> what we're talking about here is a protocol for performing eugenics...

No. What we're talking about is if it's ethical to essentially create a race of monster-people by altering their DNA.

GP is saying, no way it's ethical, because if they have offspring it would be unethical. I'm saying maybe it's as ethical as current medical science, as long as you sterilize them.

You're the only one talking about eugenics.

> ethically that isn't a hang-up for you

Look, ethics is in its core, a public affair. Ethicists are primarily concerned whether general people will find XYZ acceptable, and why or why not.

For me personally, I'm not concerned with academics. I'm concerned with whether I feel it's right or wrong in my personal view. Is genetically altering humans ethical in my personal view? No.

Harder to track down the person. Unless the hotel is logging every packet on its network and paying to archive the TBs of encrypted video streaming data that goes through every day. And it's a purely local network, so not like the NSA can help out.

Edit:

"Unauthorized" computer access is a serious federal crime under the CFAA, and that you did it as a joke is not a legal defense. Famous examples:

(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

(2) the Florida man who social engineered Twitter (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ivan_Clark)

(3) the Mirai botnet guys (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirai_(malware)), etc.

So the penalty will actually be much worse if you get caught.

The threat to the perpetrator -- of 90 days prison time and a permanent criminal record of being a mischief-maker -- prevents people from pulling the alarm.

Same way sheepdogs herd sheep.

> We’re so focused on grades because they are a believed to be an important part of the credentialing process for getting jobs.

Various colleges (ex: Reed, Brown) in the U.S. don't have grades. Their graduates do just fine, afaik.

In defense of grades, they are a good extrinsic motivator for learning boring subjects. Grades are a good consequence for phoning in it. I would probably have skipped reading most of the books I was assigned to read in school if there were no consequences, and would have ended up an (even) less educated person if not for grades.

> How are they protected against that, exactly? You can literally walk up to any fire emergency button on any wall

Cameras near fire alarms and it's a crime in the U.S. to give a false alarm.

> At least one point of those ethicists is to stop people who are naive from doing things with permanent consequences without first checking to see what those consequences would be.

Are the consequences really that permanent? It's pretty easy (in China) to monitor a handful of test subjects with heritable mutations and make sure they don't reproduce.

> At this stage of the science you're more likely to cause harm than cure disease

The potential upside of developing the science is huge, which is essentially what He is doing.

Sorry I edited out all the discussions about WW2. Assumed this was a dead thread and it was safe if I did it quickly. I'll edit this and address them here... please forgive me.

Edit:

> The US didn't forgive Von Braun and Japanese scientists, they simply chose to look the other way out of expediency, because the evils of the Axis had become a commodity for the Allies. That's a subtle but important distinction.

Right -- you're making the distinction, between forgiveness in the sense of amnesty, and forgiveness as a ritualized, cultural, and Christian purification concept. Von Braun and Unit 731 received amnesty-forgiveness. Hirohito received ritual-forgiveness.

> Anonymity isn't forgiveness

Anonymity is forgiveness in the first sense.

GP was concerned with "the Cancelled" receiving both types of forgiveness. Anonymity only provides amnesty-forgiveness. It's up to you to reconcile that with the fact you don't receive ritual-forgiveness (and have to be ok with mere amnesty). Probably explains why most anonymous folks on the internet are so anti-establishment, because in this sense it (i.e., placing little value on ritual forgiveness) is a requirement to accept being a real person inhabiting an anonymous identity.

Anonymity is the forgiveness of the internet machine.

> The broader question is how any of us – but especially children and young people – can become comfortable with our own freedom, our own spontaneity, against the backdrop of surveillance capitalism, which is the real condition of the reaction economy

Separate digital identities from real ones.

Edit 2: I originally had a much longer discussion about WWII and forgiveness but edited it out and did not indicate that I edited. Basically, I made a mistake, I take full responsibility, although you will bear the consequences.