Seriously, what? All I can get from this is that somehow you managed to interpret what I was saying as being in favour of eugenics.
To clarify, I was at no point suggesting or supporting the idea that we should eliminate people from the human race simply because they are disabled, whether they be embryo's, foetuses or fully grown individuals.
I was talking about things like being able to scan an embryo's DNA, detect if it has any genetically inherited conditions that would prove either fatal to it or so crippling that it would prevent them from living a full and healthy life, and then re-arrange or replace that faulty DNA so that the resulting person can go on and live that full and healthy life. No deaths or enforced sterilisations necessary.
Again, what? The fact is that we already use AI to enhance our own abilities, pretty much the entirety of the developed world is built on AI and if it disappeared tomorrow we'd all be pretty much f*cked, so in a very real way we're already merged with AI.
We've made absolutely huge strides in understanding ourselves and the universe we're a part of by enhancing our abilities with AI, and we've also opened the door to a lot of negative and destructive consequences from that too. "Merging with AI" as you put it would simply do more of both, but with luck we'll be just slightly more intelligent enough to not make as many mistakes as we have before.
Taking it that much further by choosing to put a chip in your brain or whatever the equivalent might be of "merging with AI" is quite a big step and one I'm not sure I'd be entirely comfortable with, but I completely fail to see how it is either "stupid" or egoistic. Risky? Yes. Egoistic? No, not unless someone chooses to use it that way, but it's just as easy to choose to use it in a more humanitarian way too, to improve the world we live in and our relationships with each other.
That choice is something we've had to deal with throughout history, and I honestly don't see it changing any time soon, but neither do I see it as a reason to stop pushing forward and developing new techniques and technologies. How we use them depends very much on us, not on the techniques and technologies themselves.
See my first response, I wasn't talking about wiping out disabled people from the human race just because they're disabled.
I was referring to genetic diseases that kill people. People not dying = more mouths to feed on a planet that's already struggling to produce sufficient resources for everyone right now (though personally I think it's a problem we'll be able to overcome in time, but until then more mouths = fewer resources, fewer resources = cultural consequences).
I was also referring to genetic diseases that cripple people. If gene therapy makes it possible to eradicate most or even all of the fatal or crippling genetically inherited conditions it will make disabled people a much rarer sight, this will inevitably have a knock-on cultural effect, whether positive, negative or both in various measures.
What a peculiar mixture of humanitarianism and misanthropy.
thank you for your explanation 