top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 225 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [+] 98 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 63 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    The trans people they never knew they met.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I’ve been an androgynous (cis gay) man most of my life, and when I was young I was mistaken for a girl a lot. Hell I even had my own doubts for a while.

    There’s lots of people out there that think that they can tell if someone is trans or not. Hell I have met LGBTQ+ people that think they can just tell. The truth is, they can’t.

    You will have met trans people that you didn’t know are trans, and if you go around making assumptions, you’ll meet cis people you think are trans, but aren’t.

    A couple of months ago I found out that this person I’ve been casually following on YouTube for almost a decade is a trans woman.

    Like the absolutely easiest, most accurate way to tell if someone is trans is to just ask the person in question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 117 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Odd way to learn altman is gay.

    Kinda shocked I've never seen a "worlds richest gay man!" Headline. That feels like low hanging fru-

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Does Thiel not have more money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Another one I didn't know is gay.

    Props to msm for not making it a big deal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    Honestly I don't think it's any of our business. Even rich assholes are allowed to have a private life. Although with some (Musk, Trump) that private life is so fucked up it's impossible to ignore, but generally I'm totally fine with not knowing who they fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 11 months ago* (11 children)

    In before this turns into "I want my baby to have blue eyes and 150 IQ"

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    It's an interesting ethical debate.

    I have a hereditary condition which passes only by the X chromosome, so should I, as a man, abort a daughter? Because now the risk is too high and I've elected to simply not have children. It would be great if I could fix the single swapped base pair that would otherwise cause disfigurement and life-long health problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah I'm always conflicted. Like eugenics is the end goal for these fascists but also... We should try to prevent hereditary defects rtct

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    The unforeseen effects should be enough to give us pause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    What do you mean with unforeseen effects in this context?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Unforeseen is pretty clear, by definition, that they're things we wouldn't be able to predict until they happen. I agree with the general sentiment in this thread btw, using genetics to prevent hereditary conditions or otherwise improve the human condition sounds great on paper but it's risky business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I understand what the word means, but in which domain are the effects unpredictable? In terms of policy and enforcement of what may or may not be genetically modified, or what the genetic outcome would be of gene modification? I agree with the prior.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    High IQ would be sure nice, but has a large number of genes involved. Not that you need a high IQ as a farmer in a low technology future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    The ability to reduce diseases and disorders in newborns sounds wonderful, until you find out which techno-fascist is behind the movement.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    The other issue I have is that this is an example of a recurring issue in which the tech obsessed ultra wealthy declare their plan to solve a problem for which a very straightforward policy solution already exists.

    We don't need tech to extend lives or feed the hungry. We just need to remove the paywalls to existing resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, here's an easy way to prevent most birth defects:

    Free nutritious food
    Regulating toxic chemicals
    Prenatal education and healthcare

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    so all Lemmy takes from this article is that Sam Altman is gay.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    Tim Cook, Sam Altman, Peter Thiel.

    We have enough data points to suggest that being gay doesn't insulate you from being greedy and corrupt.

    That's important, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    We have a code of conduct training at work that includes and anti corruption segment (nothing weird, just stuff like "a vendor buying lunch at a sales meeting is fine, but no gifts or having lunch at extremely expensive places", and "some places give small symbolic gifts around holidays, usually a pastry. That's fine. Do not accept a $500 pastry")

    A couple years ago they updated the module and the person engaging in non-obvious corrupt business practices became gay in passing. The overwhelming response by a lot of the company was "yay! We made it guys! They realized that we like bribes too! I feel so seen".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Why would it? I have never thought to myself, this seems like a bad person but he is gay so maybe not. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    In a different time, it was popular to think that capitalism would be better if minorities were winning at it.

    A few girlbosses and Diddys later, I'd like to think we know better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The same guy who admitted he couldn't raise his child without ChatGPT btw.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Engineer some humans who can survive in zero gravity without peeing out their bone minerals. Humans who can survive hard radiation in space without having their cells crippled from destroyed DNA.

    Maybe start with simple organisms. Like algae. :)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I’d just like to have to trim my nails less frequently

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Anytime any non scientist wants to genetically engineer babies you should get very worried

    When crypto or ai bros want to do that get outright scared

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Neoliberal utopia. The wealthy elite destroying the world and forcing eugenics on the masses fly a rainbow flag

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    They do realize that this is how most zombie apocalypse movies start. Genetic tapering to stop diseases.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah that's fiction for a reason

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I mean the zombie part, sure.

    Do you really think in the hands of Silicon Valley techbros this ain’t gonna get ugly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I mean I can certainly imagine all sorts of crazy shit but I don't think it'll be any kind of outbreak that kills the species, call me optimistic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    So we’re skipping the Bell Riots and straight into Eugenics War?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 52 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    the headline misspelled eugenics.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    If it works as good as AI, people will be chronic liars, have multiple fingers, and be annoying attention whores always asking if they can "help" you.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This really reminds me of “Brave New World”, kind of scary actually.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago

    ah, ok, so GATTACA is up next. got it.

