NationStates Jolt Archive

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are.

Prove it.

What?

Nothing prevents 'bad' people from doing things with genetics even if the 'good' people don't further the research.

So really... might as well have an even playing field.

I disagree with some other stuff there, but I'm sure others will prod you for it too.

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others. Racism, and bigotry in all forms are subliminally driven by this. It's in our nature and it's REALLY hard to fight, even though lefties try to fight this they express biotry and belligerence towards outsiders themselves. Already with our advances in genetic research issues are coming up like: "should we destroy the 'gay gene' in all babies" "should we 'cure' certain genetic traits like autism? (the mild form of autism actually genius but socially inept) Should we wipe out the 'conservative' gene or 'liberal' gene?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are.

Thoughts?

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

Prove it.

It's in human nature to hate anyone not part of your group. That should be obvious. This behavior has repeated itself throughout history and still does. Thats why people hate each other over the tiniest of things.

There's a difference between being called an inner nazi and favoring one group socially over another.

You see, not all humans have an inner desire to massacre millions of those from another nationality/religion/ethnicity.

Your argument is made of fail.

Thoughts?

I could go for a chicken sandwich right now...

What?

Nothing prevents 'bad' people from doing things with genetics even if the 'good' people don't further the research.

So really... might as well have an even playing field.

I disagree with some other stuff there, but I'm sure others will prod you for it too.

Well at least with limited knowledge the bad people would have less options.

Well, to a degree I agree with you. The risks in genetic manipulation are great, and could the research could be abused. I also don't believe genes should be manipulated manually anyway- beyond selection selection. Trying to 'perfect' our species would ruin our species. Random mutations that could be beneficial would be wiped out, or not allowed to occur. Our species should change slowly like all other- over longs periods of time through natural selection, sexual selection, and so on.

It's in human nature to hate anyone not part of your group. That should be obvious.

It's not to me.

This behavior has repeated itself throughout history and still does.

Obviously, groups have brutalized other groups. But always? Everywhere?

You didn't say that in certain circumstances "inner Nazi" elements might come to prominence. You said that all of us are inner Nazis--that all of us are consumed by a desire to obliterate those in other groups.

I see no reason whatsoever to believe this.

Thats why people hate each other over the tiniest of things.

I don't hate anyone over the "tiniest of things." Do you?

Prove it.

*calls for backup*
Alright, get onto the table!
On your back, lie still!
*nurses rush to pin you down*
Scalpel please. *holds out hand*
*nurse tosses scalpel*
Now then, just to make an incision around the spleen...*mutters*
*slices with great imprecision*
Aha! *peers into slit* I see him...*points and nurses peer in*
It appears to be a miniature Hitler..yes... most certainly it is.

Diagnosis: This man has an inner Nazi.

If you honestly think this would do anything good, you are sorely, sorely mistaken and naive. All the ban would do would shift progress from ethical scientists seeking to use their knowledge to benefit mankind to the rogue states and evil organizations of the world, who would proceed to use it for the very immoral purposes the ban was supposedly meant to curtail.

And guess who would be left defenseless...the people who would have used it for good. They would be helpless in the face of the very horrors they sought to prevent, and those horrors realized would exceed even the most terrible imaginations of the people who tried to stop them in the first place.

When people allow themselves to be deluded in to thinking that stopping progress will somehow protect them from themselves, the very things they sought to prevent happen. The only way to stop the evils of progress is progress itself...there is no going back and there is no stopping it, and there shouldn't be, because it is the only way mankind can save itself from itself. Mankind has an innate desire to learn and to explore, and to improve itself with the tools at its disposal. Genetic research and engineering are no different; while it is obviously risky to tamper with the evolutionary process itself, the more knowledge we have, the more safely we can use these techniques to enhance the lives and abilities of mankind.

It's not to me.



Obviously, groups have brutalized other groups. But always? Everywhere?

You didn't say that in certain circumstances "inner Nazi" elements might come to prominence. You said that all of us are inner Nazis--that all of us are consumed by a desire to obliterate those in other groups.

I see no reason whatsoever to believe this.



I don't hate anyone over the "tiniest of things." Do you?

1) Yes, is there a place on earth where people from multiple groups lived in complete harmony without showing some form of cruel contempt for one another?

2) We all do but are unaware of it, the only way to stop it is to conscientiously force those thoughts aside so that we can get to know a person for who they really are instead of letting our instinct take over and hate 'em for some strange tiny reason like hair color, race or religion.

It's in human nature to hate anyone not part of your group. That should be obvious. This behavior has repeated itself throughout history and still does. Thats why people hate each other over the tiniest of things.Have a look at the US. In terms of its gene pool, it is a highly diverse, yet highly coherent society. The exact opposite of what you claim to be the case.

Or look at those lefties you mentioned. How could they exist if you were right?

Human social groupings works just like any other dynamic system. Genetics is just one of many factors, and not a terribly important one.

SL, please stop projecting your own hang-ups onto other people. Thank you. 'Bye.

At what point do we stop playing God? Yes, curing diseases would be a wonderful benefit to mankind, but what happens when parents start selecting "desirable" traits for their children? I shudder to think about it.

Have a look at the US. In terms of its gene pool, it is a highly diverse, yet highly coherent society. The exact opposite of what you claim to be the case.

Or look at those lefties you mentioned. How could they exist if you were right?

Human social groupings works just like any other dynamic system. Genetics is just one of many factors, and not a terribly important one.

As mentioned here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543003) they don't live in harmony, they compete and lash out at each other whenever possible. And this doesn't only apply to ethnicities but smaller cliques as well.

1. By "inner nazi" do you mean eugenics?
2. You already do it, consciously or unconsciously.
3. Thats why I foster the hope of finding the "slut gene." So that one day all that will matter is that you look "damn fine."

However, when you genetically engineer your kids for certain traits that they have no choice over, that bothers me. That is not a decision the parents should be able to make, at least not with our current culture.

They don't have a choice now either. Except for now, it is a random pairing of genes.

As mentioned here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543003) they don't live in harmony, they compete and lash out at each other whenever possible. And this doesn't only apply to ethnicities but smaller cliques as well.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

At what point do we stop playing God? Yes, curing diseases would be a wonderful benefit to mankind, but what happens when parents start selecting "desirable" traits for their children? I shudder to think about it.

Prenatal genetic engineering bothers me. There are few things in regard to human enhancement that do, but this one does and it bothers me very much because it removes what I consider an integral freedom. I have no problem with individuals deciding that for themselves; if someone wants to engineer themselves to increase their intelligence, strength, athletic ability, appearance, or whatever, I have absolutely no problem with it (and wouldn't mind partaking in more than a few of them myself).

However, when you genetically engineer your kids for certain traits that they have no choice over, that bothers me. That is not a decision the parents should be able to make, at least not with our current culture.

Prenatal genetic engineering bothers me. There are few things in regard to human enhancement that do, but this one does and it bothers me very much because it removes what I consider an integral freedom. I have no problem with individuals deciding that for themselves; if someone wants to engineer themselves to increase their intelligence, strength, athletic ability, appearance, or whatever, I have absolutely no problem with it (and wouldn't mind partaking in more than a few of them myself).

However, when you genetically engineer your kids for certain traits that they have no choice over, that bothers me. That is not a decision the parents should be able to make, at least not with our current culture.

Yeah, I agree, that's wrong, manipulating other people's genes against their will is one of the evil things we could do if we get hold of such technology.

Yeah, I agree, that's wrong, manipulating other people's genes against their will is one of the evil things we could do if we get hold of such technology.

And what if we were to manipulate their genes so as to remove the chance to attain certain genetic diseases?

As mentioned here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543003) they don't live in harmony, they compete and lash out at each other whenever possible. And this doesn't only apply to ethnicities but smaller cliques as well.
Your support for your assertions is another NSG thread? Please. I challenge you to prove what you are saying. I challenge you to prove that the intermittent and sporadic conflicts that occasionally erupt in this or that neighborhood in NYC have anything at all to do with "inner nazis." I further challenge you to identify what New Yorkers are competing for that puts them at each other's throats, as you assume they are.

Note: I am a New Yorker, from five generations of New Yorkers, and lived in that city for the first 31 years of my life, including through the "bad old days" (as I call them) of the 1980s. So I will be a demanding audience.

If you expect anyone to give the slightest credence to this unrealistic pessimistic fantasizing of yours, you had better have some data to present.

As mentioned here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543003) they don't live in harmony, they compete and lash out at each other whenever possible. And this doesn't only apply to ethnicities but smaller cliques as well.Group dynamics on that level wouldn't exist if the US was not a diverse, yet cohesive society.

Moving the goalposts won't help you, especially when you move them in a manner where even you are forced to point out that some of the conflicts can't have anything to do with genetics, like you just did. Because when it is obvious that other causes exist, and you can't supply evidence to support the cause you claim exists, your claim becomes a superstition: "An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome." - American Heritage Dictionary.

At what point do we stop playing God? Yes, curing diseases would be a wonderful benefit to mankind, but what happens when parents start selecting "desirable" traits for their children? I shudder to think about it.

You have humans who are more intelligent and better fit. And maybe with that intelligence these generations will start to solve world problems...

Well, probably not, but the downside is what?

And what if we were to manipulate their genes so as to remove the chance to attain certain genetic diseases?

Only if we all get to be born again.
Otherwise it is discrimination... I don't want to be usurped by a new generation of genetically modified super-children.
*shakes cane*

I'm only against genetic engineering because I'm jealous. I was born already so I will have no part in giving the next generation wings or more arms. :D

Random mutations that could be beneficial would be wiped out, or not allowed to occur. Our species should change slowly like all other- over longs periods of time through natural selection, sexual selection, and so on.

It already happens in other animals, breed a dog that isn't one colour all over, it's defective, get rid of it and never allow it to breed again. It worries me a little bit.

And what if we were to manipulate their genes so as to remove the chance to attain certain genetic diseases?

That is the only case in which gene manipulation would be excusable.

You have humans who are more intelligent and better fit. And maybe with that intelligence these generations will start to solve world problems...

Well, probably not, but the downside is what?

You also have the potential for certain selected physical characteristics and mental traits above and beyond simple enhanced intellect and aptitude.

As much as I agree with transhumanism in general, I feel it's the sort of decision a parent shouldn't be allowed to make for their child.

That is the only case in which gene manipulation would be excusable.Why? Is it that a certain percentage divergence from the mean human makeup is sinful or something?

