Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


First of all, I don't think genetic enhancements will occur within the time frame of our generation. We know zilch about how the whole thing works. Secondly, as I said, when everybody is a Tom Cruise look-alike, nothing has been changed. The water table merely has gone up for all.

Sure that's find and dandy for all of you who don't look like Tom Cruise.

[Ben Kenobi]

cieran:

This is assuming that all change can be satisfactorily brought about within your lifetime or mine.

I most certainly do not assume this will occur within a few generations.

How do you explain this position:

These absolute statements are the stuff of science fiction.

It is expected that perfection requires effort.

You promise perfection, but sneer on perfection as the stuff of science fiction?

Why should we believe your promises?

Only the majority of our sensory brain is dedicated to input from our eyes. Useless organs!

Do you believe blind people can function within society? Why fix what ain't broken?

[tinyp3nis]

Do you believe blind people can function within society? Why fix what ain't broken?

What if the blind person wants to see?

[ciaran]

Also, these "norms" as a product of reason fall to the devices of what the majority view as reason.

Reason is not relative. What you are referring to is the idea of the majority perceiving something as reasonable. Obviously many of these norms do exist... but many do not, as well. Whereas most people will admit to the first, they will blatantly deny the latter.

Urban Ranger sez:

Secondly, as I said, when everybody is a Tom Cruise look-alike, nothing has been changed.

The frequency of this occuring, if greatly increased, indicates a drastic change. Currently, most people are ugly. Don't believe me? Take a five-minute poll on an average day.

Azazel sez:

How will that consume MORE resources?

Let's see. Resources would have two qualifiers: quantity and quality. Less numbers of individuals who are sick equals not only a greater quantity of resources consumed overall (because they live longer and they have a greater freedom to pursue their desires), they are also able to consume a greater quality of resources because now they are capable of performing tasks that they were unable to before. If my own situation is unchanged, their improvement comes at my expense, does it not?

why should you become inherently harmed?

The more people that inhabit this planet for longer instances of time deprives me of more and more oxygen. These people are only "valuable" if they serve some societal purpose. The blind improvement of people's lives does not consider the issue of how useful this improvement can be overall. If geneengineering allows homeless people to live for millenia, then we are all hurt by this, are we not?

lord of the mark sez:

but i would argue for EXTREME caution

This should be a guideline for any scientific pursuit. Hear hear.

obiwan18 sez:

but sneer on perfection

I am not perfect, and therefore I do not sneer at perfection. BUT, my basic point is that our goal is perfection. Since perfection lies at infinity, it cannot truly be reached, as you put it. And still, is it not a goal worth toiling for? The closer we reach the better we are.

Obviously I "promise" nothing.

Do you believe blind people can function within society? Why fix what ain't broken?

I guarantee you that blind people don't function as well as I do in society. Even if we eliminate all variables but sight... by that qualification, I will still be able to claim that I function better in society. Ironically, the blind person will need heavy genetic modification in order to function better than I do.

ciaran

[Az]

Let's see. Resources would have two qualifiers: quantity and quality. Less numbers of individuals who are sick equals not only a greater quantity of resources consumed overall (because they live longer and they have a greater freedom to pursue their desires), they are also able to consume a greater quality of resources because now they are capable of performing tasks that they were unable to before. If my own situation is unchanged, their improvement comes at my expense, does it not?

What are you talking about? If we cure all genetic deseases, and improve health overall, we decrease the amount of resources used on drugs, skilled labor, and various production, as well as cure people.

The more people that inhabit this planet for longer instances of time deprives me of more and more oxygen. These people are only "valuable" if they serve some societal purpose. The blind improvement of people's lives does not consider the issue of how useful this improvement can be overall. If geneengineering allows homeless people to live for millenia, then we are all hurt by this, are we not?

You really believe this? don't you? Not only does the fact that healthy people are happy people is a worthy cause by itself, but the fact that they're healthy allows us to contribute less resources to other causes, as well as allowing us to save skilled working power. Most of the people aren't homeless.( and the fact that these people are homeless doesn't make them less worthy of treatment. )

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ciaran
The frequency of this occuring, if greatly increased, indicates a drastic change. Currently, most people are ugly. Don't believe me? Take a five-minute poll on an average day.

You don't understand.

When everybody else has a rock and you have a revolver, hey, you are king. When everybody has a revolver, well everybody might as well change to a rock, because it doesn't make a difference.

If only you look like Tom Cruise, hey, more power to you. If everybody looks like Tom Cruise, it is just the same as nobody looks like him.

[Az]

If only you look like Tom Cruise, hey, more power to you. If everybody looks like Tom Cruise, it is just the same as nobody looks like him.

This is not correct.
a) If all people are looking good, people will give more importance to other things.
b) they'll be more pleased with their relationships, because there will be more physical attraction.

Or do you claim that if everyone was attractive, noone would notice?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
This is not correct.
a) If all people are looking good, people will give more importance to other things.
b) they'll be more pleased with their relationships, because there will be more physical attraction.

Or do you claim that if everyone was attractive, noone would notice?

Not that no one will notice, but it becomes a non-factor.

