Relative vs absolute factors of wellbeing

There are two ways the various characteristics of a person and their environment can factor into their wellbeing: some of these characteristics are relative factors, and some are absolute.

Relative factors are those where our wellbeing doesn’t depend on the absolute quantity of a thing, but only on how much we have relative to how much everyone else has.

An example might be attractiveness. Let’s say you’re a single heterosexual man. And suppose someone waves a magic wand, and overnight, the attractiveness of all men doubles.

Now, in absolute terms you’re twice as attractive as before: but this is not any advantage to you, because you’re doing just as well in dating as you did before. Your success with women only depends on how you rank among all men.

Absolute factors are those where our wellbeing depends on the absolute quantity of something, not on our rank within society.

An example might be indoor plumbing. Let’s say nobody in the world has indoor plumbing; someone waves a magic wand, and suddenly everyone has it. Now you’re much better off than before! An indoor toilet makes your life much more convenient, regardless of whether everyone else enjoys the same convenience.

In reality, all factors fall on a spectrum between these extremes, and hardly anything is purely relative or purely absolute. For example, if everyone but you got indoor plumbing, you’d probably be pretty pissed; your (psychological) wellbeing would be worse than before, even if your situation hasn’t changed.

Example application: genetic engineering of humans

Let’s try to apply the concept to this question:

Is it a good idea to allow parents to screen their embryos and select for specific genetic traits?

My argument is that if you’re going to select for traits which are relative factors of wellbeing, like attractiveness, you’re entering humanity into an arms race.

If a lot of people do it and you don’t, your kids are now worse off in relative terms just by virtue of many other people being better off. If everyone does it, nobody is any better off in the end—except genetic screening companies who are now raking in teh big buckz.

There are some factors which are even worse than relative within this context. For example, height in men: if everyone increases their sons' height by just a little bit, in a few generations not only is nobody better off on average (the average height man is still average height)—but also a lot of people probably suffer from weird chronic conditions related to their excessive growth!

On the other hand, if you select for traits which are absolute factors, like resistance to Alzheimer’s, that’s good! If one person is more resistant to Alzheimer’s, that reduces their potential suffering, and it doesn’t harm anyone else. And if everyone ends up free of Alzheimer’s, that’s awesome!

And just like there are factors worse than relative, there are also factors better than absolute. Take intelligence: if someone is smarter, not only does it not harm others, it improves life for everyone around them! A smarter person is, for example, more likely to advance humanity by improving upon our technology.¹

So my proposal is: allow genetic engineering of traits which are absolute factors of wellbeing, but not ones which are relative.

Now if only it were that easy!