Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 09 Aug '13 21:16
    Sonhouse's thread about controlling our evolution got me thinking about this once popular movement. Could controlling our evolution lead to an underclass of people who can't afford such manipulation? Would we put into place government programs to make sure everyone evolved? How would you see this playing out?
  2. 09 Aug '13 23:18
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Sonhouse's thread about controlling our evolution got me thinking about this once popular movement. Could controlling our evolution lead to an underclass of people who can't afford such manipulation? Would we put into place government programs to make sure everyone evolved? How would you see this playing out?
    Evolution is the wrong word.

    We wouldn't be 'controlling our evolution'.

    We would be replacing evolution with intelligent self-design.

    Evolution by 'Natural' selection would no longer apply.

    Otherwise interesting topic.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Aug '13 01:06
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Sonhouse's thread about controlling our evolution got me thinking about this once popular movement. Could controlling our evolution lead to an underclass of people who can't afford such manipulation? Would we put into place government programs to make sure everyone evolved? How would you see this playing out?
    I think you would have to think of it as experiments in genetics with a backup of humans unmodified that at least can go on in case things go horribly wrong. Suppose all that genetic manipulation leads to virulent fast acting cancers and kills 99 percent of the participants.

    In that case, the ones who didn't get modified would be extremely grateful.
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    10 Aug '13 03:08
    When applied to humans there is an immense amount of scope for abuse. The army could have werewolves as soldiers...
  5. 10 Aug '13 09:36 / 5 edits
    If we can control our own brain anatomy, then I suggest that there should be an international law making it legally compulsory for everyone to have their brains subtly rewired to make every one (including myself in the unlikely event of me still being around ) have;

    (1) guaranteed kindness and compassion and never naturally want to harm people in general.

    (2) guaranteed to base all our beliefs on pure flawless logic with no emotional influences thus be guaranteed to be immune from delusions (this does NOT mean having no emotion nor less emotion -only that the emotions we have having no effect on our belief-forming process ).

    Notes:

    I would personally be perfectly happy to have (1) and (2) done to me as I would like to be an even better and an even more rational person and I would want other people to want this done to them.

    I believe (1) will help end all warfare and end almost all crime except perhaps people stealing as a result of being desperately poor. But even that would eventually stop because, if everyone is compassionate and kind, we would end all poverty, which is the other main benefit of (1).

    I believe (2) would also end all warfare only in part because it would permanently and immediately end all theism and all religion.
    We would also be more motivated to stop runaway global warming and develop more solar power etc.
  6. 10 Aug '13 09:42
    Originally posted by humy
    If we can control our own brain anatomy, then I suggest that there should be an international law making it legally compulsory for everyone to have their brains subtly rewired to make every one (including myself in the unlikely event of me still being around ) have;

    1, guaranteed kindness and compassion and never naturally want to harm people in general.

    ...[text shortened]... nor less emotion -only that the emotions we have has no effect on our belief-forming process ).
    Wow... Um no.

    If anyone tries to enact a law that requires peoples brains to be rewired then
    you will have a war.

    And you would be on the wrong side of it.


    The moment you suggest a law compelling anyone to have their body or mind changed
    you will have a war and be on the wrong side of it.


    This cannot be compulsory.
  7. 10 Aug '13 09:54 / 10 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Wow... Um no.

    If anyone tries to enact a law that requires peoples brains to be rewired then
    you will have a war.

    And you would be on the wrong side of it.


    The moment you suggest a law compelling anyone to have their body or mind changed
    you will have a war and be on the wrong side of it.


    This cannot be compulsory.
    If that results in a war, providing those who want permanent guaranteed kindness and compassion guaranteed for all humans win, this would be a war to end all wars and end all evil and save humanity from humanity by making us all kind.

    I don not believe I would be on the wrong side of such a war because I believe it is wrong to allow the continuation of evil and delusions when we have a means to end both.

    But perhaps it may not result in a war at all if most people can be persuaded via flawless reason to agree with this?

    Anyone:

    providing it is proven to be biologically safe with no side effects, could you be persuaded to have (1) and (2) done to you?

    Incidental, this is not a new idea but one of my old ideas and I call (1) and (2) being done to someone "brainizing". I want to be 'brainized' to be made an even better person -why not?
    I also call (1) being done to someone "kindizing" and (2) being done to someone "undeludizing" and they are both specialized forms of "brainizing". I am currently writing a book about this!
  8. 10 Aug '13 10:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    If that results in a war, providing those who want permanent guaranteed kindness and compassion guaranteed for all humans win, this would be a war to end all wars and end all evil and save humanity from humanity by making us all kind.

    I don not believe I would be on the wrong side of such a war because I believe it is wrong to allow the continuation of evil are both specialized forms of "brainizing". I am currently writing a book about this!
    I for one would not submit to either 1 OR 2 (but especially 2) under any circumstances.

    Also, anyone who does submit to 1 and 2 would lose the war.
    As they would be incapable of fighting it.



