Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

rherbom2k OP t1_jbpkk8u wrote

It's exciting to think about the possibilities of gene editing, but we have to be careful about how we approach it. We've heard some amazing success stories about CRISPR-based treatments, but we need to make sure that everyone can benefit from these therapies, not just the wealthy few. There are also important ethical and technical concerns that we need to take into account, like unintended effects or the potential for rogue scientists to exploit the technology. It's not all doom and gloom though - we can also find some humor in the situation and bring diverse perspectives into the conversation. As we move forward with gene editing, we need to keep both our heads and our hearts in the game.

10

dgkimpton t1_jbqepb7 wrote

Yes and also No. We're already in the situation where only the wealthy get the best treatments, why should we be especially concerned about CRISPR based variants?

10

UncommercializedKat t1_jbsy6zc wrote

I don't understand the concern raised by the article's comment here. Most technology starts out as expensive and thus only available to the wealthy. Wealthy people literally subsidize many technologies for the rest of us.

Is this a call for subsidies for everyone from day 1 of treatment availability? Is it even possible to scale these treatments up that quickly?

4

whatsup5555555 t1_jbsunu0 wrote

Why should we be especially concerned about CRISPR based variants?

We should be concerned bc this technology could potentially create a new class of human. The ultra rich could alter genetics to produce offspring that are predisposed to genius IQ, immunity to disease, height and strength advantages, and a whole slew of other “desirable traits”. While the rich already receive better healthcare they are still stuck with the genes that they inherited, both good and bad.

3

prionustevh t1_jbwy2cj wrote

Tbh what types of treatments the wealthy are getting that middle class can't get with good savings? I'm just confused cause I don't know any treatments middle or at least upper middle class can't get.

1

dgkimpton t1_jbx4kia wrote

For example https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/fda-approved_novartis-s-new-475-000-cancer-drug-among-most-expensive-ever/43482544

Also, how do you square "upper middle class" with not being wealthy? I definitely consider them wealthy. Frankly even poor Westerners are wealthy beyond belief compared to a significant portion of the planet. Where do you draw the line?

Medicine/healthcare has always started by being available to those who could afford it, and eventually become more widespread. This is no different. It's insane to expect it to work any other way because the development costs have to be paid somehow.

1

prionustevh t1_jbx9mii wrote

My point is there's nothing reserved for the Billionaires, Multimillionaires. Which is what most people think of when we talk about gene editing/longevity therapies in the future.

Yeah the people in poor countries will probably never afford it because they already lack basic Healthcare level unfortunately.

But alot of people in this sub act as if new advances in therapy will be only for Billionaires.

1

dgkimpton t1_jbxsazl wrote

Hmm, alright, I certainly expect gene editing therapies to be available to a much wider audience than billionaires - even if they tried to avoid it someone somewhere would be open to making money by offering it to the merely wealthy instead of the obscenely wealthy.

1

ramo_0007 t1_jbq6mm0 wrote

Any existing therapies for treating eczema or other skin problems? Can be genetic

2

Draskinn t1_jbtruc5 wrote

The Olympics is gonna have problems. You just know China is probably gonna be the first country to field genetically modified athletes.

2

johnmatrix84 t1_jbvv1k0 wrote

The Chinese are going to have much bigger problems in the next couple decades to worry about than winning medals.

3

FuturologyBot t1_jbpozrk wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/rherbom2k:

It's exciting to think about the possibilities of gene editing, but we have to be careful about how we approach it. We've heard some amazing success stories about CRISPR-based treatments, but we need to make sure that everyone can benefit from these therapies, not just the wealthy few. There are also important ethical and technical concerns that we need to take into account, like unintended effects or the potential for rogue scientists to exploit the technology. It's not all doom and gloom though - we can also find some humor in the situation and bring diverse perspectives into the conversation. As we move forward with gene editing, we need to keep both our heads and our hearts in the game.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11nxok1/more_than_200_people_have_been_treated_with/jbpkk8u/

1

kindofastoryteller t1_jbrg2ko wrote

I've seen this point of history mentioned in an episode of Star Trek. 🫠

−3

Draskinn t1_jbtqq4p wrote

Meh... Super Soldiers are overrated. The battlefields of the future will be dominated by machines. Human Soldiers super or otherwise have very little hope against swarms of hunter killer drones. That's the future.

4