Cosmetic feels like a distinct category from intelligence enhancements. One affects the actual personality and mind of the child, and the other is just their body. You can be ok with one and not the other.
I find it hard to believe that significant changes to e.g. height, weight, or muscle tone, present since birth, wouldn’t affect the personality and mind of a person. There’s a big difference between growing up short and tall, and between being weak and athletic. And there’s a really big difference between growing up ugly and beautiful.
Well FWIW I voted differently for intelligence enhancements than cosmetic enhancements on the survey. I’m probably not the only one, so separating them makes sense.
I’m not Houshalter, but: beauty is mostly a positional good (if everyone in the world were one notch less attractive, nothing would be terribly different) whereas intelligence is not (if everyone in the world were one notch less intelligent, it would almost certainly be really bad for the world’s economic and technological progress).
[EDITED to add:] … And therefore if you use a “what if everyone did it” criterion for distinguishing good actions from bad, intelligence enhancement looks distinctly better than attractiveness enhancement.
This argument works in the short term but I’m not sure if it works in the long term.
There’s probably a limit or at least diminishing returns to beauty, because there are limits to how symmetrical a face is, how large eyes are, how shiny hair is, how tall a person grows, and what is achievable via genetic engineering.
If everyone in the next generation is genetically engineered for beauty, the amount of variation should decrease. That would be good, in part because today we suffer from beauty superstimuli from seeing media of the most beautiful people in the world. (Past generations don’t matter because older people can’t compete on beauty anyway.)
Also, “what if everyone did it” doesn’t work in the real world; you have to consider defecting strategies. And a single defector that enhances their beauty would be very successful. The only stable equilibrium is for everyone to enhance.
The problem is cost, including opportunity cost and tradeoffs inherent in genetic optimization for a certain purpose, all being invested towards a goal with diminishing returns. But I would at least support genetic enhancements of beauty that don’t come at the cost of other genetic modifications, merely at the cost of dollars.
I don’t know if this is an opinion I feel strongly enough about to argue on the internet about it. That just how I answered on the spot when the survey asked.
Something about cosmetic enhancements feels just wrong and creepy, in a way that intelligence enhancements don’t. Higher intelligence is objectively good. Our society would benefit from an increase in IQ. Intelligence is what distinguishes us from animals and lets us do all the cool things we do.
But increasing attractiveness wouldn’t make society any better. If anything it would make it worse, by creating obvious visual distinction between the modded and unmodded, which can’t end well.
And it just feels creepy. Reminds me of anecdotes about the Nazis wanting to create a race of blonde hair blue eyed people, or the image that circulates occasionally on how Korean beauty stars all look identical.
But increasing attractiveness wouldn’t make society any better.
Do you also think that society should be devoid of all forms of art? Or perhaps, technically-enhanced art? (leaving you with perhaps cave paintings and little else.) After all, these things do not materially improve society either.
If you make each house in a city to be more beautiful, no one gets an advantage, but you still get a more beautiful city.
I value diversity, so it would be a loss if all the modified people get similar, but I don’t think it’s going to happen any more than all the art becoming similar.
Cosmetic feels like a distinct category from intelligence enhancements. One affects the actual personality and mind of the child, and the other is just their body. You can be ok with one and not the other.
I find it hard to believe that significant changes to e.g. height, weight, or muscle tone, present since birth, wouldn’t affect the personality and mind of a person. There’s a big difference between growing up short and tall, and between being weak and athletic. And there’s a really big difference between growing up ugly and beautiful.
Well FWIW I voted differently for intelligence enhancements than cosmetic enhancements on the survey. I’m probably not the only one, so separating them makes sense.
Can you explain your reasoning, please?
I’m not Houshalter, but: beauty is mostly a positional good (if everyone in the world were one notch less attractive, nothing would be terribly different) whereas intelligence is not (if everyone in the world were one notch less intelligent, it would almost certainly be really bad for the world’s economic and technological progress).
[EDITED to add:] … And therefore if you use a “what if everyone did it” criterion for distinguishing good actions from bad, intelligence enhancement looks distinctly better than attractiveness enhancement.
This argument works in the short term but I’m not sure if it works in the long term.
There’s probably a limit or at least diminishing returns to beauty, because there are limits to how symmetrical a face is, how large eyes are, how shiny hair is, how tall a person grows, and what is achievable via genetic engineering.
If everyone in the next generation is genetically engineered for beauty, the amount of variation should decrease. That would be good, in part because today we suffer from beauty superstimuli from seeing media of the most beautiful people in the world. (Past generations don’t matter because older people can’t compete on beauty anyway.)
Also, “what if everyone did it” doesn’t work in the real world; you have to consider defecting strategies. And a single defector that enhances their beauty would be very successful. The only stable equilibrium is for everyone to enhance.
The problem is cost, including opportunity cost and tradeoffs inherent in genetic optimization for a certain purpose, all being invested towards a goal with diminishing returns. But I would at least support genetic enhancements of beauty that don’t come at the cost of other genetic modifications, merely at the cost of dollars.
I don’t know if this is an opinion I feel strongly enough about to argue on the internet about it. That just how I answered on the spot when the survey asked.
Something about cosmetic enhancements feels just wrong and creepy, in a way that intelligence enhancements don’t. Higher intelligence is objectively good. Our society would benefit from an increase in IQ. Intelligence is what distinguishes us from animals and lets us do all the cool things we do.
But increasing attractiveness wouldn’t make society any better. If anything it would make it worse, by creating obvious visual distinction between the modded and unmodded, which can’t end well.
And it just feels creepy. Reminds me of anecdotes about the Nazis wanting to create a race of blonde hair blue eyed people, or the image that circulates occasionally on how Korean beauty stars all look identical.
Do you also think that society should be devoid of all forms of art? Or perhaps, technically-enhanced art? (leaving you with perhaps cave paintings and little else.) After all, these things do not materially improve society either.
If you make each house in a city to be more beautiful, no one gets an advantage, but you still get a more beautiful city.
I value diversity, so it would be a loss if all the modified people get similar, but I don’t think it’s going to happen any more than all the art becoming similar.