I'm only against genetic engineering because I'm jealous. I was born already so I will have no part in giving the next generation wings or more arms. :D

I get the joke (we're ALL born already) but there's some truth in it anyway. People past child-bearing age probably get it double.

Why? Is it that a certain percentage divergence from the mean human makeup is sinful or something?

I think it's more an issue of avoiding or diminishing human suffering. If you can prevent a child being born with a debilitating mental or physical illness, why would it be wrong to prevent that illness from presenting.

At the same time, it's a fine line and a short step from modifying to remove illnesses and modifying to remove undesirable traits.

As much as I agree with transhumanism in general, I feel it's the sort of decision a parent shouldn't be allowed to make for their child.

The thing is though, that parents already make decisions about the child's life. Whether or not to have a child for one, as in "I didn't ask to be born."
Is it that you are opposed to the decisions the parent can make about a child who has no say in anything pre-birth anyhow, or is it that you would rather have traits left to random gene pairing and limit the choices that the parents could make dealing with the child?

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others. Racism, and bigotry in all forms are subliminally driven by this. It's in our nature and it's REALLY hard to fight, even though lefties try to fight this they express biotry and belligerence towards outsiders themselves. Already with our advances in genetic research issues are coming up like: "should we destroy the 'gay gene' in all babies" "should we 'cure' certain genetic traits like autism? (the mild form of autism actually genius but socially inept) Should we wipe out the 'conservative' gene or 'liberal' gene?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?


Scientific progress can't be halted. There will always be the question: 'I wonder if..." in our heads.

I'm afraid we're fucked. But it'll be a hell of a show. :)

The thing is though, that parents already make decisions about the child's life. Whether or not to have a child for one, as in "I didn't ask to be born."
Is it that you are opposed to the decisions the parent can make about a child who has no say in anything pre-birth anyhow, or is it that you would rather have traits left to random gene pairing and limit the choices that the parents could make dealing with the child?

I'm opposed to the decision. I don't know, it's a weird dichotomy I have. On the one hand, I'm in favor of choice for the mother on the topic of abortion. On the other hand, if the mother has decided to carry it to term, is it really right to usurp the right to choose of the child in that regard?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?

There will always be people to misuse mans greatest creations, but you can look at it like this. Someone will make a breakthrough in genetic research somewhere in the world someday--it's hard to control the world. If nations you.."hold your heart to" don't do this reaserch now, they won't know how to stop misuse of this technology when it begins to be abused.

I'm opposed to the decision. I don't know, it's a weird dichotomy I have. On the one hand, I'm in favor of choice for the mother on the topic of abortion. On the other hand, if the mother has decided to carry it to term, is it really right to usurp the right to choose of the child in that regard?

I don't know. A child at that stage in life is unable to communicate, much less choose whether it wants to be born or not.
I have a funny image in my head now of a doctor shoving a pen and questionaire into the womb for the fetus/baby/child to fill out.

Check off yes or no for each question.

Do you want to be aborted? Yes___ No___
Do you want to be carried to term? Yes___ No___
Do you agree to any genetic modifications? Yes___ No___
If you checked off yes for the previous question, please specify which types of modifications you would allow:
Physical traits____ Genetic Defects____ Personality Traits____
Was this survey helpful in making your decisions? Yes___ No___

What I do find problematic is the manipulation of intelligence.

A problem that naturally arise is not so much rather or not it's morally correct to alter a child's gene, but who has the privilege to have their genes altered. Naturally the elite is going to have more access to this technology making their children literally better than everyone else. It will create a cast system where the privileged will remain privileged not only financially, but physically. Common people will no longer have any chance of moving up. Democracy/human rights as we know it will disappear in a few generations.

A problem that naturally arise is not so much rather or not it's morally correct to alter a child's gene, but who has the privilege to have their genes altered. Naturally the elite is going to have more access to this technology making their children literally better than everyone else. It will create a cast system where the privileged will remain privileged not only financially, but physically. Common people will no longer have any chance of moving up. Democracy/human rights as we know it will disappear in a few generations.

That's already the case, in many ways; people who win the genetic lottery and are born smarter or more talented than others are predisposed to success even though they didn't earn it, and the system is already designed to favor those already in power rather than reward them according to merit. This is actually an issue I discuss considerably regarding these technologies, since futurism is one of my interests and transhumanist philosophy a concept I have worked to elaborate and defend against various threats both inside and outside. Personally, I see a person willing to use human enhancement to fortify their delusions of a God complex to be just as threatening, perhaps even moreso than the Luddites that seek to ban it out of fear and misunderstanding.

In fact, since engineering intelligence will become exponentially cheaper over time, it is possible it will eventually have a very significant leveling effect on society, above and beyond the merits of an inherently more intelligent population. Mind you, I believe that other forms of human enhancement will provide this effect (e.g. various treatments and implants to enhance intelligence, which would be much cheaper than genetic engineering and easier to provide to more people), but genetic engineering will help as well.

Nonetheless, though, it will happen whether we like it or not and so the goal will be to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. I strongly support human enhancement, but I also like the thought of using it as a tool to enhance opportunity and discovery for each person.

Thoughts?

We should first eliminate the fucktard gene.

That's already the case, in many ways; people who win the genetic lottery and are born smarter or more talented than others are predisposed to success even though they didn't earn it, and the system is already designed to favor those already in power rather than reward them according to merit. This is actually an issue I discuss considerably regarding these technologies, since futurism is one of my interests and transhumanist philosophy a concept I have worked to elaborate and defend against various threats both inside and outside. Personally, I see a person willing to use human enhancement to fortify their delusions of a God complex to be just as threatening as the Luddites that seek to ban it out of fear and misunderstanding.

In fact, since engineering intelligence will become exponentially cheaper over time, it is possible it will eventually have a very significant leveling effect on society, above and beyond the merits of an inherently more intelligent population. Mind you, I believe that other forms of human enhancement will provide this effect (e.g. various treatments and implants to enhance intelligence, which would be much cheaper than genetic engineering and easier to provide to more people), but genetic engineering will help as well.

Nonetheless, though, it will happen whether we like it or not and so the goal will be to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. I strongly support human enhancement, but I also like the thought of using it as a tool to enhance opportunity and discovery for each person.

I am simply arguing in a social inequality standpoint. The problem I am talking about is the unequal distribution of this technology. When human develop an effective way of enchanting intelligence, naturally the elite will obtain the benefit of this technology first. Like other technology, no matter how common it becomes, the elite will always be one step ahead in obtaining the top of the line. This will lead to an endless chase where poor people will remain less intelligent than rich. The cast system will be inevitable regardless of how much technology develops.

It is not about how fair it is when random people are born smarter than others, it is about when family line process and continue to process financial/intellectual power, when the accumulation of generations widen the gaps between social class further and further, and when common people progressively have less rights.

where's the "disagree, even though I realise humankind will probably misuse the technology" option?

I am simply arguing in a social inequality standpoint. The problem I am talking about is the unequal distribution of this technology. When human develop an effective way of enchanting intelligence, naturally the elite will obtain the benefit of this technology first. Like other technology, no matter how common it becomes, the elite will always be one step ahead in obtaining the top of the line. This will lead to an endless chase where poor people will remain less intelligent than rich. The cast system will be inevitable regardless of how much technology develops.

The key will likely be government in one form or another; if government can provide a way to equalize access to these technologies, it would enable people to keep up with technology, if not enough to be on the cutting edge then at least enough to remain competitive in society. That should be the goal more than anything; preserving the meritocratic values that made our society the dynamic engine for technological progress it is today while simultaneously allowing that progress to flourish.

Would this remove all inequality? No. However, it would help to prevent those kinds of gaps from happening or at least mitigate them enough to offset their effects with the positive benefits of the programs. Obviously, legislation like the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act is a major step in the right direction, as it helps bar discrimination in the workplace based on predisposition to genetic conditions.

It is not about how fair it is when random people are born smarter than others, it is about when family line process and continue to process financial/intellectual power, when the accumulation of generations widen the gaps between social class further and further, and when common people progressively have less rights.

That was quite possibly a basic concept behind feudalism, really. I don't think it was solely strategic that wealthy families frequently intermarried; it was also likely they also possessed advantageous traits, even if they were unaware of them at the time, that allowed them to achieve that position in the first place, with the result being that intermarriage allowed them to select those genes and optimize their ability to rule.

I think we can both see the concern these things pose. It will require a lot of work as a society to make sure human enhancement is not used to prop up the status quo or establish a new semi-feudal order, because that would be a disaster for continued progress and a major insult to the people like me who work to advance these fields and the benefit of mankind.

The idea behind this compound reply is that I will converse with any of the posters I've quoted.
I'm not just dumping on you all from a great height with my criticisms, consider your bit of the post a personal reply, and take it up if you wish.

It's looking to be a good thread, despite the crap OP and the sucky poll. ;)

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are.

Your post is long enough to be expected to follow an essay structure. Rather than grabbing the attention of the people most likely to ruin any debate on the topic, you should put your thesis in that first line.

I won't comment on the rest of your OP, unless you ask my opinion on some clear assertion from it.

Thoughts?

I think you're well out of your depth on this one.

______________________

You have humans who are more intelligent and better fit. And maybe with that intelligence these generations will start to solve world problems...

Well, probably not, but the downside is what?

Better weapons, more cunning psychopaths, and cell-phone vendors who sell your own ear to you ?

And anyway, haven't we already solved some world problems, while making others with our ingenuity ?

________________________

You also have the potential for certain selected physical characteristics and mental traits above and beyond simple enhanced intellect and aptitude.

Bravo. Yes, we are not just intelligence burdened with animal nature. We must love and enhance both.

As much as I agree with transhumanism in general, I feel it's the sort of decision a parent shouldn't be allowed to make for their child.

So who does make that decision?

_____________________________

Scientific progress can't be halted. There will always be the question: 'I wonder if..." in our heads.


But scientific progress is not a uniform wave of knowledge, spreading outwards from the curious mind.

I don't know what makes us curious about one thing and not another. Perhaps someone else can answer this.

___________________________

I have a funny image in my head now of a doctor shoving a pen and questionaire into the womb for the fetus/baby/child to fill out.

The word for that is not "funny" ... it's "wtfgetawayfrommecreepyweirdgross."

___________________________

*snip respectfully*

Anyone reading this from much later in the thread should go back and read it, and read from there. Way to go, newbie or puppet or whatever you are. Great post.

