I think that a human being in a constant blissful state might endanger someone’s existence or make them non-functional, which isn’t much of an issue for a farm animal.
However, I do think that we can use genetic engineering to make people happier, healthier, and more intelligent than anyone who has ever lived. I think these would have positive network effects to general society—making people more altruistic and society better functioning. I think we’re quite close to achieving this and that EAs could take deliberate efforts to accelerate this process. My argument was not well-received by the EA forum, I think largely because the idea is controversial and some of the researchers I cited were controvesial (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gaSHkEf3SnKhcSPt2/the-effective-altruist-case-for-using-genetic-enhancement-to).
The second-order considerations are definitely a problem once there is more widespread adoption. If only 0.001% of the population is using genetic enhancement, there are very little in the way of collective action problems. If a sizeable portion is using this technology, then we run into game theory. This is the topic of Jonathan Anomaly’s “Creating Future People”—which released a second edition yesterday. I will be reviewing it on my blog (most likely) rather soon. I am not sure if the EA forum would consider it relevant.
I think that a human being in a constant blissful state might endanger someone’s existence or make them non-functional
But if pure suffering elimination was the only thing that mattered, no one would be endangered, right? I am guessing there are some other factors you account for when valuing human lives?
which isn’t much of an issue for a farm animal.
I suspect we share very different ethical intuitions about the intrinsic value of non-human lives.
But even from an amoral perspective, this would be an issue because if a substantial number of engineered chickens pecked each other to death (which happens even now), it would reduce profitability and uptake of this method.
The second-order considerations are definitely a problem once there is more widespread adoption. If only 0.001% of the population is using genetic enhancement, there are very little in the way of collective action problems.
I partially agree, but even a couple of malevolent actor who enhance themselves considerably could cause large amounts of trouble. See this section of Reducing long-term risks from malevolent actors.
Good question.
I think that a human being in a constant blissful state might endanger someone’s existence or make them non-functional, which isn’t much of an issue for a farm animal.
However, I do think that we can use genetic engineering to make people happier, healthier, and more intelligent than anyone who has ever lived. I think these would have positive network effects to general society—making people more altruistic and society better functioning. I think we’re quite close to achieving this and that EAs could take deliberate efforts to accelerate this process. My argument was not well-received by the EA forum, I think largely because the idea is controversial and some of the researchers I cited were controvesial (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gaSHkEf3SnKhcSPt2/the-effective-altruist-case-for-using-genetic-enhancement-to).
The second-order considerations are definitely a problem once there is more widespread adoption. If only 0.001% of the population is using genetic enhancement, there are very little in the way of collective action problems. If a sizeable portion is using this technology, then we run into game theory. This is the topic of Jonathan Anomaly’s “Creating Future People”—which released a second edition yesterday. I will be reviewing it on my blog (most likely) rather soon. I am not sure if the EA forum would consider it relevant.
But if pure suffering elimination was the only thing that mattered, no one would be endangered, right? I am guessing there are some other factors you account for when valuing human lives?
I suspect we share very different ethical intuitions about the intrinsic value of non-human lives.
But even from an amoral perspective, this would be an issue because if a substantial number of engineered chickens pecked each other to death (which happens even now), it would reduce profitability and uptake of this method.
I partially agree, but even a couple of malevolent actor who enhance themselves considerably could cause large amounts of trouble. See this section of Reducing long-term risks from malevolent actors.