Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11

Author Topic: Eugenics  (Read 17111 times)

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #120 on: January 10, 2013, 10:11:56 am »

Completely backward, in fact. Humans are fastest over long distances. Our hunting strategy was to pursue and track herds for miles, rather than catch a few in a burst.
It's kinda both - good acceleration and endurance.  I was thinking more about horses and the like (you can certainly outrun those over short distances) than big cats though, I guess they're really acceleration focused.
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #121 on: January 10, 2013, 10:37:59 am »

3: Because someone who likes sitting on a couch drinking beer is a complex person full of lots of desires and ideas and potential. Which they then chose to use on being happy sitting on a couch drinking beer. I would be just as unhappy with someone being forced to sit on a couch and drink beer as anything else.
But... butbut... why's evolution the only possible way of giving a being what you call free will?
That's a fundamental distinction right there: Do we see humans as evolved animals, as biological machines? Then we can tinker with them as long as we take their best interest into account. Do we see humans as something with a soul, something beyond the atoms that make up our body? Then we can't tinker with them, no matter what.
I'm pretty firmly on the former side; the question about "best interest" still remains.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #122 on: January 10, 2013, 10:43:11 am »

3: Because someone who likes sitting on a couch drinking beer is a complex person full of lots of desires and ideas and potential. Which they then chose to use on being happy sitting on a couch drinking beer. I would be just as unhappy with someone being forced to sit on a couch and drink beer as anything else.
But... butbut... why's evolution the only possible way of giving a being what you call free will?
That's a fundamental distinction right there: Do we see humans as evolved animals, as biological machines? Then we can tinker with them as long as we take their best interest into account. Do we see humans as something with a soul, something beyond the atoms that make up our body? Then we can't tinker with them, no matter what.
I'm pretty firmly on the former side; the question about "best interest" still remains.

There's no free will. Our decisions are just the result of neurons firing in certain ways dictated on how our brains have created pathways during our life. If you invent a time machine and travel to the same point of time multiple times to see me make some "important decision", you'll probably notice that without any outside influence (assuming time travelers can change events), I'll make the same decision over and over.

Unless quantum.
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #123 on: January 10, 2013, 11:03:12 am »

That doesn't mean anything- if there weren't a connection between the external world and our actions, then our actions would be random. The fact that behavior arises from rules is only an affirmation of the power of our intellect and our ability to select our actions.

We have free will because we can make willful decisions- and though those decisions are theoretically possible to predict to a certain degree of accuracy, it is impossible to predict them perfectly, due even to the very laws of physics.
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

toomanysecrets

  • Bay Watcher
  • Jackpot.
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #124 on: January 10, 2013, 11:05:47 am »


There's no free will.

I couldn't disagree more.

The pathways which are emphasized and strengthened in our minds are determined by what we are doing, so we can influence them!  When we were very young and our brains were developing, they were acclimated to certain activities and actions and words.  This effect is most pronounced at a very young age, when the brain is growing, but continues into adulthood.  The brain doesn't have a preset, genetic plan for which areas of the brain will be stimulated/emphasized, it's determined by our actions and choices and what we choose to experience.  If we choose to experience something different, our brains will become different.  Humans are versatile, not static.
Logged

anzki4

  • Bay Watcher
  • On the wings of maybe
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #125 on: January 10, 2013, 11:41:25 am »

The pathways which are emphasized and strengthened in our minds are determined by what we are doing, so we can influence them!  When we were very young and our brains were developing, they were acclimated to certain activities and actions and words.  This effect is most pronounced at a very young age, when the brain is growing, but continues into adulthood.  The brain doesn't have a preset, genetic plan for which areas of the brain will be stimulated/emphasized, it's determined by our actions and choices and what we choose to experience.  If we choose to experience something different, our brains will become different.  Humans are versatile, not static.
The fact that everything isn't genetic doesn't mean that we have free will. We can't choose what we experience as a baby. Thus we can't choose what we experience as a child, since what we "choose to experience" as a child is decided by our genes and what we have experience as a baby. And what experience as adult is due to our genes and our childhood and so on forth.

Of course we can't control our environment particularly well, so we really cannot choose what we experience anyways. At least not to the degree you seem to imply.

Don't really care to join the freewill argument - mostly because I'm unsure about my stance on it - just wanted to point that out.
Logged

Hiiri

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #126 on: January 10, 2013, 12:02:55 pm »

It's the same logic that says that kids these days are dumber because they use their smartphones all day instead of reading books.
Our decisions are just the result of neurons firing in certain ways dictated on how our brains have created pathways during our life.