____________________________

That's already the case, in many ways; people who win the genetic lottery and are born smarter or more talented than others are predisposed to success even though they didn't earn it, and the system is already designed to favor those already in power rather than reward them according to merit.

Sorry to go all Zen on you, but is that "the system in place" or a natural law?

Or is it intrinsic to the concept we take for granted ... "power"?

This is actually an issue I discuss considerably regarding these technologies, since futurism is one of my interests and transhumanist philosophy a concept I have worked to elaborate and defend against various threats both inside and outside. Personally, I see a person willing to use human enhancement to fortify their delusions of a God complex to be just as threatening, perhaps even moreso than the Luddites that seek to ban it out of fear and misunderstanding.

And it is you who will carry this debate away from the racist-eugenics gutter which SL threw it towards with the OP. Why wasn't it you to start this topic?

In fact, since engineering intelligence will become exponentially cheaper over time, it is possible it will eventually have a very significant leveling effect on society, above and beyond the merits of an inherently more intelligent population. Mind you, I believe that other forms of human enhancement will provide this effect (e.g. various treatments and implants to enhance intelligence, which would be much cheaper than genetic engineering and easier to provide to more people), but genetic engineering will help as well.

We humans tend to be very proud of our "intelligence" but it isn't the only feature which sets us apart from other animals, and it isn't the only benefit of our big brains. We have a fantastically flexible modelling machine inside each of our heads, and we model with it whatever is around us.

In a sense, I am quibbling with the word "intelligence." And I don't welcome generations of future people who have fantastic memories and long attention spans and score higher and higher on IQ tests because the brain they have is engineered to do that.

In other words, we should beware deciding what we are, when evolution has rewarded us precisely for flexibility. We lived through an ice-age

Nonetheless, though, it will happen whether we like it or not and so the goal will be to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. I strongly support human enhancement, but I also like the thought of using it as a tool to enhance opportunity and discovery for each person.

FreedomEverlasting deserves this good reply of yours, and I will follow your exchange which has been excellent so far.

Consider this post "throwing my hat into the ring" for a bit later.

Thoughts ... a less bias poll would be nice

For example something allowing a "Humans have the potential to misuse the information gained but in the long run the benefits will outweigh the risks"

Even a "other" section would have been nice for this

Another SL thread made of fail. Nothing new there.

Thoughts ... a less bias poll would be nice

Hey, what's wrong with calling that ... "a sucky poll" ?
No reply necessary . . . :p . . . .just saying I agree

Another SL thread made of fail. Nothing new there.

You don't want to hijack a thread about "OMG Z NAXIS R CUMMIN" to talk about genetic modification of humans ?

Coward. You are one of the five passengers on the plane who wouldn't stand up to the 260 hijackers. Coward I call you!

ER ... maybe you have a point. I'll think about it after clicking this buttoN

The key will likely be government in one form or another; if government can provide a way to equalize access to these technologies, it would enable people to keep up with technology, if not enough to be on the cutting edge then at least enough to remain competitive in society. That should be the goal more than anything; preserving the meritocratic values that made our society the dynamic engine for technological progress it is today while simultaneously allowing that progress to flourish.

Would this remove all inequality? No. However, it would help to prevent those kinds of gaps from happening or at least mitigate them enough to offset their effects with the positive benefits of the programs. Obviously, legislation like the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act is a major step in the right direction, as it helps bar discrimination in the workplace based on predisposition to genetic conditions.



That was quite possibly a basic concept behind feudalism, really. I don't think it was solely strategic that wealthy families frequently intermarried; it was also likely they also possessed advantageous traits, even if they were unaware of them at the time, that allowed them to achieve that position in the first place, with the result being that intermarriage allowed them to select those genes and optimize their ability to rule.

I think we can both see the concern these things pose. It will require a lot of work as a society to make sure human enhancement is not used to prop up the status quo or establish a new semi-feudal order, because that would be a disaster for continued progress and a major insult to the people like me who work to advance these fields and the benefit of mankind.

Now the real scary part about this is that, we must rely on our government to keep a balance from the abuse. Which is arguably fine if we can maintain a true democracy. But if the circle who the government tries to deal with becomes the government itself, then we will have a serious problem. An example of that is China's "anti corruption group".

Right now there's a certain checks and balance, where certain poor people still manage to rise up to become rich. There are still well educated poor people who can voice their opinions, who fight for social equality and civil rights. There are still opportunity for social diversity. The fact that gifted children can come from any social class prevents any group from total domination forever. When those voices disappears, when there are simply no more poor people who can compete against the rich in any given academic field, it will only be a matter of time before things gets out of hand.

Not to mention that rich countries will obviously get this technology faster than poor countries. Racism and discrimination against people from other countries will be inevitable when we make what was once stereotype a reality. What kind of disaster are we creating in a global standpoint?

Now that I look at it, I am sounding like an apocalyptic activist.

Edit: Let me throw part in here as well

Quote:
Nonetheless, though, it will happen whether we like it or not and so the goal will be to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks. I strongly support human enhancement, but I also like the thought of using it as a tool to enhance opportunity and discovery for each person.

Nobel Hobos
FreedomEverlasting deserves this good reply of yours, and I will follow your exchange which has been excellent so far.

Consider this post "throwing my hat into the ring" for a bit later.

I understand that any attempt to ban this will simply mean some countries will get it faster than others, but I just can't see myself embracing this change. Personally I am not sure too much about this whole "enhance opportunity and discovery for each person." when it comes to genetic modification. Things that are view as socially less important, such as art and music, will be traded in for things like math and science (just look at our education system today). It's will be a sad day for art majors like myself to see all the artistic genes being flush down the toilet.

No, Thrusty and Neo Art are right. Let's copy and paste our posts (well, not my omnibus one) from here into a new thread with a more worthy Original Post which doesn't attract twerps like shit attracts flies.

Someone, start it again.

Is there a rule against that?

Thoughts?

you have gone crazy, it's obvious that most people don't hate people not belonging to their group and you have no idea what you're talking about. "the conservative gene"? the "black gene"? :rolleyes:

Knowledge, technology, discovery and more all advance fastest when unbound by petty morality. Why should any be limited? Why must the great be constrained by the small? Need I remind everyone that wimps aren't top dogs and explain the reasons behind that? Genetic manipulation is fast ending world hunger, soon it will cure diseases, it may one day even allow us to keep the technophobic fleshbags who refuse cybernetic implants from dying. And can you imagine the new weapons technologies that could be developed through genetic manipulation? People could turn their hands into tasers, have beehive arms, and have skin as tough as a rhino's. I propose that an underwater city be built immediately to facilitate the rapid advancement of traditional and genetic technologies, a city where the artists will not fear the sensative, a city built on dreams and personal liberty "TO THE MAX!".

What's the worst that could happen?

Now the real scary part about this is that, we must rely on our government to keep a balance from the abuse. Which is arguably fine if we can maintain a true democracy. But if the circle who the government tries to deal with becomes the government itself, then we will have a serious problem. An example of that is China's "anti corruption group".

Well, that's the concern. Which is why it's so important people like me and you make sure that we remain active in politics and in voting to try to influence policy in a direction favorable to our goals...otherwise, this exact thing is going to happen.

Ultimately, there are two likely outcomes, to borrow from science fiction (soon to be science fact, as amazing as this is): cyberpunk and cyberprep. Obviously, the second is far better from the first, but they are both possible outcomes if we are not careful at nudging technological development down the right path.

Right now there's a certain checks and balance, where certain poor people still manage to rise up to become rich. There are still well educated poor people who can voice their opinions, who fight for social equality and civil rights. There are still opportunity for social diversity. The fact that gifted children can come from any social class prevents any group from total domination forever. When those voices disappears, when there are simply no more poor people who can compete against the rich in any given academic field, it will only be a matter of time before things gets out of hand.

I agree.

And, of course, there's the cost of education itself, which is rising rapidly and is pricing poorer families out of access to good higher education. Both of these pose a similar risk of pricing poorer children out of the marketplace; the it may be a necessity to include intelligence enhancement in the same way as mandating vaccinations to ensure a fair competitive environment for children of all ages.

Not to mention that rich countries will obviously get this technology faster than poor countries. Racism and discrimination against people from other countries will be inevitable when we make what was once stereotype a reality. What kind of disaster are we creating in a global standpoint?

Now that I look at it, I am sounding like an apocalyptic activist.

I don't think it would be a disaster....disruptive, yes, but in a manner similar to the computer, internet, or cell phone rather than the nuclear bomb. The digital divide and technology gaps have been closing peacefully (although they still have far to go), and I don't think it would be any different in this case. The technology would still

Of course, it's also true that the disparity between poor and wealthy nations is significantly smaller than it was in the past and will be even smaller by the time these technologies become commercially available. For reference, let's say the most realistic case is in the 2020ish time frame, with the 2015-2025 period marking the general adoption curve (or the steepest part of the s-curve of technology adoption) of the human enhancement boom; based on this, they'll be developed in the 2010's (potentially a late estimate, given the huge amount being poured in to military applications of this technology and the progress already made) and then licensed for commercial and medicinal use in the next decade, since the entire approval process usually takes around 6-8 years (this is the primary wild card; it's likely illegal use will be common long before official approval).

It's also realistic to assume that by this time China and India will be middle/upper middle income countries with a large enough middle class to adopt these technologies on a widespread scale, so the vast majority of the world's population will be capable of bridging this divide even if a few places such as the African continent and the Middle East are still lagging. This, of course, also means that the same problems we will face will arise in these countries as well and will have to be addressed there as well.

You can call me bad names if you want (I'm pretty much flame-proof :D), but my personal opinion is that all pregnancies should be screened at an early stage for obvious genetic disorders (Down syndrome being one of the easiest to detect) and those pregnancies should be terminated.

As for the 'mad scientist' approach, I wouldn't mind having bioluminence... :D

Coward. You are one of the five passengers on the plane who wouldn't stand up to the 260 hijackers. Coward I call you!

If hijackers had guns... "Terrorists win!" (Brownie points to whomever can tell where the quote is from originally. :p)

You can call me bad names if you want (I'm pretty much flame-proof :D), but my personal opinion is that all pregnancies should be screened at an early stage for obvious genetic disorders (Down syndrome being one of the easiest to detect) and those pregnancies should be terminated.Why would you want that?As for the 'mad scientist' approach, I wouldn't mind having bioluminence... :DI'd like wings, personally. And perhaps a few more cocks and some extra hands to play with them. And some gills. Gills would be cool. But bioluminescence.. Would that be terribly inconvenient when you wanna sleep?

