I would like know how this mishmash of deeply conflicting ideas is brought anywhere close to unity
One of the things that is of great interest to me (and still needs a lot of evaluation, testing etc) is the notion of inconsistent ideologies, or moving between value systems that are each optimized to different ends. Still not sure how well it could be implemented, and what kind of lives can be led in doing so.
edit: that is, unity despite incongruity
And regarding the slippery slope of gene editing, in a similar way to how bias is preserved and active in programming: I think with the proper checks and balances, and sufficiently egalitarian standards, we can scale down the slope and make it to the other side without falling into some crevasse. Not sure how well the imagery works in that metaphor, but I think the point gets across.
And
@suspendedreason shouldn't be hounded on a selective basis of when and when not to generalize.
All categories are liable to be stereotyped by positions from any other category, as far as I can tell, as stereotypes function as a higher order, and lower resolution, means of communicating information about categories. Clearly, relying on stereotypes to get points across is lazy, and it can effectively leave some people in the dark and out of the conversation - but then again who among us has the Cosmic Eye sufficient to see every detail through, and not need the crutch of information-compression that stereotypes provide?