Imagine a drug which, with no side effects, boosts IQ 10 points. Should it be a) Banned b) Sold c) Made freely available on NHS d) Put in the public water supply? Now, instead of a drug, ask analogous questions of an IQ-boosting gene which could be inserted in zygote genomes.
-
-
Surely c) would also achieve the same effect without the inequality. Pharma companies don’t give drugs to the NHS for free you know.
-
No, but we Americans subsidize the drug development costs for almost everything you guys in Britain benefit from....
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This view, while it sounds reasonable enough, was precisely the one which saw
@toadmeister labelled as a peddler of eugenics. Just so you know. - 8 more replies
-
-
-
This is the correct answer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Probably d) so that we can reap the massive benefits of *everyone* being more intelligent... it would probably have a huge effect. Should everyone have the gene edit done? For some reason, it doesn't seem as obvious, though it should be the same answer all else equal...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Obviously
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You need smart people to develop them. So c) would be better, wouldn't it? If 1 million people pay $1000 that would be an incentive. But if the Government pays $300 for 60 million people, wouldn't that be a higher incentive?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So that only the rich can have it, and dig the socioeconomic canyon even deeper, wider, and more unbridgeable.
-
Yes, which is exactly why only the greedy rich have electricity, washing machines, refrigerators, cars, and television. Oh wait...
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.