EDIT: By the way, you're an asshole.

You asked for it!

Why would you want that?

Less retards for the society to take care of. :)

And bioluminence is generally controllable by the creatures that have it. ;) Imagine never again needing a flashlight in case of a power failure! :eek:

Didn't exactly ASK for it, just said I'd ignore it.

Since we both agree to the significance to the first 2 issues, let's us focus on this one.

I don't think it would be a disaster....disruptive, yes, but in a manner similar to the computer, internet, or cell phone rather than the nuclear bomb. The digital divide and technology gaps have been closing peacefully (although they still have far to go), and I don't think it would be any different in this case. The technology would still

Of course, it's also true that the disparity between poor and wealthy nations is significantly smaller than it was in the past and will be even smaller by the time these technologies become commercially available. For reference, let's say the most realistic case is in the 2020ish time frame, with the 2015-2025 period marking the general adoption curve (or the steepest part of the s-curve of technology adoption) of the human enhancement boom; based on this, they'll be developed in the 2010's (potentially a late estimate, given the huge amount being poured in to military applications of this technology and the progress already made) and then licensed for commercial and medicinal use in the next decade, since the entire approval process usually takes around 6-8 years (this is the primary wild card; it's likely illegal use will be common long before official approval).

It's also realistic to assume that by this time China and India will be middle/upper middle income countries with a large enough middle class to adopt these technologies on a widespread scale, so the vast majority of the world's population will be capable of bridging this divide even if a few places such as the African continent and the Middle East are still lagging. This, of course, also means that the same problems we will face will arise in these countries as well and will have to be addressed there as well.

What I am most afraid of is how people begin to look at each other with the introduction of genetic modification.

I can understand that any other technology, such as computer and WMD, can bring a sense of nationality and superiority. But I just can't see it being the same in genetic modification. I think it's a different feeling when we look at superiority in technology vs a superiority in self. If you look at how nationalism in Nazi Germany works, it's main focal point is superior race. When we look at any other case of racism/nationalism, it's the same thing. How can we avoid extreme racism/nationalism when the people in first world countries are literally better than people in other countries. How can we look at other people the same way when genetic and intellectual superiority becomes reality? What are we teaching our children when we tell them our country have genetic modification to make them smarter/a better person? How would they think of the rest of the world when they grow old enough to realize that people in other countries might not have such privilege? Would they still be able look at those people as equals and maintain the peace?

I would say that there wouldn't be an immediate problem, rather it will manifest itself 1 or 2 generations from now. Unfortunately that is also a bad time considering the energy crisis that the world might be facing.

Also African continent and the Middle East are not little places. Let's also not forget that aside from Africa/Middle East many part of South America will not be capable of funding this technology, and even if they do there's no way they can keep up with the rest of the first world countries in terms of it's development. Also in order to benefit the population must be willing to accept being impregnated artificially. This alone will rule out many religious countries and countries that have a hard time controlling birth/std.

If we add a benefit to artificial pregnancy, what kind of social issues will occur in regard to accident pregnancy, illegal immigrants, rape, and religion in general.

As to how genetic modification will be distributed in China/India, I think that will be a whole different problem in itself.

Less retards for the society to take care of. :)That's a pretty slippery slope you're sliding down there mate. What about children and old people in general, or GLBTs, or a million other things?

You're also taking for granted that societies don't want to support people, that any such opinion, whatever it may be, actually matters, and that if it does, it is more important than the opinion of the parents. And of course, you're assuming no parents can provide for their retard without help from their community.

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with a single one of those assumptions. Not implying we should necessarily agree.And bioluminence is generally controllable by the creatures that have it. ;) Imagine never again needing a flashlight in case of a power failure! :eek:Oh, OK, so I don't know how it works, but at least I can spell it :p
What about squid camo? I heard somewhere they can communicate with it. Wait, nevermind. I've enough trouble trying to read people's bodylanguage as it is. Ban squid camo I say!Didn't exactly ASK for it, just said I'd ignore it.Ok, so you got down on your knees and begged for it. Either way, you obviously didn't ignore it. Liar!

... Sorry I'm just bored.

That's a pretty slippery slope you're sliding down there mate. What about children and old people in general, or GLBTs, or a million other things?

I was asked to provide a simple reason and I did so. The simple reason does not address the whole of my opinion, of course: it is merely the simplification of the multi-page answer. :p

Humanity is going to abuse genetic engineering in every possible way. We are also going to do the same with cybernetics, nanotechnology and every other emergent technology.

How do I know this? Because we've done it with EVERY technology we've ever developed.

Humanity is going to fracture into biologically and mechanically differentiated sub-species, each distinct and separate but also a part of the greater whole of humanity. Humans will live unprotected in the crushing depths of the sea and walk the sands of Mars with bare feet.

I look forward to it.

Either way, you obviously didn't ignore it. Liar!

Ignoring the flame and ignoring the 'hidden comment' are not the same thing. ;) :p

I was asked to provide a simple reason and I did so. The simple reason does not address the whole of my opinion, of course: it is merely the simplification of the multi-page answer. :pHow about a slightly more verbose summary of the multi-page answer then? Ignoring the flame and ignoring the 'hidden comment' are not the same thing. ;) :pWha.. Waitami.. Damnit, OK you got me :(

Can I still flame you at least?

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are.

Well, then I hereby declare myself not-human-in-the-meaning-of-SL's-quoted-statement.

Anyway, while I can agree that humanity is likely to misuse ANY tech advancement (examples from fire and chipped stones to nuclear power and space flight), blocking scientifical research because of ideological stances is the very same thing that the Inquisition, Hitler and Stalin did (the Inquisition had Galileo tried for the heliocentric theory, Hitler forbade the use of theory of relativity because it was a "jüdische" theory, Stalin and his science counsellor Lysenko blocked the research on semiconductors because they were deemed capitalistic toys...)

Really, scientifical research needs total freedom. The State (or the society, whereof the State is the expression) has the obligation, though, to control and eventually limit its uses and misuses: but this can happen only through INFORMED opinions about the single technical/scientifical issue of the day, not just UNINFORMED and totally ideological stances.

I had my inner Nazi surgically removed :)

Really, scientifical research needs total freedom. The State (or the society, whereof the State is the expression) has the obligation, though, to control and eventually limit its uses and misuses: but this can happen only through INFORMED opinions about the single technical/scientifical issue of the day, not just UNINFORMED and totally ideological stances.How do you propose this could be done without dismantling the kind of repressive democrazy we 1st worlders worship?

How do you propose this could be done without dismantling the kind of repressive democrazy we 1st worlders worship?

Well, creating additional agencies in the vein of DARPA might help...

How do you propose this could be done without dismantling the kind of repressive democrazy we 1st worlders worship?

Define better the "repressive democrazy"...

Anyway, building an intermediate level between the political level and the research can be an idea. I can give you the example of the italian consulting board on bioethics: it features the presence of ethical "authorities" (like bishops, philosophers), scientists (like biologists, chemists, genetists) and even journalists under the presidence of a former political activist and former MP. Its goal is to inform the political level (both cabinet and parliament) about the bioethical issues - so the government can propose and pass new laws about these issues with a clue of what they're talking about - , and to talk continuously with the researchers to discover the new ethical issues implied in scientifical research and its use.

Thoughts?

Advanced genetic technology couldn't be any worse than nuclear weapons.

Besides, I want to transcend my humanism. Give myself some wings, feathers, beak, a nice set of talons..

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others. Racism, and bigotry in all forms are subliminally driven by this. It's in our nature and it's REALLY hard to fight, even though lefties try to fight this they express biotry and belligerence towards outsiders themselves. Already with our advances in genetic research issues are coming up like: "should we destroy the 'gay gene' in all babies" "should we 'cure' certain genetic traits like autism? (the mild form of autism actually genius but socially inept) Should we wipe out the 'conservative' gene or 'liberal' gene?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?

"Whatever can be thought, will be thought" - Friedrich Duerrenmatt

It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not, it doesn't matter if it's beneficial or dangerous, it doesn't matter if it's legal or outlawed. There is no way of preventing discoveries in any field of research.

Well, creating additional agencies in the vein of DARPA might help...I'm not at all sure I understand you. Are you suggesting the application of new technology should be left in the hands of a agency operating under the military and without democratic oversight?

Thoughts?

Yeah, I agree with you... sort of. Humans are definately the most dangerous threat to mankind. When I was in 9th grade, I watched a movie in biology class saying how genetic engineers could now inject AIDS into airbourne bacteria, thus creating a massive epidemic of AIDS that spread through the air.
Genetic engineering posses a very real threat to mankind, if wielded by the wrong person for the wrong interests.

But "inner nazi"? I'm sorry, but I don't feel the crazy desire to kill jews, no.

Advanced genetic technology couldn't be any worse than nuclear weapons.

Besides, I want to transcend my humanism. Give myself some wings, feathers, beak, a nice set of talons..

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/poster70026303.jpg

I am getting a lot of use out of that picture lately.

I'm not at all sure I understand you. Are you suggesting the application of new technology should be left in the hands of a agency operating under the military and without democratic oversight?

No, more along the line of that they should have considerable oversight over their own programs and the fields they pursue independent of the government that funds them. This would avoid the funding hangups that can be problematic for other agencies while still keeping the organization liable to the government and electorate. The primary problem is that they lack the kind of independence of private firms enjoy, which can restrict their ability to pursue basic research if the government in power happens to disagree with their decisions.

Define better the "repressive democrazy"...

Anyway, <snip>I was actually about to ask you if you wanted the creation of ethics councils, but then the computer wanted me to look busy.

But such entities have two problems. Appointment of these technocratic councils isn't democratic, and they have no direct political power. At least, none I've heard of have not had these problems, and yes, most countries use ethics councils of some fashion.

As for what I meant by repressive democrazies, well.. I'm a democrat. Or rather, I'm a syndicalist; our liberal democracies don't look very liberal, representative or democratic to me. In fact, they strike me as rather repressive and pretty fucking crazy. Hence the wording.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/poster70026303.jpg

I am getting a lot of use out of that picture lately.

Much more like this: http://images.furry.com/sawyer/d/860-1/cs-hawklookout-s.jpg

But good effort.