  • source
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    If that were the case, wouldn’t the ones who didn’t get the genetic engineering be far more likely to reproduce and stride along with natural selection? I have a hard time seeing that event ever happening, short of the human population en mass deciding to engineer every baby on the planet before a single generation of which could have lived life and been studied for its effects.

    What I think is more likely as a great filter is humans eventually settling on the idea that organic matter is really terrible medium for life. So, something with much more longevity, strength, efficiency, and brain power gets synthesized and we move in. At a certain point, wouldn’t biological life die off because life tends to yield to its more evolved forms? If us meat bags had to compete, how could we?

    and I think there are more interesting answers to the Fermi Paradox than the Great Filter. For example, the expansion of space not being something we can overcome in travel. Or, maybe the way we perceive space is just so anthropic—we’re making poor assumptions about other beings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    If (and is a really, really big if) this open the door to a better understanding of this type of pathologies and a way to somewhat cure them, I would say that it would be for the better.

    But of course I am sure it will not end this way...

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (17 children)

    I'm not sure I get the universal negativity to this. Like sure, Altman sucks as a person, and an individual having enough money to significantly bankroll research like this is a sign of an economic failure, but surely curing or preventing genetic disease is just about the most uncontroversial use human genetic modification could have?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    It'll only be available for the super rich, will expand to other augmentations/engineering, and will result in further reinforcing social mobility boundaries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    The response to something beneficial being only available to the rich shouldn't be to avoid developing that thing, it should be to make it available to everyone. The failures of the US healthcare and economic systems don't suddenly make developing new medical techniques a bad thing. Human augmentation is another issue from curing genetic disease, though I'd personally argue that wouldn't be a bad cause either, with the same caveat about it availability. It at least has more potential to improve somebody's life somewhere down the line than just buying a yacht with his ill gotten gains or some other useless rich person toy would.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    If you can't share basic healthcare with everyone, you're not going to share genetic healthcare, either.

    The government shouldn't subsidize the development of super-healthcare (or pass conveniently targeted policies that enable its development at the expense of citizens) when all the non-billionaires get nothing but promises of I'll-totally-share-it-you-guys from the same guy who says we're-almost-at-AGI-we-just-need-another-trillion-dollars-I-swear.

    The solution to billionaires having "ill-gotten gains" isn't "well, let's make sure he spends it responsibly". It's give the damn money back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You misunderstand, I am not saying "make sure he spends it responsibly". Nobody has has "made" him do this at all, and I didn't advocate for a policy of doing so. What I'm saying is that I don't think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I'm not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it's statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn't saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman's name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago*

    I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman's name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism.

    I don't know about what other people see, but I see negatives because it's associated with a billionaire.

    If Taylor Swift put her name on it, my opinion would not change.

    Billionaires don't build, they finance machines that extract value from human beings.

    Actual scientists have been working on using CRISPR to fight hereditary disease in the US and around the world.

    This money should have gone to them instead of into yet another billionaire’s pet designer baby startup.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Generally speaking (by theory subscription), moral evaluations of an action consider the state of the agent.

    "Is this a good technology?" And "Is Sam Altman doing good?" Are two radically different questions with radically different answers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Because the US health care system already serves the wealthy and abandons the poor, any expensive treatments are seen as just further steps into a Gattaca future of even more dystopian disparity, especially when driven by a rich asshole personally.

    Universal negativity is also kind of the norm around here. A lot of folks on Lemmy believe we are slaves sucking Satan’s cock for breakfast, and anything that isn’t a complete burn down of our system and way of life is a negative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    Please review the glimpse into our future titled "Gattaca" to see why people might be concerned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It's fiction.

    You can find actual discrimination based on genetics or wealth or class into the present and past of the real world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You entirely missed the point of the movie if you think it's only about genetic discrimination. It's about creating a permanent underclass of people who weren't wealthy enough to have had their parents make them genetically perfect. Exactly like what will happen once the rich have the ability to make themselves into the 'ubermensch' that they've been telling themselves they are for centuries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Well it's science fiction. Being 'genetically perfect' (rofl) will impart less of an advantage than actually existing, mundane factors such as wealth and which country you were born in. Hell, the biggest advantage they could get is making sure their children is of the 'right' color.

    I do not even think the biggest assholes like say Musk would genetically modify their children. He already thinks he is perfect.

    I can also think of a few factors that would disadvantage poor people more than lack of eugenics.

    Lack of healthcare. Climate change leading to people having to abandon their homeland and also exacerbating another factor. Bad nutrition. Bad education in combination with disinformation by wealth controlled media.

    Genetic modification is not really a problem. It could also help some people if we fix our politics and make sure people get access to healthcare based on needs rather than means.

    Seriously, fiction is not necessarily a good guide for politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    20 comments in c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world view that post