Well for that to occur we’ll almost certainly need a FAI long before then.
No.
I have seen multiple people face to face who have implants to be able to perceive magnetic fields today.
We have the technology to make grown monkeys perceive an additional color via gene therapy.
Cloning isn’t completely trivial today but it’s possible to clone mammals today. I would be pretty confident that we solve the technological issues in the next decades that make cloning harder than growing a normal human being.
At that point reading a Vitamin C gene is trivial. For a lot of enzyms we can search for the best version in neighboring species and replace the human version with that.
In the West we might not legally allow such products but I can very well imagine a few scientists in a freer legal environment to go along with such a plan.
So I’d suggest optimise for that first, and think about the fun stuff once survival is ensured.
If you write into the FAI that it prevents the fun stuff because the fun stuff is bad, we might not have that option.
OK fair comment, although I note that the genetic approach doesn’t (and imo shouldn’t) only consider the welfare of humans, but also other species. Human genetics would probably have to be the starting point for prioritising them though, otherwise we might end with a FAI governing a planet of plankton or something.
While I’m quite interested in the potential of things like wearable tech and cyborgism, I feel we ought to be fairly cautious with the gene side of things, because the unintentional potential for fashion eugenics, branching off competing species etc. I feel existential risk questions have to come first even if that’s not always the fun option. I see what you’re saying though, and I hope we find a way to have our cake and eat it too if possible.
Human genetics would probably have to be the starting point for prioritising them though, otherwise we might end with a FAI governing a planet of plankton or something.
Plankton doesn’t have what we consider consciousness. That’s why that goal is in the mission statement.
I feel we ought to be fairly cautious with the gene side of things, because the unintentional potential for fashion eugenics, branching off competing species
Given that you aren’t the only person who thinks that way Western countries might indeed be cautious but that doesn’t mean that the same goes for East Asia or entrepreneurs in Africa.
No.
I have seen multiple people face to face who have implants to be able to perceive magnetic fields today.
We have the technology to make grown monkeys perceive an additional color via gene therapy.
Cloning isn’t completely trivial today but it’s possible to clone mammals today. I would be pretty confident that we solve the technological issues in the next decades that make cloning harder than growing a normal human being.
At that point reading a Vitamin C gene is trivial. For a lot of enzyms we can search for the best version in neighboring species and replace the human version with that.
In the West we might not legally allow such products but I can very well imagine a few scientists in a freer legal environment to go along with such a plan.
If you write into the FAI that it prevents the fun stuff because the fun stuff is bad, we might not have that option.
OK fair comment, although I note that the genetic approach doesn’t (and imo shouldn’t) only consider the welfare of humans, but also other species. Human genetics would probably have to be the starting point for prioritising them though, otherwise we might end with a FAI governing a planet of plankton or something.
While I’m quite interested in the potential of things like wearable tech and cyborgism, I feel we ought to be fairly cautious with the gene side of things, because the unintentional potential for fashion eugenics, branching off competing species etc. I feel existential risk questions have to come first even if that’s not always the fun option. I see what you’re saying though, and I hope we find a way to have our cake and eat it too if possible.
Plankton doesn’t have what we consider consciousness. That’s why that goal is in the mission statement.
Given that you aren’t the only person who thinks that way Western countries might indeed be cautious but that doesn’t mean that the same goes for East Asia or entrepreneurs in Africa.