The lock-in argument is anyway a weak argument against human enhancement,
since it applies to any area. Hence it is an argumgnet against every new
invention.
I think there is a real risk that a young field can be hurt or warped by
strong regulatory pressures or powerful interest groups (just look at
GMOs right now), but this merely implies a need to protect the development
and application of new technologies.
The "only the rich will be able to afford it" argument is as Natasha points
out not true simply due to the falling prices of everything. The only way
you can get a social lock in is if the benefits are so great that they make
even the earliest rich adopters impossible to ever compete with (which I
believe to be extremely unlikely) or that regulations impose a high cost on
the product, making it impossible for less rich people to get it. The
second risk must of course be dealt with in the dirtiest way as Greg Bear
put it - through politics...
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:00 MDT