No, more along the line of that they should have considerable oversight over their own programs and the fields they pursue independent of the government that funds them.And by "they" you mean research institutions and departments under the public sector?This would avoid the funding hangups that can be problematic for other agencies while still keeping the organization liable to the government and electorate. The primary problem is that they lack the kind of independence of private firms enjoy, which can restrict their ability to pursue basic research if the government in power happens to disagree with their decisions.But I asked about the application of of research/technology, not the funding of research.

I think either you've confused me, I need more sugar, or I've confused you. At least, we don't seem to be talking about the same things.

It's in human nature to hate anyone not part of your group. That should be obvious. This behavior has repeated itself throughout history and still does. Thats why people hate each other over the tiniest of things.

Hate is a pretty strong word to use at anytime, and I think one over used and not meant anyway.

It is human nature to distrust those not of our tribe perhaps, but hate those who are not of our group? Fucking hell of course not. How would interracial relationships ever get started, why do I have a large slice of Indian, in my Anglo Saxon blood?

The bigger point being of course, we men folk also have the desire to have sex as often as can, but we have learnt to control these feelings not let then control us.

As for real hate, well that sort of stuff I'll leave up to the irrational bigots etc...

(in reply mainly to the OP)

It is true that human nature makes humanity prone to rampantly stupid group behavior, but quite evidently, far from everyone is an "inner nazi". Under the "right" circumstances, many can come to display such behavior, though, as historically demonstrated. Cultural change is a duct-tape solution to this issue, working exactly as long as the duct-tape remains in place. With genetic engineering, however, human nature itself could finally see some actual improvement. But don't count on things ending up going that way - there's far too many obstacles in place. Unless the right kind of mad scientist would come to, in essence, take over the world. Actually, I very much hope such will happen; would make things much more interesting. No more silly barriers in place to stifle development, and the Luddites would have absolutely no chance of doing anything about it. It'd be perfect. Beautiful. Muhahahaha!

As a female non-Nazi scientist, I can honestly say that I don't give two shits about whether "mankind" will misuse the research that I contribute. If, as the OP suggests, all mankind is full of self-centered hateful assholes, then I suppose I'll just have to use my magical sci-fi genetics experiments to create an Amazonian paradise.

The whole 'once Pandora's box has been opened you cannot close it again' idea seems rather silly to me. It is hard to predict how a scientific discovery might be used - knowledge is always good and in itself is not dangerous it is what people do with it.

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others. Racism, and bigotry in all forms are subliminally driven by this. It's in our nature and it's REALLY hard to fight, even though lefties try to fight this they express biotry and belligerence towards outsiders themselves. Already with our advances in genetic research issues are coming up like: "should we destroy the 'gay gene' in all babies" "should we 'cure' certain genetic traits like autism? (the mild form of autism actually genius but socially inept) Should we wipe out the 'conservative' gene or 'liberal' gene?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?

To an extent I can see your point regarding the abuse of such technology, but I'm not sure I can class this as merely down to our suppressed 'inner Nazi' as you put it. I don't think I favour one race over another, not to be arrogant but I don't think I do. I'm very proud that every day when I go to a lecture or seminar at the University I attend, it is multi-cultural and you can hear many different languages, moral beliefs and viewpoints on the world. It's very liberating in my view. Racism has been a part of our history however, and in many areas some of these beliefs and prejudices have not fully died out. For example some areas of the USA and indeed, where I come from in the South Wales valleys, where the proportions of different ethnic groups is nearly entirely white, with more than 85% of people in the valleys originally born there. As far as I'm concerned however, such prejudices have no context or founding in the modern world, and are probably just the dregs of some of humanities more infamous trends.

To be frankly honest the only area in which I see a culture that is reminiscent of an 'inner Nazi' argument is probably the celebrity-based media. For example, how many of the most highly paid Hollywood actresses are anything other than white? How often is is a black or asian woman on the front of beauty magazines? The only potential I really see for abuse of such genetic advances comes from the possible will of some parents to have a child that will fit stereotypes as to what is attractive or sexually appealing, lots of boys that will be aimed to grow into the 'tall, dark and handsome' model, and equally, if not more likely, a proliferation of slim, blue-eyed, blonde haired women. These stereotypes have been with us since the beginning of popular literature and possibly even before that. Surely by now they must be antequated and out-of-date?

I do worry about the potential for mis-use of scientific advances in genetics, but they should not be a cause for the abondonment of such programmes and for increased human progress in curing disease and understanding ourselves. A more positive and inclusive media could slowly start to reverse our outdated and base views upon the races, and see a gradual move away from our ethnocentric tendencies. It's ridiculous for example that, in Great Britian, Islam is very frequently not taught to 11-16 year olds in comprehensive schools or indeed in some colleges too at the 'further education' level. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority are well past the desire to obliterate all other racial groups and so now is the time to truly educate ourselves about the people we share this world with, and not simply settle for our stereotypes and hang-ups about others. I think people who would want to genetically engineer their child do so out fo fear alone. A child is the product of two people together, and it will have the imprints of both parents upon it. What could mean more to a parent than that?

Much more like this: http://images.furry.com/sawyer/d/860-1/cs-hawklookout-s.jpg

But good effort.
Ah, I see. Very eagle-y
Also:
Yiff in hell!
:p

Good morning NSG. I feel a bit silly today.
Again, I'm offering a range of conversational gambits.

Humanity is going to abuse genetic engineering in every possible way. We are also going to do the same with cybernetics, nanotechnology and every other emergent technology.

How do I know this? Because we've done it with EVERY technology we've ever developed.

Big ol' thumbs-up to that! I'd add that military applications seem to be a huge driver of technological change ... though maybe the science develops more steadily but the application of it in response to perceived need for self-defense.
______________________________

I had my inner Nazi surgically removed :)

I kept mine. I built a fully-contained low-res Castle Wolfenstein in my brain and he seems quite happy there. He's pretty low-res himself, actually, but still useful for those "what would a mad Nazi scientist do in this situation?" moments.
_______________________________

Advanced genetic technology couldn't be any worse than nuclear weapons.

Besides, I want to transcend my humanism. Give myself some wings, feathers, beak, a nice set of talons..

Yes to the wings, though 70 kg birds generally don't fly that well, and those lightweight bones (hollow I believe) are very fragile.
_______________________________

It doesn't matter if we agree with it or not, it doesn't matter if it's beneficial or dangerous, it doesn't matter if it's legal or outlawed. There is no way of preventing discoveries in any field of research.

I can think of a way. Get into the field early and make a completely cockeyed and hard-to-test theory. Like Freud did.

It doesn't stop the field from discovering any specific thing, of course: how to know what you don't want to discover, before it has been discovered?

Another way to inhibit a field is to popularize it as evil, and I think exactly that has happened with eugenics. Nazism did indeed "queer the pitch" on which we're playing right now.
________________________________

As a female non-Nazi scientist, I can honestly say that I don't give two shits about whether "mankind" will misuse the research that I contribute. If, as the OP suggests, all mankind is full of self-centered hateful assholes, then I suppose I'll just have to use my magical sci-fi genetics experiments to create an Amazonian paradise.

Pleeease! Pretty-please, can I come live there when I'm ninety, completely daft and almost devoid of testosterone ?

But seriously, how do you do that? The "not give two shits" thing?

I want to be genetically and biomechatronically enhanced. But I want it to be subtle. Superficially still human, just with loads of improved abilities.

I want to be genetically and biomechatronically enhanced. But I want it to be subtle. Superficially still human, just with loads of improved abilities.

You and me both. However, I could also do the artificial intelligence route, if only for the sheer abstract experience of existing in a non-corporeal form and being able to shape reality in the simulation. Maybe both, assuming I can hook the body up to some kind of neural interface...

Hopefully, the future will still need accountants, because this stuff will be pretty damn expensive and I'll need a job to pay for it all.

Abstain. There is no "Fuck you. I want my catgirls." option.:p

Ah, I see. Very eagle-y
Also:

:p

TONIGHT WE YIFF IN HELL!

Yes to the wings, though 70 kg birds generally don't fly that well, and those lightweight bones (hollow I believe) are very fragile.


The bones are strutted with criss-crossing internal bone columns (in real birds), so they're not fragile.

As for the weight.. Is there anything lighter than air that's not toxic? I could have a series of internal sacs full of it, the way that fish have swim bladders.

Of course, that would make a mid-air fracture pretty devestating.. but it'd so be worth it.

Then again, hang gliding works fine..

2) We all do but are unaware of it,


If we are "unaware of it," how do you know "we all do?"

There is no actual evidence available to confirm my claim ("we...are unaware of it"), but you should believe it anyway ("we all do").

If we should be removing any sort of political gene, it's most definitely the one clearly labeled "liberal". You can tell which one it is, because it's wearing a shirt promoting multiculturalism, burning a Bible, an American Flag, shaking hands with Israel, and waving pro-gay/abortion/immigration pickets.

If we should be removing any sort of political gene, it's most definitely the one clearly labeled "liberal". You can tell which one it is, because it's wearing a shirt promoting multiculturalism, burning a Bible, an American Flag, shaking hands with Israel, and waving pro-gay/abortion/immigration pickets.

You're right. We should remove that, and isolate it, and inject it into everyone.

We should never advance to the point where we have eye lasers we can shoot out of our eyes at other people, because this technology would be grossly misused, e.g. kids eye-lasering their parents for disciplining them, Middle East nations eye-lasering each other, environmental terrorists eye-lasering oil fields, etc.

If we should be removing any sort of political gene, it's most definitely the one clearly labeled "liberal". You can tell which one it is, because it's wearing a shirt promoting multiculturalism, burning a Bible, an American Flag, shaking hands with Israel, and waving pro-gay/abortion/immigration pickets.

Actually, I am FOR shaking hands with Israel, but other than that, I agree with you.

The bones are strutted with criss-crossing internal bone columns (in real birds), so they're not fragile.

...but clearly it's a tradeoff. Our bones are stronger for a reason, even though being a few kilos lighter would seem to be a competitive advantage.

As for the weight.. Is there anything lighter than air that's not toxic? I could have a series of internal sacs full of it, the way that fish have swim bladders.

Hydrogen is best for weight, helium is four times heavier if I remember my highschool chemistry right.

They both have advantages: you could vent hydrogen for a flame-thrower effect ... helium on the other hand you could use as a fire-extinguisher and for party-tricks. Hydrogen you could generate by splitting water in a biochemical process, helium you would have to accumulate slowly from the air.

