Eugenics

Originally posted by Ponderable
The main Problem with Eugenics is that no man can tell what unintended consequences any Action on genes have.

while it is sometimes clear what consequences some defects in genomics do have, eugenics came generally under the suspicion to be the science to kill off unwanted (probable handicapped) babies. As has been done by the Nazis.

"The main Problem"
yeh, that's the main problem. not the ethical implications.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
evolution by natural means no longer applies already. we have basically stopped evolving. we have no predators to defend against, we have no obstacles to overcome.

genetic manipulation will be the only thing that could move us forward as a species.

the question is if it will lead to eugenics or not.

We are evolving to adapt to the conditions of modern society. You might call it natural selection or unnatural selection, depending on whether or not you consider a modern society natural or not.
You could make the argument that our evolving is a form of regression because of the welfare state though. Devo. De-evolution.

Whip it, whip it good!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
evolution by natural means no longer applies already. we have basically stopped evolving. we have no predators to defend against, we have no obstacles to overcome.

genetic manipulation will be the only thing that could move us forward as a species.

the question is if it will lead to eugenics or not.

the question is if it will lead to eugenics or not.

That depends on what you mean by 'eugenics' which is given very different meanings by different people. If you are talking about forced sterilizations or, worse, murder, the answer is no. Why should it? WW2 is over and there is no sign of nor reason to think Nazism or anything like it would be resurrected by GM in particular.

Originally posted by humy

the question is if it will lead to eugenics or not.

That depends on what you mean by 'eugenics' which is given very different meanings by different people. If you are talking about forced sterilizations or, worse, murder, the answer is no. Why should it? WW2 is over and there is no sign of nor reason to think Nazism or anything like it would be resurrected by GM in particular.

Remember that eugenics was not just popular with the Nazis. It was widely accepted in many developed nations that the gene pool should be protected. Not everyone took it to the extreme that the Nazis did, but in the US there were forced sterilization programs. The program you want to implement would be a forced modification of a person's DNA and that seems just as deviant to me as forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people.

Originally posted by dryhump
Remember that eugenics was not just popular with the Nazis. It was widely accepted in many developed nations that the gene pool should be protected. Not everyone took it to the extreme that the Nazis did, but in the US there were forced sterilization programs. The program you want to implement would be a forced modification of a person's DNA and that seems just as deviant to me as forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people.

Yeah. That was what I was trying to convey.

Now as I support transhumanism (the sane version) I have no particular problem
with people messing with their genetic code, or altering/augmenting their bodies
(within reasonable limits. I would for example require licensing and regulation on
any augmentations that increases a persons combat effectiveness too much over
the civilian average) but the moment you suggest forcing other people who don't
for whatever reason want such alterations then you have crossed a line that places
you as my enemy to be defeated at any and all costs.


If you think that human design is bad, I will happily agree with you.

If you want to alter your design, then as long as doing so doesn't unduly harm others
then Good luck to you.

If you want to alter MY design to suit you... then prepare for war.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
evolution by natural means no longer applies already. we have basically stopped evolving. we have no predators to defend against, we have no obstacles to overcome.

genetic manipulation will be the only thing that could move us forward as a species.

the question is if it will lead to eugenics or not.

No, we are still evolving, naturally.
The process hasn't stopped.

The forces driving our evolution will change but that is always the case.

As the environment changes, so do the evolutionary forces acting on those
creatures living in it.


Evolution for humans will only stop when we start deliberately and consciously
altering and editing our own DNA.

Till then our species is still very much evolving.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah. That was what I was trying to convey.

Now as I support transhumanism (the sane version) I have no particular problem
with people messing with their genetic code, or altering/augmenting their bodies
[i](within reasonable limits. I would for example require licensing and regulation on
any augmentations that increases a persons combat effecti
then Good luck to you.

If you want to alter MY design to suit you... then prepare for war.

If you want to alter MY design to suit you...

suit me? no. Give humanity hope and a future, yes! But I don't want YOUR brain to be altered in particular -unless, in the unlikely event, you just happen to be in a powerful position where you can make a real difference with compassion but you just happen to lack compassion.

Originally posted by dryhump
Remember that eugenics was not just popular with the Nazis. It was widely accepted in many developed nations that the gene pool should be protected. Not everyone took it to the extreme that the Nazis did, but in the US there were forced sterilization programs. The program you want to implement would be a forced modification of a person's DNA and that seems just as deviant to me as forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people.

Most mentally handicapped people have nothing wrong with their genetics. They can have perfectly normal intelligent children.

Originally posted by dryhump
Remember that eugenics was not just popular with the Nazis. It was widely accepted in many developed nations that the gene pool should be protected. Not everyone took it to the extreme that the Nazis did, but in the US there were forced sterilization programs. The program you want to implement would be a forced modification of a person's DNA and that seems just as deviant to me as forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people.

Not everyone took it to the extreme that the Nazis did, but in the US there were forced sterilization programs.

so are you implying that my proposal would lead to forced sterilizations? If so, how so? This doesn't make any sense. Why would kind rational people sanction such a thing?

