Brooklyn, I’d like to add to your response if you don’t mind. Primarily the claim that the ability to “design babies” is morally wrong because “it will dramatically increase the gap between classes.” This, in your opinion, would create a genetic divide along socioeconomic lines. I’d like to refer to this as the “Gattaca” argument, the idea that transhumanists, wanting to enhance our genetic makeup through genetic engineering, will also unwittingly deepen the divide between the rich (modified) and the poor (non-modified), and that one will oppress the other (which is bad).
However, arguably, every new advancement has the potential to level the playing field, not skew it. Take cellphones for example. Cellphones have nearly 75% global market …show more content…
Then it becomes merely expensive and works a little better (only for the wealthy). The next step is the product becomes inexpensive and works really well (only for those that can access it). Finally, the technology becomes virtually free and works great (available to all). It wasn't that long ago that when you saw someone using a portable phone in a movie, and he or she was a member of the power elite. Now I see homeless people with iPhones. “There are always early and late adopters. There's always a leading edge and a trailing edge to technology or to any change. We still have people pushing plows, but that hasn't slowed down the adoption of cell phones, telecommunications, the Internet, biotechnology, and so on. However, the lagging edge does ultimately catch up. We have societies in Asia that jumped from agrarian economies to information economies, without going through industrialization.” (Ray Kurzweil in Singularity is Near). So I would say that the divide (at least the digital one) is rapidly diminishing, not growing. Technology is inherently neutral. It is only the society and culture in which it exists that determines whether or not it becomes a tool of oppression or liberation. What really matters, much more than disparity between incomes, is ensuring that no one is living in extreme poverty. I argue that some inequality is okay as long as there is socioeconomic mobility and access to
However, arguably, every new advancement has the potential to level the playing field, not skew it. Take cellphones for example. Cellphones have nearly 75% global market …show more content…
Then it becomes merely expensive and works a little better (only for the wealthy). The next step is the product becomes inexpensive and works really well (only for those that can access it). Finally, the technology becomes virtually free and works great (available to all). It wasn't that long ago that when you saw someone using a portable phone in a movie, and he or she was a member of the power elite. Now I see homeless people with iPhones. “There are always early and late adopters. There's always a leading edge and a trailing edge to technology or to any change. We still have people pushing plows, but that hasn't slowed down the adoption of cell phones, telecommunications, the Internet, biotechnology, and so on. However, the lagging edge does ultimately catch up. We have societies in Asia that jumped from agrarian economies to information economies, without going through industrialization.” (Ray Kurzweil in Singularity is Near). So I would say that the divide (at least the digital one) is rapidly diminishing, not growing. Technology is inherently neutral. It is only the society and culture in which it exists that determines whether or not it becomes a tool of oppression or liberation. What really matters, much more than disparity between incomes, is ensuring that no one is living in extreme poverty. I argue that some inequality is okay as long as there is socioeconomic mobility and access to