Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

[David cgc]

People centuries ago probably drew the line between the two in a different place. Many would have argued that the average person doesn't need... straight teeth..., that most people get by just fine without them and they're just indulgences.

Heck, even today, in the American health system, teeth are regarded as, to borrow a phrase I saw once on Twitter, "luxury bones" and aren't covered by no-longer-quite-so-mandated health insurance, despite the fact that dental issues can easily spread throughout the body. Believe it or not, having a bunch of inflamed, infected tissue right in front of the main entry point of the body isn't great for general health.

Personally, I don't think of it as "genetic engineering" (probably because it's such a loaded, sci-fi phrase), but I do keep an eye out on experimental treatments for color-blindness, and am mildly looking forward to the day I can get a designer virus injected into my eyeballs or whatever they're going to do, and I can finally see what so damn great about actual green compared to what I know as green.

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I don't think of it as "genetic engineering" (probably because it's such a loaded, sci-fi phrase)

I think terms like "gene therapy" and "gene modification" are more commonly used in medicine today. The more refined, targeted techniques available today such as the CRISPR system are called "genome editing."

Still, while "genetic engineering" is a term that originated in science fiction (coined by Jack Williamson in 1951), I don't think I'd call it "loaded." Sure, there have been cautionary tales painting it as a negative, but there's also been plenty of SF portraying it as positive or neutral, especially in the past 2-3 decades when transhumanism has become a common theme in SF. My own Troubleshooter series (Only Superhuman and its related short stories) is an example, in a future where humans have needed to embrace genetic modification to survive in space and the transhumanist culture in the Asteroid Belt has produced genuine superheroes. Another example is Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda, set 3000 years in the future where human GM is so commonplace that the one non-GM human character, Harper, is treated as an anomaly -- and even he's technologically modified, with an installed port in his neck for jacking his brain into computers.

 

[Damian]

And all of those "incremental advancements" will be hoarded by the rich and powerful. There is absolutely no way you are going to convince me that this kind of stuff would be available to everybody. Even if the people who create the stuff intend for it to be available to everyone, once the rich and powerful find out about it, they will do absolutely everything they can to make it as hard for lower class people to get as they possibly can.

I wasn't sure if I wanted to jump back into this one since I felt I sort of exhausted my arguments....BUT, I'm never one to leave sleeping dogs lie so .....

I will say in my own arguments about genetic enhancements I half agree.

I DO happen to think that when it comes to 'genetic enhancements' (increased motor strength, intelligence...things of that nature, things that aren't to fix a defect or cure a disease) that it will be something that only the rich and well-to-do will be able to afford. Because I do believe it will be looked at as a luxury expense, not a necessity. It'd be hard to argue that insurance, government...whatever you want to call it, or whatever system is your preference....should be made to pay to enhance someone's abilities that is already healthy. I think genetic enhancements will be looked at as something like face lifts, breast enhancements, botox injections, things of that nature (and I should add gene therapy will likely be even more expensive than those procedures).

How do you tell insurance companies or taxpayers that they should supplement the cost of someone who is otherwise healthy getting enhancements to strength and intelligence. And these kinds of procedures cost boatloads of money to develop. The companies and entities working on these procedures aren't just going to give them away. Now I personally think that's just simple economics.

Now where I disagree is while I'm pretty cynical about humanity, I don't actually believe the rich and powerful will use it as a way to keep classes lower than them even lower. I think the rich and powerful will take advantage of gene enhancements because they can. But I don't think lower classes are going to really factor into their decisions about using it. I'm not THAT cynical.

Now maybe someday in the future things will be different. I'd like to think so. I'd love to think Star Trek's portrayal of the future is prophetic (well except the mid to late 21st century---that sounds like a hellhole--can I just skip ahead to the mid 22nd ). But right now, in this point in our history if gene enhancements were available today that's exactly how I see things going down.

 

[Christopher]

I DO happen to think that when it comes to 'genetic enhancements' (increased motor strength, intelligence...things of that nature, things that aren't to fix a defect or cure a disease) that it will be something that only the rich and well-to-do will be able to afford. Because I do believe it will be looked at as a luxury expense, not a necessity.

Again, though, once you get to that point, then you're not saying genetic modification is bad, you're saying that a health care system governed by profit is bad. So just say that and stop pretending that it's GM itself that's the source of the evil.

