Once you learn how to control something, leaving it alone is a choice. So once we're able to alter DNA whenever we want to we're going to have to ask ourselves what sort of genetic traits are we willing to allow to propagate. Because it will be up to us at that point. If we do nothing then we are allowing the process that created us to continue to dictate, true but it may also be the process that sees our demise. In fact we may be well past our sell-by date as far as species go. I think on some level we're aware of this. It's at the periphery of our art.
So what genetic traits are valuable to us in the long term now? It's important not to think about this on a superficial level. Beauty, for example, is very much dependent on expectation. If, for example, we neglect to pressure for the genetic variants for beauty, And boom, a thousand years later we are all butt ugly sons of bitches. It won't matter because people will still be constrained by what they interact with every day anyway. Our icons and avatars will change. they already are. We're looking at you fat Thor. We're about fifteen years away from completely generated supermodels and actors anyway. Strength still important? Is intelligence important really any more? How far off is creativity's demise?
See that's the heart of the issue. Technology will naturally tend to upend the genetic pressures. The control of fire., even, genetically changed humans forever. So even without the ability to modify genetics technology still mutates DNA on its own. It starts as a helpful change that has some benefits but isn't required and then it ends up a necessity. Think electricity. It's now impossible to do without it.
Take a look at this new development. https://t.co/Pcfqklhzcn
Imagine a time when we modify the DNA of viruses so they don't bother humans any more. What would happen if that ability ended?
What happens when it costs billions of dollars a year to keep that technology rolling forward, editing new viruses, figuring out whatever comes next. Trillions. What does it mean when all of our time is spent working towards supporting a system that's just keeping us alive?
Because doesn't that seem like it's where technology naturally ends up? When control of fire was invented someone needed to watch the fire. One human that wasn't hunting or foraging that needed to be fed. Hunter gatherer groups averaged around 150 people.
So that means for every 150 people there was 1 person dedicated to keeping technology running. How are we doing today? How many out of 150 are working for utilities, governments on all levels, long distance travelers, sex workers, priests, middlemen, all of their support staff, etc versus people producing stuff? Think about giving our modern conveniences to the old hunter gatherers. The roads, the cars, the electricity water and gas, homes and workplaces, the computers, the scientists, our toys tv sports facilities and justice systems.
Would a hundred and fifty people even be enough? The idea that technology will make us more efficient and therefore have to work less is a fallacy. We'll just be working on different things.