As for your point (b), it applies to only a small percentage of women and definitely not in relations of any length.

[Az]

you know, half of the people on the planet are men.

[mactbone]

Not everyone's standards of beauty are the same.

I would assume that the parents of a gene-engineered child would use their preference when deciding the physical characteristics of the kid. That still doesn't factor in environment issues and personal likes. There are people with fat parents who love exercising, etc. So only certain characteristics are even capable of truly being modified - some colors, some characteristics of hair....

Speaking of, which do you think is better - having facial hair or not?

Since I'm a male in America with European ancestors I would say facial hair is good, but what about other cultures aka Asia?

This is why I think that beauty could be a viable enhancement. There are some great looking girls that I know in school that would never get the time of day from some guys - so who's right? Are they actually beautiful or not?

[Ben Kenobi]

What if the blind person wants to see?

Then let him make that choice. Don't make the choice for him.

Some blind people are happy with their lot in life, and do manage to function as well as so-called 'normal' people.

I have a friend of mine who is legally blind, who reads more than I do, (and I read quite a bit.)

He even plays civ, but he has to stick his nose right up to the screen to play.

I asked him once if he wanted to see, and his response was of course! He has always been curious of what it is like to see properly. But not at the cost of his life. If he could have sight for a few days, he would be happy, but otherwise he was content with his life.

Look at John Milton. He needed his daughters to dictate his ideas for him, but he still managed to produce some of the finest literature in the whole of the English language.

One feature of Paradise Lost is the extremely long sentences. This comes about as a result of memorising long stretches of verse. Blind people have incredible memories of their surroundings, a requirement in order to function.

Homer once said that it is a far greater disability to lose one's memory than one's sight. I'm loathe to take away some of these gifts developed in response to blindness.

UR-
In the halls of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

[Az]

Not everyone's standards of beauty are the same.

very correct, yet there are well known factors to which people are attracted.

I would assume that the parents of a gene-engineered child would use their preference when deciding the physical characteristics of the kid. That still doesn't factor in environment issues and personal likes. There are people with fat parents who love exercising, etc. So only certain characteristics are even capable of truly being modified - some colors, some characteristics of hair....

As it seems now, it is possible to predict how will the person look by his genes only, this clearly seen by identical twins. same genes=same looks. Therefore, we can choose the set of genes that will make for the nicest baby, as well as a smart one, and condition-free one.

Speaking of, which do you think is better - having facial hair or not?

You can always shave. These details are passed from generation to the next one, and aren't that much of a difference.

This is why I think that beauty could be a viable enhancement. There are some great looking girls that I know in school that would never get the time of day from some guys - so who's right? Are they actually beautiful or not?

There are more factors than looks. Lots of psychology going on as well.

Then let him make that choice. Don't make the choice for him.

I am not making any choices for him. If he wants to go blind, there are plenty of ways to do it.

Some blind people are happy with their lot in life, and do manage to function as well as so-called 'normal' people.

but wouldn't they prefer to see?

I have a friend of mine who is legally blind, who reads more than I do, (and I read quite a bit.)

He even plays civ, but he has to stick his nose right up to the screen to play.

I asked him once if he wanted to see, and his response was of course! He has always been curious of what it is like to see properly. But not at the cost of his life. If he could have sight for a few days, he would be happy, but otherwise he was content with his life.

YOU SEE?! he wants to see. and what does "the cost of his life" mean, anyway?! What does that have to do with the topic of discussion?

Look at John Milton. He needed his daughters to dictate his ideas for him, but he still managed to produce some of the finest literature in the whole of the English language.

One feature of Paradise Lost is the extremely long sentences. This comes about as a result of memorising long stretches of verse. Blind people have incredible memories of their surroundings, a requirement in order to function.

What would you prefer, to have his works around, or to have all blind people in the world cured?

Homer once said that it is a far greater disability to lose one's memory than one's sight. I'm loathe to take away some of these gifts developed in response to blindness.

But the sight loss is a great loss, too, obviously. Why do you wish to deprave the people from the cure to this loss, for ever?

[Ben Kenobi]

YOU SEE?! he wants to see. and what does "the cost of his life" mean, anyway?! What does that have to do with the topic of discussion?

Can a blind person function within society?
Can a blind person enjoy their life?

I am trying to answer both questions and defend my statement that we should not genetically engineer against blindness.

Suppose the symptoms were cataracts? By all means, you can fix the cataracts.

"the cost of his life"

People adapt. He's adapted to his life. To change means to adapt out of the life that he has built for himself. That can be hard for some.

I am not making any choices for him.

You are telling him that his life is less valuable than yours, that is why you feel blindness should be 'corrected'.

Where do we stop fixing vision? If everyone becomes 20/20 some will want to improve their vision beyond, to gain an advantage over other people.

[Sandman]

It's possible that instead of genetically engineering humans without defects, we will simply come to rely more and more on implants, transplants and surgery.

[Japher]

On the appearance aspect:

I guess everyone doesn't have to necessarily be "good looking", but symptons such as obesity or oddities can have both health related and mental issues related to them.