It is a fascinating take. I am curious to understand what model you think would work.
The U.S. effectively has a dysfunctional system with wild mix of "no regulation" and heavy state participation. I am not sure there is any country with a deregulated system where people can enjoy good healthcare. You could theoretically say that Switzerland does this, but the government there requires everyone to have insurance, even though hospitals are 100% private.
> we won’t work on product marketing for AI stuff, from a moral standpoint, but the vast majority of enquiries have been for exactly that. Our reputation is everything, so being associated with that technology as it increasingly shows us what it really is, would be a terrible move for the long term.
It is such an “interesting” statement in on many levels.
Market has changed -> we disagree -> we still disagree -> business is bad.
It is indeed hard to swim against the current.
People have different principles and I respect that, I just rarely
- have so much difficulty understanding them
- see such clear impact on the bottom line
They spoke with respect and pointed out that, from the point of career growth, they may need to talk to someone.
They pointed out that there might be more effective ways of dealing with what the blog post author is going through.
This comment didn't make me sad at all, if anything I appreciated it.
interesting
out of all "thinking models," I struggle with Gemini the most for coding. Just can't make it perform. I feel like they silently nerfed it over the last months.
I think it is worth a separate research that modern definition of progressive thought considers eliminating/treating a genetic malfunction "unethical".
It is an important point. Our understanding of what is “disease”/“malfunction” and how to address diseases has been changing.
I can see how if we, as society,
- gain such immense wealth that taking care of/ providing support to/ humans with DS becomes so easy
- arrive to the conclusion that there is no downside in emotional health/wellbeing
- change definition of what “living full/happy life”
Then parents stop perceiving DS as a concern
This is not an attitude exclusive to progressives. The chief grievance here is that the historical “solution” to the “problem” of Down Syndrome has been abortion. Opposition comes from the pro-life movement (which is generally conservative) and disability advocacy groups (which are generally liberal).
A novel therapy that does not result in the termination of the pregnancy might satisfy the conservatives, but it does nothing to satisfy the disability advocates, who point out that these kinds of technologies fundamentally normalize the idea that they should never have been born the way that they are.
Hailing from a particularly conservative country I can tell you right now that it's not going to satisfy the conservatives, as their core belief is that the world is zero-sum and tampering with that, in their view, wrong.
As a conservative, my position on genetic intervention is about ethics, human digniity, and the sanctity of life and not some kind of blanket opposition to treating genetic disorders.
I have no moral problem with a therapeutic intervention that improves a life by treating a debilitating disorder with no cost of life.
I will have moral problems when those ideals are inevitably twisted and loosened over time to not just treat disorders, but pick attributes like intelligence, strength, skin color, attractiveness, etc.
The U.S. effectively has a dysfunctional system with wild mix of "no regulation" and heavy state participation. I am not sure there is any country with a deregulated system where people can enjoy good healthcare. You could theoretically say that Switzerland does this, but the government there requires everyone to have insurance, even though hospitals are 100% private.
reply