Your second statement seems to argue against your first. :P

Books and internet stimulate our brains in different ways (no source, sowwy :'(), thus creating different pathways. Think how different it is to read a book than it is to find information on the internet. It might be less efficient, but a lot more immersive. I think it's very plausible that smartphones could indeed make people less... thinky.

Also, information overflow; internet giving more information than our brains can process in one day.

(Just for the record, no I don't think people are getting genetically more stupid over time, I think we're pretty much the same baboons as we were 10 000 years ago.)
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #127 on: January 10, 2013, 12:08:35 pm »

(Just for the record, no I don't think people are getting genetically more stupid over time, I think we're pretty much the same baboons as we were 10 000 years ago.)
Then I'd get laid way more often. We're more like chimpanzees.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Hiiri

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #128 on: January 10, 2013, 12:25:00 pm »

I wish, bonobos have sex at hello. *shake fist*
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #129 on: January 10, 2013, 12:31:03 pm »

It's the same logic that says that kids these days are dumber because they use their smartphones all day instead of reading books.
*There is a difference between the developing brain and the developed brain. Being an absolute moron from being an absolute moron can have the effect of developing into a moron.

But... butbut... why's evolution the only possible way of giving a being what you call free will?
That's a fundamental distinction right there: Do we see humans as evolved animals, as biological machines? Then we can tinker with them as long as we take their best interest into account. Do we see humans as something with a soul, something beyond the atoms that make up our body? Then we can't tinker with them, no matter what.

I believe that souls are a load of rubbish and we're animals. I still think we're better animals, and quite frankly I like the human body as it is untinkered. Because deciding what's in their best interest is something we - as humans, don't do well.

Oh and doing this through selective breeding in human population's just a fucking stupid idea. Eugenics is stupid. Smartphones are stupid. People accelerate from a standstill better than quadrupeds.

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #130 on: January 10, 2013, 01:13:44 pm »

As a transhumanist, I believe that we should aggressively alter our bodies through genetic/technological research and our children (unborn or otherwise, provided we have their consent) to become superhuman and immortal. Eliminate any birth defects which can be defined as anything that would retard your ability to learn, to move accurately and effectively and so on. Anything like learning difficulties such as Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, birth conditions such as Downs Syndrome, the various disorders that lie on the Autistic Spectrum, all that stuff goes out the window.

Though some describe savantism, we should be able to gain abilities like that through alteration of our bodies/genes and so forth. So yes, I believe eugenics is a good idea, so long as it is geared towards improving our physical and mental capabilities (not our thoughts, skin tone etc). The goal that I propose is to give people maximum choice, so they can be whoever they want, as opposed to the more Orwellian stuff like changing our possible thought patterns to ensure that the society is how the state/government or whatever wants it.

Of course, I am not proposing that we exterminate people who have a high chance of producing children with birth defects or whatever. That's just unspeakably terrible - we'd allow them to do whatever they want, either have that tendency to produce kids with whatever defects removed through scientific know-how or leave it in if they want to remain natural. Nobody would force anybody to get a particular edit to their bodies/genes, just like we don't force people to have plastic surgery to make themselves beautiful. One could conceive of a society divided into norms and superfreaks, a bit like the Amish vs the general American public. I think that's the way it should be, though. As long as they don't start killing each-other.

"Selective breeding" i.e. someone picking people to mate with one-another based on particular traits is a bit iffy in my opinion, only though because it involves someone choosing that for someone else. Or indeed, a computer deciding that for someone else. Deciding who would be best for them whether they like it or not etc. I think though if we had the ability to edit our own genes and so on, such as the DNA of our own sperm/eggs, the common conception of selective breeding would no longer apply. People would do all the "selective" stuff in the act of breeding because they'd edit their own sperm/eggs to whatever they wanted at the time. The father and mother would be selective, not the Mating Taskmaster.

So, basically designer babies except without the stuff like changing the thought patterns to suit the parents or changing the skin tone because they don't like whites/blacks and so on, or changing the gender because you want a girl/boy. You'd choose what "powers" or abilities you wanted to give your child, most likely based on your financial/cultural situation. Unless governments take this over, which is a matter of some consideration because there could be all sorts of ugly things that come about as a result of governments gaining such powers. Hopefully technology would exist by that point to allow the child to get the abilities they want and don't have, provided they meet the criteria.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:42:10 pm by Owlbread »
Logged

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #131 on: January 10, 2013, 01:26:26 pm »

I would rather not base our actions regarding something as crucial as the human gene pool on idealistic fantasy.

