That's like saying "now that we invented canals let's try to fix the world's irrigation problems before making fountains and water parks"
We can, and always will, work on many different things at once.
The tools to investigate this will get cheaper and easier, driving more people into the field hoping for the next big win, a big payout, or just to make an impact.
Anyone can make a small circuit design have have a fab print it for you. The same could happen here, all you need to do is provide the sequence
In all seriousness, at times I do genuinely wish species transition were possible. Imagine gender dysphoria but for species, so species dysphoria. It may sound insane, but honestly so can the entire concept of dissociative identities.
I don't know if I'd want to change my brain, but the physical properties of the body definitely. I want the body to be a fluffy quadruped...
Thank you for the link though, that is very interesting. It is intuitive, but not something that normally comes to mind~
Yes, they can and likely will both happen to some extent, but I think they aren't independent, so I feel justified in trying to nudge the public conversation back towards the issues that I think matter more.
That interdependence may be beneficial, though.
Experience and revenues from cosmetic treatments will help health-restoring treatments.
I wouldn't underestimate the emotional toil of dealing with illness and death [1].
Tackling these problems head on requires (a) exposing researchers to that toil and (b) removing from the pool anyone who doesn't want to do that. Given how much of Silicon Valley culture is built on borderline-ludicrous optimism (once it's over the border it no longer qualifies as building), it makes sense that the indirect approach finds resonance here in a way the direct one does not.
Where your argument finds ample purchase is in the asymmetry of idiot luxury spending in our society to basic and applied research of any kinds, wings or Wilm's tumour.
[1] https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/19/mental-health-doctor-res...
I'd go one step further in arguing they're complementary. The personalities that will work on e.g. wings or longevity are not the types drawn to curing diseases, much less the boring ones.
Broadening the field from solving mundane problems to solving daring ones is net positive. You gain personalities that would have otherwise stayed away. (You see something similar in space programmes.)
Solving e.g. male pattern baldness or bone loss from peridontitis means guaranteed billionaire from out-of-pocket treatments alone.
Like it or not, the way society is currently arranged, making stuff for rich people is more profitable than making things for poor people, and greed can kick in, so people do things out of love of money rather than necessity. were the deck stacked more equal, maybe things would be different, but human psychology is devilishly complex.
The entire point of genetic engineering is to try to engineer people at the cellular level. A fanciful example would be modifying human metabolism to be more similar to those of birds that consume most of their calories in the form of simple sugars. Humans can't eat a diet of 100% sugar and remain healthy, but other animals can. It may be possible to change that fact, if we know how to edit our genes.
On the other hand, a bodily alteration is much more predictable, and, importantly, I'd still be me. I wouldn't become some other person.
This me has an instinct for self-preservation. Thus, if both options were available, I would absolutely choose transition over erasure.