As to making yourself significantly lighter tho ... not really, unless you want to be a blimp!

You're going to have to make one or all of the tradeoffs birds have made in order to be able to fly well: lighter bones, smaller brain, almost useless legs, raging fast metabolism, specialized gut. Or else come up with better design than evolution has. Sorry.

Of course, that would make a mid-air fracture pretty devestating.. but it'd so be worth it.

Then again, hang gliding works fine..

I ought to try that someday. It does look fun.

Me, all I want is a tail and retractable fur!

You have humans who are more intelligent and better fit. And maybe with that intelligence these generations will start to solve world problems...

Well, probably not, but the downside is what?

Faster, more intelligent and better surviving humans.

A friend of mine once - long ago - had a profound insight: Improved humans would be deadlier and less likely to give a fuck about others or the environment - Better intelligence or improved strength & constitution don't prevent indifference, violence, oppression or massacres. If anything, they merely improve our capability to commit vile acts.


Overall I'm rather ambivalent on the issue....

Perhaps the eventual homogenization, immortalization and asexualization/multisexualism of humankind can create a new species free of racism, ageism and sexism? - Peace through confromity.

Perhaps none of that will happen and instead we end up as a test subjects of a hyperintelligent ruminating 6 year old who treats us as insects? - Peace through absolute oppression. :p

Who knows, but one thing is for sure: Science will not stop progressing until we're all eradicated in a way or another :)

edit:
I voted for Undecided even though I would've liked to vote: Disagree, mankind will most definately misuse genetic tech.

Much more like this: http://images.furry.com/sawyer/d/860-1/cs-hawklookout-s.jpg

But good effort.
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8103/judgedoomm03pa9.jpg

Faster, more intelligent and better surviving humans.

A friend of mine once - long ago - had a profound insight: Improved humans would be deadlier and less likely to give a fuck about others or the environment - Better intelligence or improved strength & constitution don't prevent indifference, violence, oppression or massacres. If anything, they merely improve our capability to commit vile acts.

Thanks, I'm glad someone sees that too.

If a parent makes the decision, they will choose characteristics which will give their child a personal competitive advantage. If that's done all at once, you have very clever kids being brought up by relatively dumb parents, educated by relatively dumb teachers, and convinced of their superiority to others from an early age.

I'd argue that it is a betrayal of those kids. It's like taking a normal or gifted child and giving them bad parenting, bad education, and spoiling them rotten.

Therefore, I think we need to either (a) professionalize parenting, somehow doing it better than we have professionalized teaching, which frankly we don't do well. School sucks, by the standards of those future humans. Hell, it sucks anyway. (b) Enhance humans gradually and for every child equally. By "gradually" I mean over many generations ... perhaps accelerating as enhanced humans become parents and teachers.

Therefore, I think we need to either (a) professionalize parenting, somehow doing it better than we have professionalized teaching, which frankly we don't do well. School sucks, by the standards of those future humans. Hell, it sucks anyway. (b) Enhance humans gradually and for every child equally. By "gradually" I mean over many generations ... perhaps accelerating as enhanced humans become parents and teachers.

I think the only problem is, we won't have generations. Maybe one, if , and I really stress if, something huge delays the process, and there are almost no things that really can. This stuff is going to hit us in the next two decades, and it's going to take off very quickly from there and can't be stopped. It's not going to be our children, it's going to be you and me and everyone else that will have to deal with these things and their consequences, and our choices will truly affect the future of mankind. We're really at a crossroads here, facing several different options that will have hugely different effects on the development of our species, and we've got to make the decision with no prior experience or knowledge.

We're either going to use it for good, evil, or something in-between. Obviously, the last one is the most likely outcome, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the first or fear the second with pure, utter mortal terror. I can't even imagine the extent of suffering, oppression, and destruction that will happen if these technologies are used for evil purposes. Of course, on the contrary, I can't comprehend the sheer benefit to mankind and the opportunities it would provide if used for good.

I think the only problem is, we won't have generations. Maybe one, if , and I really stress if, something huge delays the process, and there are almost no things that really can.

A huge war could. A big asteroid strike could. Alien intervention could.

Alien intervention? Damn right ... they might have better sociological science than us, be able to predict consequences to our gene pool (which might be valuable TO THEM, just as the diversity of non-human life on earth is valuable to us) and intervene. For that matter, they may be intervening already, too subtly for us to detect.

Yeah, crazy talk I guess. I should shut up before I get tweaked myself.

This stuff is going to hit us in the next two decades, and it's going to take off very quickly from there and can't be stopped.

It could! We might be dumb and obsolete, but we have the numbers and we have weapons and we have the positions of power in our obsolete society. "We" could just do eugenics the old-fashioned way on their asses, if they spook us too badly.

It's not going to be our children, it's going to be you and me and everyone else that will have to deal with these things and their consequences, and our choices will truly affect the future of mankind. We're really at a crossroads here, facing several different options that will have hugely different effects on the development of our species, and we've got to make the decision with no prior experience or knowledge.

Yeah, it's scarey. I'm coming around to a "regulate it heavily" position I think. We're talking a collective decision that is a bit above the usual economic and human-rights issues on which we're often divided about collective decision-making, ie government or world government.

EDIT: This paragraph was very rushed and ill-thought out. US is already ethnically diverse, and the EU and India are contenders too:
Do we want a world divided between two ethnicities, enhanced-Chinese and enhanced-US-white? With everyone else Eloi, fit only as gene banks and slaves? Because if it's left to parents with money, that's what we'll get.

We're either going to use it for good, evil, or something in-between. Obviously, the last one is the most likely outcome, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the first or fear the second with pure, utter mortal terror. I can't even imagine the extent of suffering, oppression, and destruction that will happen if these technologies are used for evil purposes. Of course, on the contrary, I can't comprehend the sheer benefit to mankind and the opportunities it would provide if used for good.

Indeed, our current standards will be obsolete.

I think the only problem is, we won't have generations. Maybe one, if , and I really stress if, something huge delays the process, and there are almost no things that really can. This stuff is going to hit us in the next two decades, and it's going to take off very quickly from there and can't be stopped. It's not going to be our children, it's going to be you and me and everyone else that will have to deal with these things and their consequences, and our choices will truly affect the future of mankind. We're really at a crossroads here, facing several different options that will have hugely different effects on the development of our species, and we've got to make the decision with no prior experience or knowledge.

We're either going to use it for good, evil, or something in-between. Obviously, the last one is the most likely outcome, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the first or fear the second with pure, utter mortal terror. I can't even imagine the extent of suffering, oppression, and destruction that will happen if these technologies are used for evil purposes. Of course, on the contrary, I can't comprehend the sheer benefit to mankind and the opportunities it would provide if used for good.

question, in your opinion what exactly is a good direction of this technology being use? Which part of a person's body and mind should we manipulate? And who would you give those enhancements to first? I mean if we want to talk about good vs evil it would help if I can have a sense of what good means and what evil means to you in regard to genetic manipulation.

But then again, we might be able to find ways to alter our genes that disrupts aging faster than we would in manipulating our minds/body in any way. People living forever at times like this, now wouldn't that be scary.

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others. Racism, and bigotry in all forms are subliminally driven by this. It's in our nature and it's REALLY hard to fight, even though lefties try to fight this they express biotry and belligerence towards outsiders themselves. Already with our advances in genetic research issues are coming up like: "should we destroy the 'gay gene' in all babies" "should we 'cure' certain genetic traits like autism? (the mild form of autism actually genius but socially inept) Should we wipe out the 'conservative' gene or 'liberal' gene?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?

God. You are so ignorant about genetics. But you still sounded really silly and paranoid for even someone very ignorant. Congrats.

First of all there is no "gay gene", "'conservative gene" or "liberal gene". There are genetic dispositions. You may have the "gay gene" but not become gay. There is still a degree of environmental control. And I'd assume most of those traits and similar traits are polygenic. You'd have to take out several "gay genes" to take out genetic homosexual disposition, but you may also have to remove those that effect other areas like intelligence, etc in the process.

question, in your opinion what exactly is a good direction of this technology being use? Which part of a person's body and mind should we manipulate? And who would you give those enhancements to first? I mean if we want to talk about good vs evil it would help if I can have a sense of what good means and what evil means to you in regard to genetic manipulation.

We shouldn't manipulate anyone's anything unless it's absolutely necessary; this is not a decision that should be made by a group of people. Human enhancement should be as voluntary a process as possible that is chosen and paid for by a fully informed, consenting person. Enhancements, of course, would be given to those capable of affording them first; however, given the sheer speed of technological adoption, the rich would not be capable of maintaining any kind of monopoly on them for long. As the technology matures, ideally government and private organizations together will provide ways for those unable to afford it to obtain the kinds of upgrades they need to compete in the new marketplace.

My idea of good is using the technology in a way that enhances the common welfare and benefit of mankind and which does not threaten a merit-based democratic society. Evil is using it in a way to oppress others and create an elite that is based solely on its ability to afford and defend its technological supremacy without regard to merit, contribution to society, or deservedness.

However, the first likely usage of human enhancement will be in the military and government, since the strategic applications are considerable; while this naturally has its own group of concerns, it also is beneficial because it ensures the technology will be fairly mature and economical for most people by the time it hits the market.

question, in your opinion what exactly is a good direction of this technology being use? Which part of a person's body and mind should we manipulate? And who would you give those enhancements to first? I mean if we want to talk about good vs evil it would help if I can have a sense of what good means and what evil means to you in regard to genetic manipulation.

But then again, we might be able to find ways to alter our genes that disrupts aging faster than we would in manipulating our minds/body in any way. People living forever at times like this, now wouldn't that be scary.

Id like to answer to this. Yes, I believe we can extend our life spans. It was already done w/ fruit flies. And we can keep ourselves young. I think it'd be awesome to be able to live untill 300, but being 18 biologically in most of it.

Then we can eliminate diseases, conditions.

Then we may want to get more cosmetic. This doesnt have to be at birth. You can inject something to your bloodstream and dna in your iris starts changing and you have a different eye color in a week.

I dont think this tech will lead to freaks though. There is still sexual selection. We want to look attractive to our mates. A certain degree of this is hard wired. Rather than half horse half human freaks, I think we'll concentrate on perfecting the human form. There may be subtler modifications, like importing a gene from an animal for better eye sight. But nothing radical, except for, maybe, a small fringe of the population, if any.