As for free will, I'm of the opinion that it's irrelevant.  I perceive my actions as being willful.  What's the immediate practical difference between a free action and one that's invisibly determined by forces I'm not aware of?
Logged
Shoes...

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #132 on: January 10, 2013, 01:33:32 pm »

I would rather not base our actions regarding something as crucial as the human gene pool on idealistic fantasy.

As for free will, I'm of the opinion that it's irrelevant.  I perceive my actions as being willful.  What's the immediate practical difference between a free action and one that's invisibly determined by forces I'm not aware of?

What else are we going to base it on? It'll end up being a compromise of some people's idealistic fantasies whether we like it or not if it does happen, whether that's people having the patterns of their thoughts altered so they don't get aggressive or question the government to ensure a safe, cuddly and securely totalitarian/horrifying (to me) society or having superhumans walking about. I also thought it was a pretty good fantasy, but that's my opinion.

Indeed, although I would say that the two types of action differ in that you would be more likely to do what you want when you perform a free action rather than something quite negative like the electrodes in your skull controlled by a madman switching on, forcing you to walk off a cliff rather than looking over it as you would have done had you been given free choice. You would live, which is positive (for most) through the free action, but you would die through the action determined by invisible forces (which is negative for most). It's better if you get to choose, in that sense. The real problem comes when you are visibly determined by forces that you are well aware of, and they start making the wrong choices for you to suit themselves or a particular person.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:40:47 pm by Owlbread »
Logged

Eagleon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Soundcloud
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #133 on: January 10, 2013, 01:53:18 pm »

I'm with Cthulhu, the possible consequences of wide-spread genetic tinkering are nightmarish at best. I'm a transhumanist too, but we simply don't understand genetics and epigenetics well enough yet, and we probably won't until it's become pretty irrelevant beyond curing clearly harmful diseases and maybe making the body stop rejecting certain compounds so that cybernetics can pull ahead full-throttle.

Even when you consider removing genetic defects, it's not always clear that what you're doing might not be harmful to our intellectual diversity in the long run. You mention 'curing' autism-spectrum disorders, for instance. Ironic because Alan Turing might have had aspergersautism. There's also John Nash, a Nobel-laurate mathematician who was schizophrenic. And scores of bipolar success stories, which may be linked genetically to schizophrenia. Not saying they can't be debilitating illnesses, but it's a pretty big change to consider when the same thing might have held back computer science for who knows how long.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:56:44 pm by Eagleon »
Logged
Agora: open-source, next-gen online discussions with formal outcomes!
Music, Ballpoint
Support 100% Emigration, Everyone Walking Around Confused Forever 2044

Owlbread

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #134 on: January 10, 2013, 02:02:15 pm »

I'm with Cthulhu, the possible consequences of wide-spread genetic tinkering are nightmarish at best. I'm a transhumanist too, but we simply don't understand genetics and epigenetics well enough yet, and we probably won't until it's become pretty irrelevant beyond curing clearly harmful diseases and maybe making the body stop rejecting certain compounds so that cybernetics can pull ahead full-throttle.

Even when you consider removing genetic defects, it's not always clear that what you're doing might not be harmful to our intellectual diversity in the long run. You mention 'curing' autism-spectrum disorders, for instance. Ironic because Alan Turing might have had aspergersautism. There's also John Nash, a Nobel-laurate mathematician who was schizophrenic. And scores of bipolar success stories. Not saying they can't be debilitating illnesses, but it's a pretty big change to consider when the same thing might have held back computer science for who knows how long.

Of course, we would have to understand this subject nearly inside-out if we were going to start doing stuff like this. I don't think we should jump into it right now, when we're as ready as we can be would be a good time though I think. Provided cybernetics and the like haven't pulled ahead by then, as you say. Perhaps some people would rather have genetic engineering done to them rather than becoming cyborgs, but I'm sure a whole lot of people would want a mix of both.

I did actually talk briefly about Autistic Savants who have exceptional abilities as a result of their condition. The one that came to my mind while writing the stuff was Blind Tom Wiggins, the blind slave piano virtuoso. I believe though that we shouldn't mess with that until we can gain those abilities through other means, such as biological/genetic engineering. That said, there's still a very large number of people on the Autistic Spectrum who aren't savants or people with exceptional abilities like Turing, or bipolar people who don't always have exceptional creative ability, schizophrenic people like my Grandfather who suffered from the condition throughout his life without any Nobel prizes. The most it did for him was put him in a hospital for the criminally insane for a short while. Things like dyspraxia or dyslexia though are generally debilitating conditions that I believe should be eradicated, provided people consent to it.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 02:10:15 pm by Owlbread »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11