The program you want to implement would be a forced modification of a person's DNA and that seems just as deviant to me as forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people.

it being just as 'deviant' is irrelevant to whether it is good or bad. You cannot compare one with the other as if they are so similar. I am not proposing forced sterilization of mentally handicapped people or anything like it. What I am proposing is, forcibly if necessary, make everyone kind. This would directly end all wars and crimes and probably indirectly end all world poverty. As for mentally handicapped people; instead of being sterilized, they would be cured! -because brainizing can be also used to make other massive improvements to the human brain such as increased learning ability and memory etc.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most mentally handicapped people have nothing wrong with their genetics. They can have perfectly normal intelligent children.

-which is why a brainized person that is thus kind and rational would never sanction forced sterilization of them.

Originally posted by humy

Not everyone took it to the extreme that the Nazis did, but in the US there were forced sterilization programs.

so are you implying that my proposal would lead to forced sterilizations? If so, how so? This doesn't make any sense. Why would kind rational people sanction such a thing?
[quote] The program you want to implement would be a f ...[text shortened]... r massive improvements to the human brain such as increased learning ability and memory etc.

Forcing someone to modify their DNA against their will would be no different than forcing someone to undergo a program to sterilize them so they don't contaminate the gene pool. No matter your stated goals, this crosses an ethical line. Not a barely perceptible one either. A big black one you could see from space. Let's find out what the genes are that produce big boobs and make those mandatory as well, while we're at it. I'm sure no one would argue that bigger boobs is a bad thing.

Have you ever had a Mormon knock on your door to talk to you about Jesus? Now imagine they were knocking on your door with a shot to make sure you believe them. Further imagine that you had to take the shot or face the wrath of the government. Do I need to keep going? At first I thought you were joking so I ignored it.

Any politician that would agree to mind control is one that I would never even consider voting for.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most mentally handicapped people have nothing wrong with their genetics. They can have perfectly normal intelligent children.

The point wasn't whether or not they have something wrong with their genes. The point was that forcing someone to modify their body against their will is wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Evolution for humans will only stop when we start deliberately and consciously
altering and editing our own DNA.

Unless we stop having children via meiosis, then evolution will continue even with deliberate DNA editing.
To truly stop evolution, we would have to stick to cloning.

Originally posted by dryhump
Forcing someone to modify their DNA against their will would be no different than forcing someone to undergo a program to sterilize them so they don't contaminate the gene pool. No matter your stated goals, this crosses an ethical line. Not a barely perceptible one either. A big black one you could see from space. Let's find out what the genes are that p itician that would agree to mind control is one that I would never even consider voting for.

Have you ever had a Mormon knock on your door to talk to you about Jesus? Now imagine they were knocking on your door with a shot to make sure you believe them.

What I propose would make people MORE objective, NOT less! So they would be doing the exact opposite of being brainwashed into believing something (such as religious crap etc). This would put an end to people knock on your door to talk to you about Jesus! It would stop people being told what to believe and guarantee that people would think independently for themselves.

Any politician that would agree to mind control is one that I would never even consider voting for.

This isn't 'mind control' in the exact sense I think you mean here. Who would be doing the 'controlling'? -answer, the brainized people would be controlling their OWN minds! They would have guaranteed independent rationally objective thought -something many politicians currently don't have. Personally I would never consider voting for someone that can NOT think objectively and rationally for themselves! A politician that cannot do that is a dangerous one!

Forcing someone to modify their DNA against their will would be ….

If you have looked at my latest proposals I made in this thread, you would see I am now NOT proposing to “ modify their DNA against their will”.
Reminder:

“...just thought up a compromise for my idea. Here is my new proposed scheme:

For most people, being brainized to be both have guaranteed kindness and be guaranteed free of delusions, this is merely optional.
But, if you are a political candidate or politician or leader in any country, then, according to international law, you must be brainized.
Any acting politician that isn't brainized is illegal and must either be immediately be brainized or resign or face removal by force and then prosecution by international law enforcement.

If you want to become a political candidate, you must prove that you intend to put the interests of humanity above your own interests and political agendas by agreeing to be brainized first if you haven't already been so. Nobody would force you to be a political candidate and you must just accept that you must be brainized if you make that career choice and, if you don't like that, tough! That would simply mean you just cannot be a politician and that's that.

The advantage of this compromise would be it would be much less likely to start a war than if everyone had to be brainized by law because, with this compromise, the vast majority of people, more than 99% of them, would not face being forced to be brainized by this scheme and not even most politicians would face being forced providing those that are not prepared to choose to be brainized generally accept that they must resign. And, although many voters would not want to be brainized by force, they probably wouldn't mind so much if their politicians had to be brainized by law. And voters may very often want all their politicians to be brainized (I certainly would want this! ) to ensure they don't put their own interests and political agendas above those of the voters!
....
....
….”

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 ...[text shortened]... eplaced by something else.

And I think you will find that this is a very common sentiment.

Very well said.