And again, I disagree with your assumption that these would be seen as elective. If gene modification could prolong people's lives by decades, make them less vulnerable to fatal injuries, or increase their resistance to cancer or other fatal diseases, it would be seen as a lifesaving technique. Medical science already does everything it can to maximize people's lifespans and keep them as healthy as possible as they age. Why would this be any different?

Besides, the first people to get superpowers won't be the rich, they'll be the disabled. We're already at the point where prosthetics and corrective treatment are starting to improve on natural ability rather than just restoring it. Once people with disabilities and severe injuries are able to upgrade themselves to a superhuman level out of necessity, how long before healthy, "normal" people start thinking they need to upgrade themselves (whether bionically, genetically, or whatever) just to stay competitive? It won't be seen as elective any more than fixing kids' teeth is seen as elective today.

The problem with the "hoarded by the rich" idea is that it's applying capitalistic thinking the wrong way. Genetic enhancements aren't wealth in and of themselves; they're a commodity, and that means they would be marketed, not simply hoarded. There would be profit in making these technologies available to the public, in convincing the public that elective upgrades are actually essential if they want to stay competitive or be successful. The rich would profit more from encouraging the masses to get as many genetic enhancements as possible than they would from hoarding it all to themselves.

After all, rich people don't want to be smarter; they already assume they're geniuses because they're rich, even when they're total morons whose wealth was handed them by their parents. They define their entire value by money, so they assume that if they have a great deal of money, that already makes them superhumanly smart and strong and desirable. And they can make more money from genetic upgrades by marketing them as a commodity, convincing the public that they need them desperately, as much as they need fast cars or fashionable shoes.

 

[Damian]

Again, though, once you get to that point, then you're not saying genetic modification is bad, you're saying that a health care system governed by profit is bad. So just say that and stop pretending that it's GM itself that's the source of the evil.

Well, that's just one area I have concerns with. I still have moral and ethical, let's say concerns.

And I wouldn't use the word evil. I just wonder if we are treading on things we shouldn't. I know it's an extreme example but we "Can" make neutron bombs...but it doesn't mean we "Should". Even if we can genetically enhance people, should we? And I mean that as an honest question. I think you've misinterpreted some of my questions as accusations. They're really not.

I mean I am cynical about humanity. I'm not as sure that G.E. won't end up being misused by some person, group, nation state, etc. How much control will other elements have in preventing or controlling that?

But as far as the moral and ethical considerations behind G.E.? That I think is an open question. Are we better off with genetic enhancements....or are we better off letting evolution take its course? Those are the questions I'm asking when it comes to the 3rd and 4th types of G.E.

NOW, all that being said, it's not something that keeps me up at night. I probably am more concerned about how Discovery will be reconciled with the original series . But it's something I hope won't lead to some of the nightmare scenarios we do see in some sci-fi.

The problem with the "hoarded by the rich" idea is that it's applying capitalistic thinking the wrong way. Genetic enhancements aren't wealth in and of themselves; they're a commodity, and that means they would be marketed, not simply hoarded

Well, I wouldn't say hoarded anyway. That's where I disagree with JD a bit. I don't think they will keep it all to themselves. I just think they will likely be the only ones that can afford G.E. But I don't think rich people would prevent lower classes from getting enhancements. Only that the cost would do that. And what I see more likely is rich people use G.E. to create enhanced children. Not so much for themselves personally, but that they would want their children to be enhanced. I mean, even with the college admissions scandal you see a symptom of that. They basically cheated to get their kids in the best colleges. I can see them using G.E. to make sure their children are smarter/stronger than everyone else and they'd have the money to do it.

But I don't think they'd take direct action to prevent it from being available to other people.

 

[Christopher]

I just wonder if we are treading on things we shouldn't.

Oh, not the hackneyed "There Are Things Man Was Not Meant to Meddle With" nonsense. People have trotted that one out about every human advancement since fire.

http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/

Even if we can genetically enhance people, should we?

Even if we can drive cars, should we? Yes, as long as we do it responsibly and safely. Obviously it depends on how you do it, not whether. If a car hits somebody, it's usually not the car's fault, it's the driver's. If we use a technology in a way that hurts people, that's not the technology's fault, it's our fault for being irresponsible with it. So we should focus on being responsible and ethical in ourselves rather than dodging responsibility by blaming our tools for our own mistakes.

I mean I am cynical about humanity. I'm not as sure that G.E. won't end up being misused by some person, group, nation state, etc. How much control will other elements have in preventing or controlling that?

