetic engineering is not inheritable, but must be renewed each generation.

That makes no sense at all. If you alter the genetic structure of someon as an embryo, they'd have to pass it on, wouldn't they?

[Mr Bean]

Agreeded, no way I would not take out a loan to have my kid be Gene theorpied up. In the mean time I'm going to be putting away money for my own robot bodies. Sure I might have a Barbie & Ken doll kid, but he can pay for his own damn built in Eye lasers.

I'll assume the genetic engineering is not inheritable, but must be renewed each generation.

That makes no sense at all. If you alter the genetic structure of someon as an embryo, they'd have to pass it on, wouldn't they?

No, because not all genetic trates are passed on sexualy. And genetic tamping may also cause infertility if screwed up.

[wolveraptor]

Therefore none of the upgrades are passed on?