Sayonara

You are talking about elitism and eugenics, but I'm pretty sure the thread was about random sterilisation, with a view to avoiding such complications.

Maybe you just have unrealistically high expectations, which is not surprising if you live in a society that worships the ability to have daddy pay for plastic surgery over the ability to act. Take that!

You'll be glad of those candles if there's a sarin attack on a London tube station, mark my words. And etc.

Well, it kept me entertained for a few minutes

Do you remember when we promoted safe sex, and everyone said "hey, that's the best darned idea ever?", and sexually transmitted diseases vanished forever? Those were the days. Simply promoting something does not require absolute exclusion of all other possibilities. An argument that it does is going to be as tenuous as my above analogy. What part of "people don't chose their partners on dates for the good of society, they do it for themselves" do you think is merely the product of my opinion? ...which I seem to remember saying, you know - when I said that dating was not social forethought, and that it was personal? I think it's a fallacy to fail to point out that not all dating is "mate selection" (at least where humans are concerned). Remember you are the one who brought dating into this. Using social forethought (I know you query this term later on, I'll explain it at that point in the post) would not act as a replacement for dating, but for the criteria used. Even in that capacity it would only need to apply during mate selection, and is in no way compulsory. I don't need to know how they choose who to go on dates with, only that they don't do it for the good of humanity. Stop with the straw man, or make it a bit more subtle and a lot funnier. Again with the guidelines. That is your condition, not mine. I don't particularly believe they are necessary, as I have already stated. Perhaps happiness is necesary for the betterment of society, but one might reasonably presume this is highly dependent on the kind of society in question. You are also ignoring the fact that there is no necessity for "a slightly different method of mate selection" to rule out any chance of happiness (presumably a symptom of your insistence that some sort of enforcement would be required). I don't see any of those points as being issues. See the upcoming clarification of "social forethought". No, I do not deny that. I am simply saying that I personally object to the pratice of appealing to vague literary parallels as if they were a point of authority on the matter at hand, and that the comparison adds little value to the debate other than to paint my views with the "Big Brother" brush. I have as much right to refute the value of such parallels as you have to draw them, and I will not be coerced into a defensive position in this way when I have not advocated any such ideals as those conjured by the mention of Orwellian states. Leaving aside the fact that you just used an Appeal to Authority in order to justify an Appeal to Authority, I don't particularly see why I should be bound to your idea of how an argument ought to be conducted, particularly considering the number of known fallacies you have used thus far. Yes, however I provided examples which you chose to overlook in favour of randomly bringing China (or, if you like, "like China") into the mix, so I have to question your motives. Also, I am not convinced that the issue of China is not one of Misleading Vividness. It is not up to me to go off and find the information that backs up your arguments, period. I don't believe for a moment you actually think that's going to wash. See, I find this ironic. You ask me not to veil mudslinging, after just being called out on implying that I am arguing views I do not support. "I said maybe", added retrospectively upon complaint, is not an acceptable disclaimer when you are playing pin the opinion on the opponent. In actual fact I would not claim that you preferred to see people in China suffer, because I have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case, nor have you said anything that would lead me to suspect it. I don't dispute that. I am not saying that any randomly chosen form of eugenics is acceptable, nor would I attempt to argue that. I don't pretend that comment was anything other than my opinion, and I don't think any other case was implied. Could you summarise those problems? I think so far we had (potentially) reduced genotypic expression, lack of happiness, and more control to the state (although I have not seen any argumentas to why the last one is a problem). Were there any others? Oh I do, even if it doesn't appear so. If I have given you reason to think I don't respect your opinions, then I apologise now (and retrospectively in advance, as it were, Milliway's Style). Why are you so intent on involving "the state" in everything? Society is quite capable of acting as a whole without any kind of pastoral intervention, as can be seen evidenced all around you every single day. "Guided selection" simply means that the population as a whole (or indeed a majority) make a conscious effort to nudge the development of subsequent generations in a particular direction, whereas under normal circumstances the population would undergo selection without being conscious of the fact or the effects. How this direction is determined is not necessarily required to lie in the prevue of a single governing body. If one is going to ask "how is it right to do this", one should also ask why it is right to not do it, instead of assuming that we are starting out from a point of moral neutrality. Since we have the means and the knowledge, failing to maximise our potential