It's strange that you even need to ask that question. Look at how any new medicine or procedure is developed. Everything has to go through a careful testing process before it's cleared for human use. Ethical oversight and the ability to enforce them have existed for a long time already. Sure, there are some who try to bypass FDA approval or other government regulations limiting unproven medicines or procedures, but there are penalties for that -- not only laws and regulations, but the risk of lawsuits if your reckless procedures hurt people.

But as far as the moral and ethical considerations behind G.E.? That I think is an open question. Are we better off with genetic enhancements....or are we better off letting evolution take its course?

Again: We evolved to be inventors. That's our survival trait. There's no conflict between evolution and technology, because our ability to create technology is the product of our evolution.

And evolution isn't God or destiny. It's morally neutral. It's nothing more than a statistical process by which random traits that increase reproductive success are therefore reproduced more successfully. And it's often a cruel, heartless process where selection is made by the death of less successful individuals. Our technology has already enabled us to be far more humane than that, saving lives that would otherwise be lost and allowing us to advance and improve our standard of living without the ruthlessness of nature. I think that's a definite good.

But it's something I hope won't lead to some of the nightmare scenarios we do see in some sci-fi.

Those scenarios are symbolic. They're meant to make us think about the potential downsides of progress so that we can avoid them and advance more responsibly.

But I don't think rich people would prevent lower classes from getting enhancements. Only that the cost would do that.

New technologies tend to get more affordable over time. And there have always been options for helping people pay for expensive medical treatments, even if the American health care system has spent the past few decades making it harder to do so.

And what I see more likely is rich people use G.E. to create enhanced children. Not so much for themselves personally, but that they would want their children to be enhanced. I mean, even with the college admissions scandal you see a symptom of that. They basically cheated to get their kids in the best colleges. I can see them using G.E. to make sure their children are smarter/stronger than everyone else and they'd have the money to do it.

That's just it, though -- if they can just cheat by paying colleges to take their idiot kids, then why would they need to go to the trouble of actually making them smarter? Again, these people don't understand the difference between wealth and merit. They assume that their wealth is proof that they have Very Good Brains and earned their success by being smarter than other people. They already assume they're a superior breed; it seems to me that they'd have to be self-aware enough to admit their own limitations in order to desire any kind of transhuman enhancement.

 

[Damian]

Oh, not the hackneyed "There Are Things Man Was Not Meant to Meddle With" nonsense.

I wouldn't put it like that. It's more a question of should we or shouldn't we. Are we better off with or without it. See my example about developing neutron, or atomic bombs. I think most people would prefer we didn't do that. Now I admit I do wonder partly about religious implications---but freely admit I don't have those answers? But I still wouldn't classify that as being meant to or not meant to, being evil or not evil, etc. Not every advancement leads to positive change after all. I also believe we have 'free will' for a reason. But sometimes free will means choosing NOT to do something. Ultimately it is up to us to decide how to proceed.

Look at how any new medicine or procedure is developed. Everything has to go through a careful testing process before it's cleared for human use. Ethical oversight and the ability to enforce them have existed for a long time already. Sure, there are some who try to bypass FDA approval or other government regulations limiting unproven medicines or procedures, but there are penalties for that -- not only laws and regulations, but the risk of lawsuits if your reckless procedures hurt people.

Yeah, for the United States. But those rules don't apply everywhere to everyone. I think it's possible some unscrupulous people, scientists or state actors out there could abuse G.E. I don't really worry about things like that occurring in the US necessarily. But around the world, not everyone plays by the same rules.

New technologies tend to get more affordable over time. And there have always been options for helping people pay for expensive medical treatments, even if the American health care system has spent the past few decades making it harder to do so.

But would there be for enhancements. Some things are looked at as optional. I mean, it'd be hard to argue enhancing someone's intelligence is a basic necessity. When it comes down to it you're still more likely to see people getting help to pay for cancer treatment or a hip replacement than genetic enhancements. Those are necessary to survive and live a productive life. Increased intelligence adds to that, but it's not a life or limb necessity.

That's just it, though -- if they can just cheat by paying colleges to take their idiot kids, then why would they need to go to the trouble of actually making them smarter?

I still think this is likely to occur. Many of the Hollywood types treat their kids like trophies or toys and I think they'd spend money to increase the value of their 'trophies.' Just so they can say 'my kid is smarter then yours'. I think a lot of it has to do with vanity.

 

[Christopher]

I wouldn't put it like that. It's more a question of should we or shouldn't we. Are we better off with or without it.

