Detweiler Vision vs Beowulf Code: "Right" and "Wrong"

I just had a discussion with a doctor about a (happily) minor issue of cystic fibrosis in my younger grandson. He had a breathing problem but it was found due to construction work inside his own house not from a disease.

But the doctor said he expects some genetically based treatment before Jake (who is one year old) becomes a teen. The other grandfather of the boy and myself both agreed to help pay for it if there are issues.

Then I began to think about the issue of paying for genetic changes in a world with prolong. I am highly unlikely to see great-grandchildren. I'm in my mid-seventies and my oldest grandkid is three. But if I had another fifty to sixty years I might get to see great-great grandchildren. And I started late and my daughter started late.

On Manticore people might see a half dozen generations. Genetic upgrades, which are passed on, would provide more impact on our lives. If I paid for an upgrade to prevent cancer in my kids, I could see a dozen descendants cancer free. If I paid for an increase in memory (not perfect memory, although that might be useful, but just general memory) my kids would probably do better in school. A raise of let's say 20 points on an IQ system (and let's not debate THAT just use it as a measuring system) could allow them a lot better choices in terms of jobs. Improving looks could lead to better marriages.

There are many people who would gladly pay for things like that. I think a Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg could afford millions. And the rich would be the first to use it.

But there would be countries ready to weaponize it. North Korea would love to build armies that are far stronger and have more endurance.

So things will change. And many of the laws passed will be ignored. For decades there were laws against abortions but mothers killed potential offspring. How effective would laws be against parents who want to "improve" their offspring.

And in a world where people live long enough to see and even help quite a few generations the pull would be even harder.

ldwechsler wrote: How effective would laws be against parents who want to "improve" their offspring.

And in a world where people live long enough to see and even help quite a few generations the pull would be even harder.

There is nothing in the Beowulf Code to prevent genetic treatments for diseases nor to prevent a parent from paying to improve their prospective children's memory abilities - as long as it within normal human limits.

Don't we expect that the prolong treatment has to contain some anti-cancer and anti-disease components, in addition to the purely anti-aging piece? Or do we expect that those were fixed even before prolong was developed? We do know that cigars can be smoked, because lung cancer has been cured (which must also include cancers of mouth, throat and so on).

tlb wrote:

ldwechsler wrote: How effective would laws be against parents who want to "improve" their offspring.

And in a world where people live long enough to see and even help quite a few generations the pull would be even harder.

There is nothing in the Beowulf Code to prevent genetic treatments for diseases nor to prevent a parent from paying to improve their prospective children's memory abilities - as long as it within normal human limits.

Don't we expect that the prolong treatment has to contain some anti-cancer and anti-disease components, in addition to the purely anti-aging piece? Or do we expect that those were fixed even before prolong was developed? We do know that cigars can be smoked, because lung cancer has been cured (which must also include cancers of mouth, throat and so on).

That's my point. Deciding where to draw the line is not simple. Eliminating cystic fibrosis is an easy choice. How about eliminating those genes which lead to learning disabilities? And what exactly are those disabilities? If memory isn't great, isn't that a problem? If math might be an issue, should a bit of change in DNA be OK? Where do we draw the line.

There's a good back by Daniel Suarez "Change Agent" where people really can get babies made to order. Very expensive but if you can get an adorable little girl who can speak a half dozen languages and read in them by the time she reaches the first grade, would it be worth what some pay now for a year in college?

ldwechsler wrote: That's my point. Deciding where to draw the line is not simple. Eliminating cystic fibrosis is an easy choice. How about eliminating those genes which lead to learning disabilities? And what exactly are those disabilities? If memory isn't great, isn't that a problem? If math might be an issue, should a bit of change in DNA be OK? Where do we draw the line.

There's a good back by Daniel Suarez "Change Agent" where people really can get babies made to order. Very expensive but if you can get an adorable little girl who can speak a half dozen languages and read in them by the time she reaches the first grade, would it be worth what some pay now for a year in college?

GMO, I think is the line. Taking cat genes for eyes and claws, night vision and hearing and inserting them into the genome. Creating artificial genes for bioweapons or intelligence (whatever that is). Fish gills to survive on a water world, camel's ability to survive for weeks without water on Arrakis.

Which is not near where the MAlign is. They are actually creating castes or classes of humans, scientifically measurable advantages setting one class above another with no way for advancement from Gamma line to beta line. or from slave to even delta line. Which is the ultimate in eugenitics. And of course the exact meaning of the term is still being debated.

I guess the availibility to all or more importantly the use of the power of government to control the genetic diversity, is what makes the neo-Detweiller plan so reprehensible.

You couldn't insert cat genes for claws or eyes or stuff like that. Macroscale features aren't one gene. There a extremely complex set of genes interacting in extremely complex ways. You could insert a gene for another photoreceptor type and have it expressed, but cat night vision goes beyond that. You could also design new genes designed to give cat like features, or design genes inspired be by cat features/genes.

Anyway the Beowulf Code doesn't have the force of law (except maybe in Beowulf?), and if it did it would need a lot of interpretation from the courts. Some places probably had laws based on it though.

Now if I understood the Beowulf code the limit was only using human genes, but there were exceptions for disease prevention and adapting colonists. (I also think "cosmetic" changes wer allowed.) So fish based gills on a water world could be justified. Or you could mod in Vitamin C production. (Scurvy prevention!) In addition you weren't allowed to create a "master race" or force changes on people or stuff like that.

Of course, that leaves loopholes you could drive scrag through! These scrag mods? I'm preventing cardiovascular disease, muscle degeneration and mental disabilities! Alternatively you could just "find" what you're looking for in an existing human that you rescued from pirates based out of Mesa. The Code has more or less fallen to this point. Case in point: Prolong You're just preventing a boatload of diseases! The original Det would be proud of Beowulf.

This still leaves some limits though! Those Chinese super-soldiers? Yeah, that's not justifiable as eliminating a disease. Trying to convince Treecat brain matter to grow in a human in order to give them psychic powers? That's gonna be tough to justify.

Think of it as criteria for artificial gene changes. Like the CDC.

Or just pitch all of this hand-wringing out of the window and check for the ability to interbreed with baseliners (which is an entirely valid interpretation of staying human) and quality-adjusted life years.

aairfccha wrote:Or just pitch all of this hand-wringing out of the window and check for the ability to interbreed with baseliners (which is an entirely valid interpretation of staying human) and quality-adjusted life years.

Humans are far too adaptable.Even with language, culture and religious differences, we somehow find a way to mate. All the Neanderthal DNA in Homo Sapiens DNA proves my point. And apparently it wasn't a one time mix.

pappilon wrote:Humans are far too adaptable.Even with language, culture and religious differences, we somehow find a way to mate. All the Neanderthal DNA in Homo Sapiens DNA proves my point. And apparently it wasn't a one time mix.

Which doesn't apply if you postulate an instantly distinct species through clumsy/overdone genetic modifications.

aairfccha wrote:

pappilon wrote:Humans are far too adaptable.Even with language, culture and religious differences, we somehow find a way to mate. All the Neanderthal DNA in Homo Sapiens DNA proves my point. And apparently it wasn't a one time mix.

Which doesn't apply if you postulate an instantly distinct species through clumsy/overdone genetic modifications.

And that is why I think Weber was wrong when he wrote that in another couple of generations they would be another species.

It is not easy to totally separate. San Martin people seem to have been able to mix with those from other planets and they had been in very adverse conditions as well. Note that Honor had the Meyerdahl B mods but her mother certainly did not.