Trickle down economic works in theory but not in practice. Sex however works in practice and not in theory. So maybe there's hope for trickle down genetics. Maybe even trickle up genetics. Or the apocalypse.
Dna Network - source: Max Pixel
So what am I talking about? Science is what I'm talking about; it refuses to slow down and is elevating us to levels of technological advancement that threaten to put a lot of us out of a job soon. It's a sad thing to see these advancements on one side and our apparent inability or unwillingness to, as a society, let that technology elevate us out of the stone-age; we still adhere to an economic model that requires us to have a job, or two jobs actually, to have a right to exist.
This is a problem. Not only because of the obvious harm this does to the rising number of individuals that won't be able to get employed to make a basic living, but also and even more so because of the creative capital we forfeit as a society. We still all have to worry about tomorrow's meal and next month's rent when there's no reason for this situation to endure, other than the will of the guardians of the status quo. But I digress.
To create these jobs the theory of trickle down economic is often used, traditionally by right wing politicians; it's the theory that says, among other things, that tax cuts for the rich, the employers, should translate in more jobs and thus should benefit the middle and lower classes also. The increased private income in the top would then "trickle down" to the lower classes, everyone benefits from benefiting the rich. I hope you all know why this doesn't work, but just in case:
Trickle-down economics says that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts should have helped people at all income levels. Instead, the opposite occurred. Income inequality worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.
source: The Balance - July 20, 2018
An opposing theory is of course to increase taxes for the rich and use that money directly to benefit the lower classes. Be it through government created jobs or paying for school, medicine and so on. This was normal once upon a time, but now chances are this would be taken as socialism. And that's sad and funny all at once...
Anyhow, since the middle class in a lot of western societies is being decimated by letting them pay for the increased debts created by large financial institutes, society becomes increasingly polarized. Austerity anyone? Thought so. Let it also be said that Reagan and Bush may be Republicans, the democrats are equally responsible for letting free capital; Glass–Steagall was repealed under the Democrats and Bill Clinton signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999. And so the gap between rich and poor has been allowed to reach obscene proportions; without a functional and strong middle class polarization between rich and poor is almost inevitable.
Or so you'd think. Instead the middle and lower classes are blaming each other, foreigners and fugitives are blamed and if you're jobless or part of the working poor "you just didn't try or work hard enough"... But I digress again...
While the economy refuses to budge from a model thought up in prehistoric times (survival of the fittest is really, really old, trust me ;-) ), technology and science are unstoppable. One field in which rapid progressions have been made is the study of genetics and DNA. While listening to a long interview between Sean Caroll and Carl Zimmer on Heredity, DNA, and Editing Genes, I was increasingly interested and amazed by what we do and still don't understand about this subject. Both scientists agreed that it won't be too long before we're able to manipulate human DNA with such proficiency that we will design our own babies...
And that's where I can't help but get the shivers, if even for a moment. Because if the economical reality of today isn't changed before we actually can design our descendants, soon images of a much more divided humanity appear. What if the technology is available, but it cost a million dollars to "buy" your designer baby? A baby that's perfect in every way you decide; strong, tall, smart, good looking... Will we not head straight into a division between a master- and subspecies of humans? Seeing how unscrupulous the rich are now, destroying millions of lives in order to make a buck, I wouldn't put it past them to race for the opportunity.
I'm glad to say there are two good reasons not to worry too much about that horror-scenario. Sean Carol expressed this very same concern a couple of moments later in the discussion and Carl Zimmer eased my mind by reminding me that sex works different than economy ;-) The DNA in these engineered super-humans will most likely end up in the general population eventually because nature and emotions won't care about the social boundaries between the supers and the humans; through sex, trickle down genetics will work, where trickle down economic has failed us every time ;-)
Also the gentlemen mentioned Crispr; we, normal citizens, are actually able to do our own DNA experimenting at home!
Includes example experiment to make a genome mutation(K43T) to the rpsL gene changing the 43rd amino acid, a Lysine(K) to a Threonine(T) thereby allowing the bacteria to survive on Strep media which would normal prevent its growth.
Now this experiment sounds utterly boring to me, but it's amazing that such cutting-edge science is available to experiment with in a DIY kit! On the website that sells the Crispr-Kit I also find the Frog Genetic Engineering Kit Beta Test Version for $1,999.00:
The frog gene therapy teaching kit is composed of 6 frogs, cages, food and all the materials to replicate this experiment in a teaching or home environment. The kit requires purchasers to take a safety quiz before the kit is shipped to make sure individuals understand how to handle and work with the animals. All protocols and procedures follow or improve upon recommendations from the NIH Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals where appropriate.
The purpose of this kit is to teach people modern science and genetic engineering but also to provide people with the tools required to gene therapy and life saving treatments. I personally have worked with many people who have cancers and other diseases in which there is no treatment. A number have resorted to DIY treatments because they aren’t willing to give up. We could seek out these people and arrest them or try and outlaw the things that they are doing or we could try and make what they are doing safer. While a frog model is not perfect it provides a system people can test their treatments before they use it on themselves. The goal of this kit is to provide help and hope to the people who need it most without straying into illegal activities.
Individual citizens can experiment on life frogs that are delivered in the kit:
Amphibians and reptiles are not regulated under the Animal Welfare Act making them ideal candidates for science and biohacking.
Biohacking. Sounds scary to me. But also, strangely, as an opportunity; this is the chance at the trickle up genetics I mentioned at the start of this post. Because the science is so new, there's still almost now laws to strictly regulate it. There's even a chance that a cure for cancer will be engineered in a home-laboratory... In the video linked below an ex-employee of NASA and the owner of the website that sells all these bio-hacking-kits (The-Odin), explains why the availability of this technology to the masses is a great opportunity for mankind:
The $140 Mail-Order CRISPR Kit: Is Unregulated Biohacking the Future of Science?
Well, I'm still hesitant to give this my personal okay. Very hesitant. Even if this enables brewers to engineer their own beers with their own new and surprising tastes. In general though I'm all for government in its current form staying out of science, because that's the same as money staying out of science. But that's just not realistic; chances are science is only funded if it has short term practical use. And "practical use" means profitable. It's also irrational to think that science and progression will slow down for us to change that. This is just one of those things that will happen, if we like it or not, so best be informed about it.
In closing I'd like to leave you with the interview that got my interest peaked:
Carl Zimmer on Heredity, DNA, and Editing Genes
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep safe, keep healthy!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Special Drawing Rights |
|---|---|
| Kinder Capitalism? | Big Data Terror |
| Water World | Class Warfare |
| Conservative Confusion | Mexico Virus? |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.