Do we or don't we use fire? Do we or don't we use electricity? Do we or don't we use cars? It's not about whether we use it, it's about how we use it. I've said that a dozen times now and you keep ignoring it.

See my example about developing neutron, or atomic bombs. I think most people would prefer we didn't do that.

Atomic bombs are based on the same physics as nuclear reactors. The same science can be used positively or negatively. IT'S ABOUT HOW, NOT WHETHER.

Yeah, for the United States. But those rules don't apply everywhere to everyone.

Yes -- most civilized countries these days have better health care systems that prioritize patient care over insurance company profits, that are less corrupted by wealth and greed than ours is. But I'm optimistic that America will eventually come to its senses and put a sane health care system in place.

But would there be for enhancements. Some things are looked at as optional.

Asked and answered. Standards of what's optional or necessary can change over time. We're going in circles now. I give up.

 

[Damian]

Yes -- most civilized countries these days have better health care systems that prioritize patient care over insurance company profits, that are less corrupted by wealth and greed than ours is. But I'm optimistic that America will eventually come to its senses and put a sane health care system in place.

I'm certainly not going to get into an argument over health care---that would probably take 16 pages of posts---but there are places around the world where something like GE can be used for ill---you know, North Korea, Russia, and others where it could be used destructive purposes. As you yourself pointed out not all scientists are created equal. And not all people have the same ethical constraints. I hope your trust in the world's ability to make sure things are kept on the up and up are well-placed, I really do. I'm not as optimistic about that but I hope my concerns are unwarranted.

We're going in circles now. I give up.

Awe, don't be like that.

But I guess you're right. I can't think of anything else really to add to what I've already said. I'll just say I have concerns. But I'm not proposing abandonment or stopping GE in its tracks. You say scientists have been considering all the implications all along. I hope that's the case--I can't say it is or it isn't because I don't know. I'm asking questions BECAUSE I don't know. I just know not everyone is the same.

And I don't think it's a 'meant' to be issue. That's just a non-starter. If we weren't meant to engage in genetic enhancements then it won't happen. It's more what kind of limits should there be if any and what's the best way to proceed and use it so that we move forward and not backwards, that it does good and not bad and how do we best avoid nightmare scenarios. And I think that goes beyond the scientific community.

And my final point is that I don't think this is an good vs. evil issue. I do think there is evil in the world but I wouldn't classify GE as evil, or good. It's a tool. It's how we use it that can be good or evil and for what purpose.

 

[Christopher]

And my final point is that I don't think this is an good vs. evil issue. I do think there is evil in the world but I wouldn't classify GE as evil, or good. It's a tool. It's how we use it that can be good or evil and for what purpose.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[JD]

And again, I disagree with your assumption that these would be seen as elective. If gene modification could prolong people's lives by decades, make them less vulnerable to fatal injuries, or increase their resistance to cancer or other fatal diseases, it would be seen as a lifesaving technique. Medical science already does everything it can to maximize people's lifespans and keep them as healthy as possible as they age. Why would this be any different?

Because you can live a perfectly comfortable life without it. Most of the kind of things you are talking about are done once an issue comes up that specifically threatens a person's health or life. If there is no medical reason for this kind of stuff, it's not easily available to everyone. Even today, I believe most of the advanced prosthetic are either bought by the people with their own money, or provided for them by special groups. Insurance probably does cover it, but most of them will probably only get you the most basic versions.

Besides, the first people to get superpowers won't be the rich, they'll be the disabled. We're already at the point where prosthetics and corrective treatment are starting to improve on natural ability rather than just restoring it. Once people with disabilities and severe injuries are able to upgrade themselves to a superhuman level out of necessity, how long before healthy, "normal" people start thinking they need to upgrade themselves (whether bionically, genetically, or whatever) just to stay competitive? It won't be seen as elective any more than fixing kids' teeth is seen as elective today.

But once again, most of that stuff is still based around correcting a problem, and if there is no problem then you are probably not going to find insurance companies that are willing to pay for this kind of stuff. Insurance companies will do everything in their power, even let you die, to keep from paying for stuff.
And like Damian pointed out, even today some of the lowest level insurance doesn't even always cover that kind of stuff. I have the state insurance, and I don't have either. OK, I'll confess I think that was an option I just chose not to use, but the fact that it is even optional at all, still proves my point. I believe the insurances that you pay also charge extra for it, on top of all of the regular stuff. If it was really seen as the kind of absolute necessity you are talking about, it would always automatically be part of all insurances. Just look at how many poor people have bad teeth.

