>>11510183I'm not fine with it, a technological solution is a lot closer than a genetic one.
While it might seem like the opposite,given our success with genetically modified food, our current understanding of genetics is pure trial and error and you're always going to get a not-quite-great result and a LOT of dead or mutant babies.
Consider instead the current state of the information super highway: Anything you want to know or learn you can look up in an instant.
You can't necessarily understand it in an instant, but you can instantly google or youtube or scholastic_article_search_engine.edu anything.
Imagine if you could pull up the solutions with a thought, and imagine if the information became a memory instead of an external piece of information that then has to be transferred to you via "understanding", what I'm talking about is cyberization.
Right now the field of computer interface neuroscience is in its absolute infancy, and one of their largest barriers is that you really need to make a direct connection to the brain, which most people are really reluctant to do.
The cochlear implant is a real world example of a very successful computerized peripheral device that interfaces with the brain (technically the auditory nerve).
Even if we do manage to achieve gene editing, there's going to be a limit at some point, whereas going full iBorg (or, ideally, fully artificial) is nearly limitless.
