• Windex007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 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.