The problem with the "hoarded by the rich" idea is that it's applying capitalistic thinking the wrong way. Genetic enhancements aren't wealth in and of themselves; they're a commodity, and that means they would be marketed, not simply hoarded. There would be profit in making these technologies available to the public, in convincing the public that elective upgrades are actually essential if they want to stay competitive or be successful. The rich would profit more from encouraging the masses to get as many genetic enhancements as possible than they would from hoarding it all to themselves.

OK, hoarding it might have been to extreme, but it will be so insanely, massively expensive that only the richest people will be able to afford it, and I can't see any possible scenario where insurance companies would cover it. I'm not positive, but I believe that even countries that don't use for profit insurance will still make you pay for stuff that isn't medically necessary. So even if we get to that point some day, I still don't see this kind of thing being easily available to everyone.

After all, rich people don't want to be smarter; they already assume they're geniuses because they're rich, even when they're total morons whose wealth was handed them by their parents. They define their entire value by money, so they assume that if they have a great deal of money, that already makes them superhumanly smart and strong and desirable. And they can make more money from genetic upgrades by marketing them as a commodity, convincing the public that they need them desperately, as much as they need fast cars or fashionable shoes.

And they are going to want to make as much money as possible off of them, so they are going to make them as expensive as they possibly can.

 

[Christopher]

Because you can live a perfectly comfortable life without it. Most of the kind of things you are talking about are done once an issue comes up that specifically threatens a person's health or life. If there is no medical reason for this kind of stuff, it's not easily available to everyone.

I have already explained how a culture's perception of the difference between what's optional and what's necessary can change from generation to generation. You can't assume that people hundreds of years from now will draw the line the same place you do. There are things you consider essential that people in the past would've seen as luxuries.

 

[JD]

And there are a lot of things that have always been seen as luxuries.

 

[Christopher]

And there are a lot of things that have always been seen as luxuries.

If it lets people live longer and survive previously fatal diseases, I don't think people will see that as a luxury. That's the real gold ring here -- not just being ten times stronger or smarter, not having night vision or super-hearing, but extending life by decades or centuries.

 

[trampledamage]

Okay, we've gone very far afield to any connection to Discovery. If you want to continue this, please move it to one of the general forums.

Thanks

 

[JD]

Sorry, I think it's clear that this debate could literally go on forever, so I'm done.

 

[jaime]

Science does the how.
Spirituality does the why.
Sometimes they get on splendidly.
Both can be perverted by those with self interest in doing so.
DSC this year has touched on that in places.
Engineers work with both. They need the ocasional need to blaspheme, and sometimes the odd prayer, but that alone wont stop the boiler going boom.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Maybe in those three years, the Asgard gave them a massive tech upgrade.

Or in the fifty-odd years since the Cage was made, special effects has moved on and replicating what was made then would alienate vastly more viewers than the small handful of hardcore Luddites clinging to the past.

They could easily have used similar uniforms right off the bat. They could have updated the bridge to honor the original but with some tech updates like theme STE did on then mirror episodes. They added touch screen, better graphics in the viewscreen and more vibrant colors on the bridge without sacrificing what we have seen before! The discovery effects and set crew couldn't even keep simple things such as a square viewscreen. They finally tried to got it right with the enterprise interiors but they still went out of their way to drastically change little things like the size of the bridge, an extra corridor near the turbo lift, a viewscreen that was completely different with that annoying abrahms see though communication graphics. Even the bridge stations were totally reconfigured. To me visual continuity is also important.

 

[Tuskin38]

Doesn't bother me at all, it's not the 1960s anymore.

 

[JD]

They could easily have used similar uniforms right off the bat. They could have updated the bridge to honor the original but with some tech updates like theme STE did on then mirror episodes. They added touch screen, better graphics in the viewscreen and more vibrant colors on the bridge without sacrificing what we have seen before! The discovery effects and set crew couldn't even keep simple things such as a square viewscreen. They finally tried to got it right with the enterprise interiors but they still went out of their way to drastically change little things like the size of the bridge, an extra corridor near the turbo lift, a viewscreen that was completely different with that annoying abrahms see though communication graphics. Even the bridge stations were totally reconfigured. To me visual continuity is also important.

I was honestly amazed they stuck as close to the original bridge as they actually did. They definitely updated it, but they still kept enough of the original layout for it to be recognizable.