181–189 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty much exactly my point. These can only exist as comparisons. They are meaningless on their own, e.g. they are not objective attributes.
No. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. That someone can lift 100 kg is an objective attribute of that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. That someone can lift 100 kg is an objective attribute of that person.
"Lifting 100kg" is objective. Saying that "being able to lift 100kg is being strong" is not. What is not objective is saying what it takes to be considered strong. Not the measurement itself.
You talked about "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" instead, and have stuck to it.
So I suppose you're right within your changed phrasing, because you chose to talk about something different than my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Also see sci-fi exploration of this topic (e.g. Gattaca). Don't use this as part of an argument. Some stories made up based on assumptions of writers not backed by any evidence have little to do with the ethical implications of actual technology.
Are you saying that we should disregard all science-fiction that has explored this topic when considering possible implications? I was referencing sci-fi as more of a "further reading" than as part of an argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Participate in what, though? This outlook basically presupposes that society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? If it does, what does "losing" mean, and can we reduce its impact to the point where it stops mattering?
> society is a competition of everyone against everyone. Does it have to be? Not society. The universe. Ressource ownership is exclusive. If I own something, no one else can own the very same thing at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Lifting 100kg" is objective. Saying that "being able to lift 100kg is being strong" is not. What is not objective is saying what it takes to be considered strong. Not the measurement itself.
Looking back at the thread, I started by saying "it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier". You talked about "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" instead, and have stuck to it. So I suppose you're right within your changed phrasing, because you chose to talk about something different than my point.
My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. That it was actually impossible to use the nouns themselves ("dumb", "weak", "ugly"), exactly because there cannot be any objective measure of it in nature.
Yes, you lift Nkg. You weight Mkg. You measure Xcm. That does not tell whether you are strong, heavy or tall. These are all meaningless in a vacuum. More importantly, it does not tell whether you are stronger, heavier, taller. Stronger, heavier, taller than what, than whom?
You were excluding this context in you analysis, telling that the poors would not lose anything as they would not be worse off from their former self. The context here is that they are not measured against humanity decades, centuries earlier, but to their contemporaries, the elites that would design their babies.
It is impossible to abstract this context from the comparison, precisely because it is a comparison, and because the only meaningful comparison is that which concerns contemporaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking back at the thread, I started by saying "it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier". You talked about "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" instead, and have stuck to it. So I suppose you're right within your changed phrasing, because you chose to talk about something different than my point.
You imply that it was dishonest. It was absolutely not dishonest. It was precisely to emphasize my point. My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. That it was actually impossible to use the nouns themselves ("dumb", "weak", "ugly"), exactly because there cannot be any objective measure of it in nature. Yes, you lift Nkg. You weight…
It seems like you honestly can't tell the difference. Thanks for the chat!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You imply that it was dishonest. It was absolutely not dishonest. It was precisely to emphasize my point. My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. That it was actually impossible to use the nouns themselves ("dumb", "weak", "ugly"), exactly because there cannot be any objective measure of it in nature. Yes, you lift Nkg. You weight…
I didn't mean to say you were dishonest, only that you're talking about a different thing than I am. It seems like you honestly can't tell the difference. Thanks for the chat!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes-- the inheritance of mtDNA is maternal, but interestingly not 100% of her children will inherit the disease. This is because the mother will have a mix of mutated (diseased) mtDNA and wild-type (healthy) mtDNA in each of her cells, including her eggs. Some of the eggs will have close to all mtDNA mutated, but many will have a relatively low mutational burden. (This variation amongst the mother's cells and eggs is…
> checking one of the cells at the 16 or 32 cell stage I wonder: How is an embryo dealing with missing a cell at this early? Does this error compound after a few doublings (embryo is smaller)?