astute observation

When you start genetic editing it will start with curing diseases at first, it will make users much more reproductively desirable so people will in fact start using it and users will replace non users in the population.

We already have no idea as to the implications of this but .. After the technology progresses enough, human engineers will start to look into Biological Enhancement and sell that. Again, users will likely replace non users and with time the tech will be mainstream.

With the development of AI (not even general intellegence AI) which is already happening, you will start to see that the AI will be able to come up with better mutations than human engineers simply because it can process more variables.

With Time, as humans start outsourcing their Evolution to this AI which doesn't need to be Terminater Level btw, it will slowly start coming with mutations that are good for humans as well as itself.

It will create mutations that make us dependent on the AI, and you will have this electronic phenotype over take our Natural Evolution, subjecting us to well, it's service. It gets more complicated but that's the best i can lay this case out.

@Xinyue

@Kazimir Malevich

@Gerçek Nootropics doesn't demand genetic editing, but even beyond that genetic editing will have certain very beneficial applications which will demand use at some point in future; too many good things can be achieved with these limited applications (such as removing deadly inherited diseases, etc).

And these basic applications (alongside future advanced nootropics) will be enough to yield the outcomes I've talked about for the past few hours. AI itself is not a necessary factor in this.

@Bee Third position does what was previously thought impossible and combines the worst aspects of the first two positions.

^^^^

it won't stay limited in it's application is the point as people see the benefits, adoption increases and adoptees replace non users

It can yes

lmao

easily

and neither can you prevent people from using those beneficial limited uses

you will never accomplish this

well, there is an element of inevitability yes

What you can do is argue for true AI ban because it is an existential threat

nootropics and limited use of gene-editing *isn't*

but that's not the point, you're making an active claim for this

without dealing with ethical concerns

I'm making an active claim that nootropics and gene-editing will be used, yes, and will yield certain outcomes.

Now,

humans are a species imbued with strong survival instinct

there's no reason to assume that strong AI research *must* in every scenario be a factor

```and neither can you prevent people from using those beneficial limited uses```

this

```nootropics and limited use of gene-editing isn't```

and this idea of *limited use* don't fit together

limited use, yes, which doesn't pose a risk

not all uses of gene editing pose a risk

to say that we *must* utilise the very dangerous applications is like saying that, due to the emergence of nuclear technology, we must instantly devolve into nuclear war

you won't be about to stop people from going beyond your set limits, by your own argument

you're being incoherent

uh, yes

ahahahaha

people will use the applications that are *utterly beneficial*

can you make a cogent argument why they would be super into existential threat applications?

no?

did you even read what i wrote?

i guess you're not interested

You aren't making sense

🤷

You are connecting points that don't connect

I've seen you do this before

you argue that,

as we use gene editing,