The more I learned about the relationship between prosperity and liberalism, the more I realized that embargoing countrys that didn't agree with us was the worst strategy.
That was the theory of working with Pinochet as well -- economic liberalism leads people to demand political liberty. It seems to have worked out well everywhere it's been applied -- South Korea used to be pretty repressive, back before they got rich.
Embargoing Cuba might have made some kind of sense in the Cold War; keeping them poor was draining the Soviet Union's increasingly limited resources. Now, though, it's hard to see how it accomplishes much; the poorer Cuba is the less likely it will reform.
It's really just the real-world application of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can only persuade people to give up their rights if you convince them it's necessary for their safety, food, or shelter. Once they acquire the latter, they will increasingly demand the former.
China's another good example. As nationalistic as the Chinese people are, they are increasingly demanding local elections -- and corrupt officials are increasingly being held to account, often violently.
About 5% to 15% of the population needs anti-depressants for optimum function. So do we do a general optimization where we divide the average supply needed per person among the whole population? Or do we do the individual thing and let those who need anti-depressants get what they need and the remaining population can ignore the whole business?
And then there is the difficulty of general optimization vs individual optimization. The USA generally chooses individual optimization as producing the best general results. And it seems to work rather well. Judging by results.
Well, mr. Simon, please explain to me how is a society, where 5-15% of the populatione needs anti-depressants, individually optimized?
It is a genetic thing. Until you can do genetic optimizations you are stuck with it.
The fact is that those 5% to 15% may be useful. The Cassandras. So I would be hesitant about genetic re-engineering.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Best just to let the re-engineering be available and let the market work it out. A few people will want their kids to be different, or won't care, or will have a religious prohibition against genetic modification. That will preserve the gene pool in case we ever need it. The rest will quietly ensure that their kids have the best possible future, and eventually the 5-15% will become more like 1%. If it turns out the depressed people are useful enough that 1% isn't enough, their particular talents will end up getting paid more and so more parents will opt to have depressed kids.
MirariNefas wrote:Best just to let the re-engineering be available and let the market work it out. A few people will want their kids to be different, or won't care, or will have a religious prohibition against genetic modification. That will preserve the gene pool in case we ever need it. The rest will quietly ensure that their kids have the best possible future, and eventually the 5-15% will become more like 1%. If it turns out the depressed people are useful enough that 1% isn't enough, their particular talents will end up getting paid more and so more parents will opt to have depressed kids.
It is often the case that defects come with talents. A tendency to schizophrenia is important for creativity. Depression may be a function of high intelligence.
Severe schizophrenia seems to be triggered by life experience. So if you load up on creativity the chances of a life shock sending your offspring around the bend rises.
BTW my estimation is that Europe sent America all its marginally functional misfits. Other wise known as crazy people. Which may be one reason American drug use rates are the highest in the world. The crazy people have been inbreeding for 300 years.
It may be that Americans truly live in a different place.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The only real problem I see with genetic engineering is when people don't recognize the talents that come with a genetic tradeoff. Information is key to making good decisions, and we certainly need better genetic correlations than we have right now. If a few genes are correlated to intelligence and depression, that will be good to know. If any genes are only correlated to one or the other, that is also good to know. Intelligence may well increase the likelihood of depression, but are there other genes which decrease that likelihood without compromising intelligence? Will these same genes work equally well in intelligent or average individuals? Some level of intelligence is environmentally determined and some genetic - how will depression and related genes play into that?
Clearly, we need more research. But not to worry. At the current rate, we'll have all the genome data we can want before germline engineering is remotely economical for the average family.