Are you in favor of Eugenics?

[Ruk]

For example, unnecessary plastic surgery based on unrealistic and distorted images of how society thinks people are supposed to look is already rampant in our society

 

I have absolutely no problem with such people. If Michael Jackson want's to have a doctor operate on him till his nose falls off, then more power to him. Yes he might think society is pressuring him, but ultimately its his choice and his money. The whole concept of freedom means allowing people to choose poorly. To prohibit all choice because some folks might make "bad" decisions is no freedom at all. I reject the concept that people are so overpowered by the pressures of society that they are unable to make proper decisions. Personal responsibility has to be the basis of any society worth having.

 

Those who can afford to access this technology will have the choice. Those who can't probably won't.

 

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. Those who are most worthy and save and strive for the improvements will someday obtain them. Those who sit on their duffs might not. Yes you'll get a bunch of rich fools who didn't earn their money also having the benefits, but I see no universal solution that gives everyone the benefit. Such methods won't come cheap and if you ban them until they are universally available you will just suceed in making certain nobody gets them.

[Arktis]

All I have to say about this is that in 1984, eugenics plays a major role in dividing people into castes.

[GorunNova]

Even better... "Brave New World", with the Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons... although in this case it's more along the lines of purposefully disabling lower castes so that they're too stupid to do anything but blindly work...

[StitchInTime]

The whole concept of freedom means allowing people to choose poorly. To prohibit all choice because some folks might make "bad" decisions is no freedom at all.

Curtailing freedom does not necessarily prevent people from making bad choices. For example, murdering people in cold blood is 'prohibited,' but people still do it. Also, some choices are 'prohibited' for some people because they lack the means or the ability.

 

The alternative is to educate people about finding out what their options are and choosing from the options available to them, so that they will be able to make better choices.

 

I reject the concept that people are so overpowered by the pressures of society that they are unable to make proper decisions.

You can reject it as much as you like, but it does happen.

 

Personal responsibility has to be the basis of any society worth having.

I don't dispute that, but taking responsibility is not innate. It is a skill that people learn.

 

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. Those who are most worthy and save and strive for the improvements will someday obtain them. Those who sit on their duffs might not.

There is no correlation between worthiness and wealth. The people who suffer most from conditions that your genetic engineering could fix, are the same ones who are not able to earn a living because their disabilitites prevent then from being able to work at all, or enough, or in occupations where they could earn enough to get their problems fixed.

 

Yes you'll get a bunch of rich fools who didn't earn their money also having the benefits, but I see no universal solution that gives everyone the benefit.

Well, of course there is. It's called an equitable redistribution of wealth. That's one of the items taxes are used for. It is to the benefit of society to repair genetic defects, because the alternative is to have to support these people who cannot fend for themselves because of their conditions.

 

Such methods won't come cheap and if you ban them until they are universally available . . .

They won't be universally available at first, in any case, because there will be a limited number of trained pactitioners, and, by necessity, some of the work will be experimental.

[Arktis]

Even better... "Brave New World"' date=' with the Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons... although in this case it's more along the lines of purposefully disabling lower castes so that they're too stupid to do anything but blindly work...[/quote']

 

Basicly, in the end, that's what it will ammount to. Because only the rich are going to be able to afford this, and as such they will have a huge advantage which they will inevitably use against the rest of us. It's only a matter of time, whether we legalize it it or not, so we have to face this now.

[StitchInTime]

It's only a matter of time' date=' whether we legalize it it or not, so we have to face this now.[/quote']

And, how do you suggest we do that?

[Arktis]

I don't honestly know. I would say though, that the current socio-economic structure is ill equiped to handle this technology in an egalitarian manner, so perhaps we should begin by reforming it in order to prepare ourselves. It would be a very dangerous transition for us, so during it we would all have to constantly remain vigil lest we fail horribly and fall into a state of depression and/or oppression.

[Oma]

I prefer genetic engineering to eugenics.

 

Through eugenics you would sometimes have to deny two people to have baby together - with genetic engineering you could give them an alternative to passing on a bad gene.

 

When It comes to improving the human race... I dunno, what would we improve?

I'm pretty sure that the smarter you are the more the world just brings you down.

 

Perhaps we should just stick to repairing genetic defects until the world is more pleasant to live in.

 

Of course, the obvious question: what should we classify as defects?

Answer: Good question

[nuages]

I think the problem with eugenics is that it could end up hindering the evolutinary process. It would become designer evolution in a way, and limited to human imagination. Where our species go could go so much further. Although thats assuming a civilization with eugenics would last as long as it takes to hinder evolutionary development. Either way eugenics would seem great, but would really take the suprise out of evolution :P

[GorunNova]

Human imagination isn't exactly limited... although that seems to be changing with the continual bombardment with media and entertainment. Private, quiet time with your own thoughts has been found to be conductive for creative thought... and good luck finding THAT around these days...

 

... Personally, I'd prefer the surprise being taken out of evolution to having evolution spring a surprise on us, possibly wiping us out...

[nuages]

Human imagination isn't exactly limited... although that seems to be changing with the continual bombardment with media and entertainment. Private, quiet time with your own thoughts has been found to be conductive for creative thought... and good luck finding THAT around these days...

 

... Personally, I'd prefer the surprise being taken out of evolution to having evolution spring a surprise on us, possibly wiping us out...

 

no human imagination is deffently limited, can you conceptualize 5 spatial dimension, some people say they can do 4 but i think they are lieing :p, but it goes much more beyond that, do you think the ancestors of homo-sapiens given eugenics, could have created us?? could they imagine the use of tools before they had them?? our minds are limited, and as such so would be eugenics.

