This doesn't mean it is impossible to make prog arguments from an evo position. @cognitivepolicy and @David_S_Wilson give it a good go, but it's in uphill slog b/c many smell a bad odor in evo thinking about human behavior, because politics.
fair point. how much nuance does it take to convince people that the cure for cancer is probably going to be a gene therapy?
-
-
It's ok if they do evo thinking about populations of cells, and don't draw any political conclusions. Sure ppl will line up for cancer gene therapy.
-
ok, so thought experiment is needed here. compare and contrast: CRISPR style adult gene editing vs. germ-line gene hacking that is only expressed in the children. the former "cures" cancer like an anti-biotic cures strep throat. the latter prevents cancer inter-generationally.
-
the former case is boring. too obvious that it would be widely accepted. how about the latter case. that's a eugenics program that could make treated people no longer have offspring that are vulnerable to the most common types of heritable cancers. how would that be accepted?
-
Now, a gene therapy for poverty, that would be something. This is SF premise land. One story I read had good dystopic educated elite/flyover masses setting, and then nanotech weapon is repurposed to make everyone photosynthesize. Basic minimum calories anyway.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.