But then again, we might be able to find ways to alter our genes that disrupts aging faster than we would in manipulating our minds/body in any way. People living forever at times like this, now wouldn't that be scary.

I saw this added and didn't want to miss it. I agree, of course, since it's a simple fact that the more healthy, older people there are, the more a society benefits; the long-term thinking and accumulated wisdom, when combined with minds that are as fresh as those of youth, would be very beneficial to us as a civilization and would certainly outweigh any additional population pressures that would result.

Personally, if we had to make a choice between expanding lifespan and enhancing human abilities, I'd choose the former every time. Of course, both will occur and probably should, as increased intelligence or other abilities would enable expanded lifespans to have a greater positive effect, but longer lives pose few, if any threats akin to those posed by human enhancement.

I dont think this tech will lead to freaks though. There is still sexual selection. We want to look attractive to our mates. A certain degree of this is hard wired. Rather than half horse half human freaks, I think we'll concentrate on perfecting the human form. There may be subtler modifications, like importing a gene from an animal for better eye sight. But nothing radical, except for, maybe, a small fringe of the population, if any.

Personally, I believe bionics will be the most likely, because it has almost none of the risks of genetic engineering and a lot of additional advantages such as the ability to update and improve upon the devices with greater ease and speed than genetic changes, which could take a long time to manifest as opposed to the fairly short amount of time required for bionic implants.

Not to mention it fits in with a lot of human desires, both conscious and subconscious, without the fears of "chimera" or other hybrid organisms presented by genetic engineering so I have little doubt it would be adopted enthusiastically once proven safe.

Genetic engineering will be used for both good and evil. In general, throughout history, good has outweighed evil, so I am for genetics - I believe it will produce more good than evil. To tell the truth, a Khan Noonien Singh or two is probably worth the opportunity to exorcise the demons of genetic illnesses.

We shouldn't manipulate anyone's anything unless it's absolutely necessary; this is not a decision that should be made by a group of people. Human enhancement should be as voluntary a process as possible that is chosen and paid for by a fully informed, consenting person. Enhancements, of course, would be given to those capable of affording them first; however, given the sheer speed of technological adoption, the rich would not be capable of maintaining any kind of monopoly on them for long. As the technology matures, ideally government and private organizations together will provide ways for those unable to afford it to obtain the kinds of upgrades they need to compete in the new marketplace.

My idea of good is using the technology in a way that enhances the common welfare and benefit of mankind and which does not threaten a merit-based democratic society. Evil is using it in a way to oppress others and create an elite that is based solely on its ability to afford and defend its technological supremacy without regard to merit, contribution to society, or deservedness.

However, the first likely usage of human enhancement will be in the military and government, since the strategic applications are considerable; while this naturally has its own group of concerns, it also is beneficial because it ensures the technology will be fairly mature and economical for most people by the time it hits the market.

I agree that it makes more sense to have the government/military benefit from basic enhancement before allowing free market take over. It will prevent many unnecessary screw ups by letting the technology mature in a more controlled environment.

Knowing the free market, we both agree that the rich will obtain this technology first. They don't necessary have to monopolize the technology. As I mention earlier all they have to do is have access to the top of the line products allowing them to maintain a supremacy in the race. Now combine that with giving the same group access to living 3 to 4 times longer than anyone else first, I don't think it's far fetch to say that the elites will become even more power than they are today.

Also what kind of social violence and discrimination will occur between the enhanced and the non enhanced? There will clearly be those who cannot afford such a procedure, immigrants from other countries, and those who are simply moralistically/religiously against it. How can we protect the rights of those who refuse to make the change?

Personally I am still uncertain as to what can be done in regard to many of these issues.

Regarding the disruption of aging, one of my concern would be overpopulation. Even at our current prediction we are going toward a crash course at a rapid rate. When people stop dying naturally, how do we determine who is to live and who is to die? While our life can be limitless, resources surely isn't, especially cheap energies like fossil fuel.

Speaking of that, let's not forget that all this is going to happen at about the same time as peak oil. I wonder what kind of world will unfold before us.

Id like to answer to this. Yes, I believe we can extend our life spans. It was already done w/ fruit flies. And we can keep ourselves young. I think it'd be awesome to be able to live untill 300, but being 18 biologically in most of it.

Then we can eliminate diseases, conditions.

Then we may want to get more cosmetic. This doesnt have to be at birth. You can inject something to your bloodstream and dna in your iris starts changing and you have a different eye color in a week.

I dont think this tech will lead to freaks though. There is still sexual selection. We want to look attractive to our mates. A certain degree of this is hard wired. Rather than half horse half human freaks, I think we'll concentrate on perfecting the human form. There may be subtler modifications, like importing a gene from an animal for better eye sight. But nothing radical, except for, maybe, a small fringe of the population, if any.

Depends on how we look at it, there are many things people do today that some might consider freaks. With better cosmetic comes more socially different ideas being manifested into reality. Surely if we can turn people into half horse half human someone might just be crazy enough to do it. Rather or not we should discriminate against such person though is another matter.

Personally I like the idea of people looking different. If we gradually move toward an ideal perfection in terms of outer appearance, wouldn't we all end up looking the same? Also who has the legitimacy to determine what is perfect? Do we really want the free market and the media to dictate how people should look like? If we look at modern culture my prediction is that we will be seeing a lot more 40D breast and 12 inch penis. I am not sure if that's necessary a good thing.

Depends on how we look at it, there are many things people do today that some might consider freaks [...] Also who has the legitimacy to determine what is perfect? Do we really want the free market and the media to dictate how people should look like? I'd assume we want us to determine what's legitimate or perfect for ourselves. I also assume it doesn't matter, since it never has before.

Group identities and so on are very handy things to manipulate, if you're in the business of selling shit - be it jeans, the news or horses heads. Since the sells stuff, they will reflect that fact. But while some parties will have a vested interest in trying to create a fairly uniform consumer base, other parties will have an interest in create the opposite. Selling those cool spiked feedbags to people with humaniform heads, just won't work.

There'll almost certainly also be a strong element of politics, religion and social conformity mixed up in it. Just imagine a religion that prohibits you from depicting the Prophet, but commands you to be just like him, in a world where you actually can become just like him - at least physically. What kind of devout follower wouldn't? An even more obvious example would be people like me. I have facial tattoos, and back when I got them, a large part of the reason was a combination of group identity and some feeble attempt to throw social conformity in people's faces. Imagine how people like myself would express themselves in such a world, and more importantly, imagine the social barriers they'll break down. If one group of people have talons and 12" dicks on their foreheads, why shouldn't another? And another?

On an almost entirely unrelated note: 12" dicks? Oww.. Don't get me wrong, I like big dicks, but 12"?! That'd be like getting fucked with a fencepost

...ethics councils...
But such entities have two problems. Appointment of these technocratic councils isn't democratic,

It is. At least here. They're appointed by the Parliament - and the Parliament is elected by the citizens.


and they have no direct political power.

Of course, the direct political power must remain in the hands of a democratically elected Parliament. They're just helping the Parliament and the Cabinet.

As for what I meant by repressive democrazies, well.. I'm a democrat. Or rather, I'm a syndicalist; our liberal democracies don't look very liberal, representative or democratic to me. In fact, they strike me as rather repressive and pretty fucking crazy. Hence the wording.
Ok, clear.
As a communist, I can answer that I think that the chances for a liberal-democracy to be a real democracy are quite slim, because the major player of economy will always hold a lot of power over the general opinion (direct - "if side X wins I'll fire 2000 of you employees" and indirect - control of media corporations comes to my mind) and the legislative process.

On an almost entirely unrelated note: 12" dicks? Oww.. Don't get me wrong, I like big dicks, but 12"?! That'd be like getting fucked with a fencepost

Actually that's why I said it's not necessary a good thing. Men will "over enhance" their penis pretty much the same way as how women does with breast enlargement today. I think it should be obvious that what men think women wants is different from what women really wants, and vice versa.

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others.

That's not true. Human beings are naturally inclined to leave each other alone. In the absence of some environmental pressure to form governments, humans are genetically inclined to live in groups of 15 to 35. If they get bigger than that they split into smaller groups, if they get any smaller they join up. But when they split up, they do not immediately go to war. They leave each other alone

This is because Darwinism made sure that humans who fight other humans get killed, because in caveman days if a group of people were inner nazis, then other people didn't want to hang out with them. So they would only form groups of 15. Then when they picked a fight with a group of 35 they'd get wiped out. Groups who were not inner nazis only picked fights with relatively safe enemies like mastodons and giant hyenas.

It is. At least here. They're appointed by the Parliament - and the Parliament is elected by the citizens.

Of course, the direct political power must remain in the hands of a democratically elected Parliament. They're just helping the Parliament and the Cabinet.But then the problem remains that a bunch of unqualified fuckwits, even if they're semi- or pseudo-democratically elected, gets to determine the application of technology and research. That's the problem I was asking about in the first place. The reason I asked is very simple. It is (depressingly) often politically expedient to demonize or suppress the research or application of various technology. Stem cell research & the US would be one example. Another is the suppression and alteration of research and technology of ordinary housing. The former directly harms human beings. The latter indirectly harms all human beings, through changes to the geosphere.Ok, clear. While I more than agree, we probably shouldn't go off topic (sorry, I know I started it).

I can think of a way. Get into the field early and make a completely cockeyed and hard-to-test theory. Like Freud did.

It doesn't stop the field from discovering any specific thing, of course: how to know what you don't want to discover, before it has been discovered?

Another way to inhibit a field is to popularize it as evil, and I think exactly that has happened with eugenics. Nazism did indeed "queer the pitch" on which we're playing right now.


Ah, I never said you can't delay discoveries and theories. I said you can't stop them infinitely
;)
And the mere fact that you list eugenics here shows that the idea - upopular as it may be at the moment - isn't dead yet.

Ah, I never said you can't delay discoveries and theories. I said you can't stop them infinitely
;)
And the mere fact that you list eugenics here shows that the idea - upopular as it may be at the moment - isn't dead yet.

I should go look the word up before saying anything more (may well have a biased definition, due to abovementioned Nazis), but ...

the grievous misuse of the concepts "genetic predisposition" and Darwinism in the OP and elsewhere shows the danger of a little knowledge, toss in the distorted valuation of family (particularly one's children) and the idea that children are property and can have their nature chosen by parents ...

There are very real risks ahead. I look forward to reading the above exchanges, tomorrow morning when I'm up to it.