    EDIT: Given your part two I would also suggest you watch "the Straw Vulcan" by Julia Galef
    at Skepticon.
    As emotions are essential to rationality.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc

    If I don't have any emotions (generally or just when making decisions) then I have no basis
    for values or caring more about one outcome than another.
    Kindness and Compassion require emotions.


    Also, I AM my brain.
    If you rewire it you are replacing the present day me with something else.
    I do not, and will not, ever choose to be replaced by something else.

    And I think you will find that this is a very common sentiment.
  9. 10 Aug '13 10:47
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    When applied to humans there is an immense amount of scope for abuse. The army could have werewolves as soldiers...
    Who would still get their asses handed to them by drones and robots.
    When meat hits the metal, the metal always wins.

    It's an undeniably powerful technology, and as such it is undoubtedly
    dangerous.
    Just as all powerful technology is.

    However unless you can demonstrate that it cannot be used responsibly
    then that's an argument for carefully controlling the use of technology
    rather than not using it at all.


    For example, Take human lungs.
    Lets say that you have developed some degenerative lung disease, cancer
    for example, and that you therefore need new lungs.
    Fortunately the technology exists to build you a new pair of lungs using
    3D printing and your own stem cells (could be a reality in the next 1~2 decades).
    However we know from studying nature and our own engineering knowledge that
    there are much better lung designs than the ones we use.
    Designs that could well be easier to print, are more robust and reliable, as well as
    having improved performance.

    These improved lungs are either no harder to make, and possibly easier to make than
    your old flawed lungs.

    Assuming that the technology is proven safe at this point.

    Why would you choose to have exact copies of your old inferior lungs as opposed to
    improved ones that work better and last longer but which cost exactly the same or less?



    And even if you don't personally want it...

    How would you justify a law banning it?
  10. 10 Aug '13 11:56 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I for one would not submit to either 1 OR 2 (but especially 2) under any circumstances.

    Also, anyone who does submit to 1 and 2 would lose the war.
    As they would be incapable of fighting it.



    EDIT: Given your part two I would also suggest you watch "the Straw Vulcan" by Julia Galef
    at Skepticon.
    As emotions are essential to rationality.

    h eplaced by something else.

    And I think you will find that this is a very common sentiment.
    Also, anyone who does submit to 1 and 2 would lose the war.
    As they would be incapable of fighting it.

    If that is true, then the only way for this to work is for virtually everybody agreeing to do this at the same time and without involving a war. Admittedly, I think that is unlikely, but I hope, for humanities sake, sanity somehow eventually prevails and that people will make this happen.

    Actually, I think your assertion is probably false anyway because you can be kind and compassionate but yet see no choice but to reluctantly go to war to defend the future of humanity.
    You also can be kind and compassionate but yet still choose reluctantly to fight in self defence or in defence of the innocent. Kindness and compassion would only stop warfare if everyone has it!
    emotions are essential to rationality.

    Hay! I didn't say they were not did I? I ONLY propose that we should stop emotions specifically interfering with our belief-forming process but NOT get rid of our emotions!
    I see no reason why our emotions influencing our moral thinking or our decisions would be a bad thing generally so I do not propose stopping that.
    You can have emotions and be very emotional without those emotions effecting your beliefs thus without those emotions making you deluded.
    I said our beliefs should be based on pure flawless logic and with no emotional influence; I didn't say that our other mental attributes should not have emotional influence nor would I believe such a thing..
    I AM my brain.

    Are you aware that each year the majority of atoms in your brain are replaced at least once? -does that mean you do not regard yourself as the same person that you were last year?
    Many of your brain connections would also be altered within a year and what you remember would also have altered and there may even be some slight change in personality. If your brain is going to be 'changed' next year anyway, why would you mind that much if it was artificially changed?
  11. 10 Aug '13 14:41
    Originally posted by humy
    If that results in a war, providing those who want permanent guaranteed kindness and compassion guaranteed for all humans win, this would be a war to end all wars and end all evil and save humanity from humanity by making us all kind.

    I don not believe I would be on the wrong side of such a war because I believe it is wrong to allow the continuation of evil ...[text shortened]... are both specialized forms of "brainizing". I am currently writing a book about this!
    I thought we'd already had the war to end all wars.
  12. 10 Aug '13 14:54
    Originally posted by Dewi Jones
    I thought we'd already had the war to end all wars.
    Which one?
  13. 10 Aug '13 16:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Which one?
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+war+to+end+all+wars



  14. 10 Aug '13 19:27 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Dewi Jones
    I thought we'd already had the war to end all wars.
    yes, but back then the assumption that it would end all wars was not rationally based because the war wasn't about whether to rewire everybody's brains so that everyone is both kind and rational to prevent people starting another war
  15. 10 Aug '13 19:33
    Originally posted by humy
    yes, but back then the assumption that it would end all wars was not rationally based because the war wasn't about whether to rewire everybody's brains so that everyone is both kind and rational to prevent people starting another war
    What do you plan to do with those who are not kind and rational and who might by your estimation start a war?