No, because I do not believe you can isolate the effect of a gene modification to just "increasing intelligence" without side or downstream effects. We can barely determine how the brain works or explain how to treat mental disorders or why treatments do or do not work.
I owe it to my child not put them through that because I alone have the desire to make them relatively more intelligent.
There is also evidence that stimulants can aid in concentration and learning, but I wouldn't force that on a child that didn't want to deal with the side effects.
Those in power who want to change the historical record already have the power to do so. They do not need this legislation to do what they want.
You do not have that power and this does not give you the power to change the historical record. It allows you to influence the bias in which Google, a biased search engine, displays information that should be relevant to your identity.
We could let workers unionize and work out an agreeable private contract between their union and employer when it comes to compensation for jobs eliminated by machines. That option has left the table because of the violence, deaths and laws passed against workers and unions in the past.
Or we could do what's worked reasonably well at keeping people from dying in the streets and enact social programs through taxes.
Wealth accumulation to the extreme that it is today wouldn't be possible if not for the centuries of intentional enclosure of land, subsequent displacement of people, violence against workers looking for just compensation/treatment and political/legal/economic disenfranchisement of organized labor. This still happens today in the form of Right To Work legislation and in less luxurious industries and places.
Yet anything that can be couched as "redistribution" is deemed wrong and unfair.
Profit maximization is the goal behind automation.
We'd need to see changes in human nature or society to ensure that misplaced labor can still have a quality of life if idle, because profit optimization says you won't see a cent if I don't have to give it to you.
Why is redistribution unfair? There have been hundreds of years of theft, violence and political misgivings against labor to get to the point where, as a class, labor is neutered against having a chance to have a piece of the pie they built for industrialists and owners.
So why is it suddenly unfair to suggest redistribution?
Why are the deaths of billions of people somehow more just than a redistribution of wealth accumulated through centuries of ruthlessness?
> The vast majority of humans, if not literally every last one, will be much wealthier.
What makes you think that there would be any wealth made available for those who are not owners of wealth producing businesses? This is a serious question, because it is the same problem your solution is trying to fix.
> We need to accept that and adjust to it, not fight it with gimmickry and theft
Or we can recognize that the current state of affairs was brought upon by years of gimmickry and theft by a slim margin of people against the whole. If you rely on trading your time for money, you are not part of that slim margin.
Honest question: where do you think you'd be in this situation? On the side of vast wealth holders who will welcome you with open arms into their enclaves where a multibillion dollar net worth is required? Or rotting with the rest of us who rely on programming a computer to pay the bills?
This reads like an earnest Modest Proposal and efficiency porn mashup.
What duty do they have other than to ensure they get credit for a job well done and to continue their career building?
They're people driven by the same selfish pressures most are, but there is little oversight or regulation to keep that in check.
Getting answers quickly and cheaply is considered good investigative work. A warrant is a last resort and exists as a check against their desire for answers from someone who is unwilling to comply.
Google and Apple are still subject to the same pressures applied by warrants, subpeonas and national security letters.
I'm not really sure what you mean by encryption, though. Apple's iMessage may be encrypted, but their key exchange can be MitM'd easily.
Realistically you wouldn't use a service that exists because of the profit motive or is in the US. It will continue to operate to drive a profit while working with the government to stay in business.
Because it takes the least amount of time and effort to get the answers you need. Most people want to do the "right thing" to catch the bad guy, and will help out a LEO without a warrant to that end.
Plus, who wants to sully a relationship with people who have the power to make your life and business miserable?
You're making the mistake of assuming car thiefs are unintelligent or unorganized. Successful thefts that return a profit require a network of skilled people to pull off and talent can be found within that pool or recruited.
By saying a thief would have to understand how a computer exploit works, it's saying a thief needed the equivalence of an engineering degree to drive away with a car before computers entered the equation.
Exploit discovery, maybe, but it doesn't take much to execute packaged tools you bought on the blackmarket.
When that amount of money and power is at stake, there's no room for people who are earnest.