*retires stunned*

Actually that's why I said it's not necessary a good thing. Men will "over enhance" their penis pretty much the same way as how women does with breast enlargement today. I think it should be obvious that what men think women wants is different from what women really wants, and vice versa.

Actually even to-day many people enlarge their penises via penis stretchers etc.
This has nothing to do with genetics, of course. Nor does anything that isn't related with the original condition at birth - that is, what is ruled by genes.
Implanting a horse's dick on a man isn't genetics, so be happy or be very worried, depending on your own likings.

But then the problem remains that a bunch of unqualified fuckwits, even if they're semi- or pseudo-democratically elected, gets to determine the application of technology and research. That's the problem I was asking about in the first place.

Well, the prime problem lies in the qualities of the electors, not in the qualities of the elected.

It's in human nature to hate anyone not part of your group. That should be obvious. This behavior has repeated itself throughout history and still does. Thats why people hate each other over the tiniest of things.

It's also is human nature to want to bang with attractive mate. Both can be suppressed. If we didn't suppress the latter, there would be rape everywhere.

Halting genetic research because of this silly reason is like me saying: "Women can't go topless or else men would rape them."

as you all know humans are inner nazis. All of us are. Through the process of evolution we have learned to group up with those similar to us and hate those different to us because back in the caveman days that kind of behavior kept the traits each group had alive because those with certain traits would join up, for ma pack, and then protect each other. Unfortunately there's a dark side to this, each group due to darwinism wants to obliterate all others. Racism, and bigotry in all forms are subliminally driven by this. It's in our nature and it's REALLY hard to fight, even though lefties try to fight this they express biotry and belligerence towards outsiders themselves. Already with our advances in genetic research issues are coming up like: "should we destroy the 'gay gene' in all babies" "should we 'cure' certain genetic traits like autism? (the mild form of autism actually genius but socially inept) Should we wipe out the 'conservative' gene or 'liberal' gene?

Seriously, with the nature man has isn't it obviosu that humanity is going to misuse this technology. If we advance enoguh pretty soon we'll have confeds trying to make a virus to wipe out colored people or wiping out the 'colored gene', we'll have various others groups trying to wipe out the gene of those who they hate or those who aren't like them. And with all the groups trying to genetically wipe each other out or use their knowledge to somehow obliterate the other groups life on earth would become hell.

Thoughts?

I agree to a point, Evolution programs us to hate/distrust out-groups and defend in-groups, this is because we're more likely to share genes with those who look like us and those in our family. Evolution is driven by the need to preserve our own genetics at the expense of rival genes. This goes for all animals, but Human Beings are different to most animals in that we have learned to overcome our Darwinian programming.

When the first Hominid approached fire out or curiosity he overcame his genetic programming to flee and started instead the drive of technology that ended up hundreds of thousands of years later with the aforementioned Hominids ancestors going to space. Empathy is a genetic trait, if it did not exist there would be no such thing as society, we would all be too busy stealing from one another and killing each other to stop and invent telephones and planes. There are people who choose not to have children, defying the very essence of Darwinism. There are people who choose to adopt unwanted children and those without homes. There are people who are so dedicated to other human beings that they would rather live in poverty than see someone go hungry. Such people exist because human civilisation has advanced to the stage where the preservation of our own genes is not the most important thing to us. There are very few people who dedicate their lives to passing on their own genetic material (there are exception).

The fact is our species is generally mature enough in the modern age of world wide communications to view everyone of our species as an in-group, we co-operate and we all need each other. The only real out-group that remains for all humans are other species, and speciesism is becoming a word comparable to racism and homophobia.

All technology has been misused at one point or another, sometimes for good sometimes for bad, and i don't know why genetic engineering should be singled out for particular criticism on this front. Curing people of horrific genetic illnesses that would otherwise make their life difficult and shorten their lifespan significantly far outweighs the chance that Hitler will be reincarnated.

You're going to have to make one or all of the tradeoffs birds have made in order to be able to fly well: lighter bones, smaller brain, almost useless legs, raging fast metabolism, specialized gut. Or else come up with better design than evolution has. Sorry.



Raging fast metabolism I could go with, and a specialized gut.

Actually even to-day many people enlarge their penises via penis stretchers etc.
This has nothing to do with genetics, of course. Nor does anything that isn't related with the original condition at birth - that is, what is ruled by genes.
Implanting a horse's dick on a man isn't genetics, so be happy or be very worried, depending on your own likings.

Actually that whole part wasn't about genetic, it start off as a respond about cosmetic.

Aside from that, to this day there's no known method of penis enlargement that actually works aside from surgery, which unfortunately also comes with many side effects.

I agree to a point, Evolution programs us to hate/distrust out-groups and defend in-groups, this is because we're more likely to share genes with those who look like us and those in our family. *...*

Sorry, couldn't read past that.
You may find it normal to impregnate your sister, but I don't.

There is also a little thing called outbreeding, for which we also have an urge which may be innate. I'm wary of saying it is, could just as easily be a social construct. Freud thought it was the latter, but genetics was in its infancy then, has come up with some huge surprises these last few years.

Raging fast metabolism I could go with, and a specialized gut.

Raging fast metabolism for the energy/strength might sound good, but you'll be getting the degenerative diseases of old age much earlier.

I also can't see the attraction of taking a crap twenty times a day.

The only way you're going to be able to fly without some major sacrifices (I'd start with the legs, just have a set of latches there to attach to a small vehicle) is to design a better biochemistry (dunno how) or incorporate machinery (making yourself dependent on outside sources of energy and parts.)

It's also is human nature to want to bang with attractive mate. Both can be suppressed. If we didn't suppress the latter, there would be rape everywhere.

Halting genetic research because of this silly reason is like me saying: "Women can't go topless or else men would rape them."

On one hand, that's an excellent example because the sex urge is undoubtably a genetic predisposition -- probably the premier example of such.

But look what I can do with it by taking away the "disproof by analogy", turning it on your own position:

"Genetic research should be completely unregulated" is like saying "rape should be permissible, because it happens anyway and is the free expression of an inherent human urge."

Of course, the prohibition against rape is a social construct, at least primarily, and mixing it with a "genetic construct" -- the sex-urge -- is probably going to get ourselves confused either way.

On one hand, that's an excellent example because the sex urge is undoubtably a genetic predisposition -- probably the premier example of such.

But look what I can do with it by taking away the "disproof by analogy", turning it on your own position:

"Genetic research should be completely unregulated" is like saying "rape should be permissible, because it happens anyway and is the free expression of an inherent human urge."

Of course, the prohibition against rape is a social construct, at least primarily, and mixing it with a "genetic construct" -- the sex-urge -- is probably going to get ourselves confused either way.
Since when is the urge to rape an inherent human urge?

The desire to have sex is not remotely equivalent to a desire to rape.

Since when is the urge to rape an inherent human urge?

The desire to have sex is not remotely equivalent to a desire to rape.

If the desire to have sex is opposed by someone elses desire to not partake in sex, then the desire to rape is essentially the desire to have sex, against someone's will.
0_o

Alright, all I did was define rape... I have no idea where I was going with this.
*buys some aqua dots*

Since when is the urge to rape an inherent human urge?

Well it isn't. TPE was making what I thought was an unwarranted analogy, and I was turning it on its head.

Though I can see some sense, and on-topic sense at that, in the analogy. I'm really just objecting to "disproof by analogy", ie

alting genetic research because of this silly reason is like me saying: "Women can't go topless or else men would rape them."

There's the fallacy of the excluded middle there too. As someone who wouldn't dream of trying to ban genetic design ('designer babies') but also doesn't want to see it used by the already priveleged to give their children advantages others can't afford, I'm part of the middle that is excluded. So I objected.

The only way you're going to be able to fly without some major sacrifices (I'd start with the legs, just have a set of latches there to attach to a small vehicle) is to design a better biochemistry (dunno how) or incorporate machinery (making yourself dependent on outside sources of energy and parts.)

Biomechanical hawkman.. This has potential.

Sorry, couldn't read past that.
You may find it normal to impregnate your sister, but I don't.

It has nothing to do with impregnating your sister. I suspect some of this is conditioned via nurture. You will be attracted to people who look like they "should belong in my family". This is partly why interracial relationships are still somewhat frowned upon within certain ethnic groups.

Oh yeah, and I meant to mention this before, but it seems to have gotten lost. Forcing everyone to live longer would reduce the amount of jackasses polluting the planet, since you'd actually have to LIVE with the fucking consequences of your actions(that and killing said jackasses as they show up.).

Actually that whole part wasn't about genetic, it start off as a respond about cosmetic.

Aside from that, to this day there's no known method of penis enlargement that actually works aside from surgery, which unfortunately also comes with many side effects.
So all those emails were lying to me? :(

Just adding to the fun here ...:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402158.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Monkey Embryos Cloned for Stem Cells

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A01

Researchers in Oregon reported yesterday that they had created the world's first fully formed, cloned monkey embryos and harvested batches of stem cells from them -- a feat that, if replicated in people, could allow production of replacement tissues or organs with no risk of rejection.
...
Because the stem cells were grown from cloned embryos, those cells are genetically matched to the monkey that donated the initial skin cells. That means that any tissues or organs grown from them could be transplanted into that monkey without the need for immune-suppressing drugs.
...
Practical and ethical hurdles to growing personalized tissues for people are still great, because the still-inefficient technique requires large numbers of women's eggs, whose retrieval poses medical risks, and because the process would involve creating and destroying human embryos, which many social conservatives reject. :D
...
Even short of such applications, experts said, the work could prove medically invaluable by yielding monkey cells and organs with human diseases, which scientists could study and test therapies on.

"This technology potentially allows researchers to look at the early stages of many human diseases," said Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a Washington-based group that advocates for embryonic stem cell research.
...
Of 304 efforts, 213 resulted in embryos, of which 35 grew into 5-day-old blastocysts, the stage when stem cells appear. The team fished for stem cells from 20 of those and succeeded in two, for an overall efficiency about the same as is seen with mouse cloning today.

Both of those colonies are growing well in lab dishes, Mitalipov said, but one is genetically abnormal. The other is healthy.

In a reflection of the skittishness in the field since the Korean scandal, the team sent their stem cells to the University of Southern California, where researchers from Monash University in Australia compared them to cells from the 9-year-old monkey.

"Beyond any doubt," the cells are a match, those researchers wrote in an accompanying paper, and thus the concept of making stem cells from primate clones "is now firmly established."