 

Eugenics has at least an equal chance of wiping us out as evolution if not more, eugenics is a quick fix kind of thing, which isn't always the right fix, evolution is an extremely slow adaptive process which has worked decently for us so far, maybe...

[GorunNova]

There IS a perfectly valid way of representing n-dimensional space... it's called math. Also, in the future we may build extra senses into ourselves to allow direct perception of non-visible spacial dimensions (assuming there's more that the three uncollapsed spacial ones), as we already have built extra senses to see all sorts of interesting things (air pressure, temperature, time, and even gravity, which many models map to distortions in a fourth spacial dimension.) There are many tricks for visualizing extra dimensions... for instance, you could visualize a 6 dimensional space as two 3-dimensional areas, and so on. We have sensory limitations, but with some cleverness it isn't hard to work around them until we can correct that deficiency. ^^

[nuages]

you still can conceptualize that many dimensional spaces, you can work around it, but it doesn't make you able to imagine those extra -dimensional spaces. point being though imagination is limited, it may not seem it, but we will never be able to imagine the stuff we can't imagine because we can't imagine it :P, we aren't this perfect species with unlimited power, so why assume our imagination is unlimted?

[Arktis]

I think Spock said it best. "Infinite possibilities within a finite universe". That basicly describes the current state of human imagination as well as anything. Whether or not it can stretch beyond the confines of this universe is of great importance. If it can't... we will most certainly die when our universe does. And it will die.

 

We already have about 80% of our brain's potential lying untapped. Gan genetic engeneering/eugenics improve our ability to harness it? Can it increase the reservoir?

 

Genetic tampering has the potential to cause a massive tragedy for those left behind on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder. We aren't prepared as a race to handle it yet. Am I the only one that understands this?

[StitchInTime]

I don't honestly know. I would say though' date=' that the current socio-economic structure is ill equiped to handle this technology in an egalitarian manner, so perhaps we should begin by reforming it in order to prepare ourselves. It would be a very dangerous transition for us, so during it we would all have to constantly remain vigil lest we fail horribly and fall into a state of depression and/or oppression.[/quote']

That'll keep us busy alright. :rolleyes:

[StitchInTime]

... Personally' date=' I'd prefer the surprise being taken out of evolution . . .[/quote']

I doubt that's possible, though. Even in science, there's always the unexpected. ;)

[StitchInTime]

We already have about 80% of our brain's potential lying untapped.

Actually, that is a false story that's been going around for quite a while. We use every bit of our brains. There are just different levels of processing.

 

Genetic tampering has the potential to cause a massive tragedy for those left behind on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder. We aren't prepared as a race to handle it yet. Am I the only one that understands this?

I tend to agree, that we don't really know what we're doing, which makes it a very risky proposition. We may introduce all sorts of unintended effects, as we so often do.

 

Ironically, those of us on the 'lower rungs' may survive the others who might wind up being more messed up than us due to unintended negative effects. So, I wouldn't count us out yet. Our offspring may still have the last laugh. :cyclops:

[Oma]

Ok, tell me how evolution is still in play for humans?

In order to evolve any trait those without it have to die before they procreate (simplified)- I don't see that happening. At least not in the western world.

 

We die more as a result of random accidents - and random selection does not drive a genetic trait in any direction (unless there's very few with it - then driving it into extinction is not so unlikely(actually, most traits suffer that fate before getting sufficiently widespread in the population to stick around)).

 

One of the few areas I think we humans may still have evolution may be the HIV/AIDS area.

 

A lot of people in Africa have HIV/AIDS - should some have, if not an immunity towards the illness, then perhaps a tolerance that would make them live longer and thereby have more children (spreading the trait due to increased fitness compared to others suffering the illness).

I'd say this is most likely to occur if the general population in the area is infected.

[bones2097]

The day will come when humans will know enough to actually start "improving" humans. One would be able to weed out genetic diseases, and probably greatly increase the odds of intelligence, beauty, lifespan, etc. We might even be able to improve on ineffeciencies in humans by adding new abilities.

 

So what are folks thoughts on this? Assuming laws preventing discrimination ala "Gattaca", and also the horrors of the past where folks killed the unworthy, ala nazi's, do you think humans should be messing around with our genes?

 

I'm all in favor myself. I can't wait for the Human 2.0 versions to start being born, and am hoping that upgrades are available for us original designs.

 

While there will undoubtably be indirect discrimination (smarter people will naturally do better in life and get better jobs), I don't think this is inherently bad if its just a matter of ability and not law.

 

i rem some one trying tobuild a better race... i forgot his name.....

 

ahh yeah i rem now..

 

he went by the name of ADOLF HITLER!!!! B)

 

yes people got rather cross by his approch... what makes the scientist think their approach is better.... :stare:

 

it all comes down to founding at the end of the day... :)

[StitchInTime]

Ok, tell me how evolution is still in play for humans?

In order to evolve any trait those without it have to die before they procreate (simplified)- I don't see that happening. At least not in the western world.

Ah, but in the Western world, in particular, most people have a choice about whether or not to have children, and whether to allow children to be born with serious defects.

 

For example, some people who know they have serious problems of one sort or another make the conscious decision not to have children. Also, people who have these traits, tend to wind up single, because they are less likely to be selected as mates.

 

Think about it. Who wants to marry somebody who's chronically ill? I can tell you from experience: nobody does. And, why would I want my offspring to go through what I've been through? You bet I wouldn't. So, the buck stops here.

 

I know some people have kids anyway, but my guess is that most people behave responsibly; so, the probability of certain defects being passed on is at least reduced.

 

Unfortunately, new research has shown that environmental stressors you experience in your life time can cause genetic damage, and that this damage can be passed on to your offspring at the genetic level. So, even if we mess around with the genetic code, we will never completely get rid of genetic defects unless we clean up our act in terms of how we treat people in society.