as a species could be looked upon as criminal waste of life - particularly so now that the burgeoning human population is causing resource shortages and massive wealth rifts. Good question. If I were discussing a forced eugenics programme with a definite outcome in mind I'd need to answer that. You'd have to ask Wolfgang that. I am, for the most part, talking about mechanisms rather than goals. You are doing a PhD, and you don't know that "perfectly well" is a euphemism for "within tolerable limits"? Yeah right, nice try. No. I hope you aren't going to use that as an excuse to condemn the approach across the board. I agree that new technology requires risk assessment, but how is that relevant here? We have been using both eugenics and integrated crop management for centuries. While you are technically correct that a discussion of combined approaches is not relevant to a discussion of a single method, this fails to prove anything. If we are to discuss the function of a system within another system, it is paramount that we consider the way interfaces and other systemic influences will affect (or be affected by) the new processes. Otherwise the whole exercise is purely academic and does not reflect real world events. That's pretty useless. Only point one contravenes Wolfgang's proposal - the others do not. Note also that since I listed cases that may or may not be true, it is not "proof". The case for a genetic basis of intelligence is for Wolfgang to argue, not me. Personally I don't think it's that much of a winner - I'm with you on that one. You're assuming some kind of absolute selection, which is actually quite hard to find. The first point I would raise here is that, while somewhat incestuous, their system is not closed. Secondly you ought to consider that genetic variation increases as a function of population size, so if we are treating the royal families of Europe as a population, comparing them to the whole species or a country like the USA is actually quite misleading. I'm afraid that is the best policy on public forums. I'd love to hear why not. Hmmmm. I did start the paragraph with the word "maybe". I think this part of the discussion is what should be getting most attention. Bear in mind that "that positive benefit may not occur" does not carry the same weight as "that would be a negative impact". Obviously this means little on its own, but I suspect that if the discussion goes on to consider the intelligence of a population in any depth, it might come in useful. Yes we could, but that would surely hinge purely on the specifics of our final implementation, which in this case have yet to be determined. No, you are muddying the water here. Your original implication was that eugenics would threaten our species, most likely due to large numbers of genotypes being completely selected out. That relates in no way to cultural changes that would be brought about as a result of the system itself being implemented. The problem here is that if you accept the philosophical barrier to knowing what "good" is, you have to also accept the opposite case. Not necessarily. We don't know why Wolfgang wants to do this, other than the fact that he said he wanted to "help children" and alluded to improving their educational status. I have been arguing the case for a system that improves society as a whole, but I specifically avoided imposing any artificial constraints that would make the nuture aspect of social development redundant. Well, not really. You're taking this to unnecessary extremes, and ignoring facts such as the vast swathes of people who already form permanent relationships for reasons other than love or emotion, without the benefits I am discussing. I agree that "full eugenics" would place us exactly in that situation, but I'm not in favour of that system nor do I think it has any real merit. No, I really haven't. Not in the sense that you intend it to mean. Growing potatoes for food crops and seed is eugenics, and is needed in order to maintain a staple supply of carbohydrates in a form we are now accustomed to acquiring - are you telling me that is not a "viable solution"? Do we have some kind of horrifying moral breach that we need to justify to the potatoes? I think you do fail to grasp it, because despite my ongoing insistence that I am not advocating eugenics as such, that is what you continue to argue against. Unlike eugenics, Social Forethought places few requirements on the population. It is simply a voluntary practice one can chose to adopt, which involves consideration of the present and near-future requirements and priorities of society as a whole. The basic premise is that any given member of society is given the responsibility of making decisions based on how the outcome will affect the community as a whole, rather than themselves or their immediate family. The only interventionary or regulatory involvement required of the state is the initial introduction of the concept and its associated benefits/caveats to the population. This system could be argued to already exist, however I think we would be hard pressed to find people in any Western country who actually live like that. Well, it depends what you mean by "separate" and what traits you are talking about. In the case of using eugenics to force population intelligence in a particular direction, I would tend to agree with you. No, that was what my argument has aimed to show. The crux of an argument is its central structural feature, not its conclusion. I am not, as you said further up, attempting to "justify eugenics" so much as I am trying to show how the likely outcome of Wolfgang's idea would differ from a "fully eugenic" approach.

Well I guess you're absolved then. That's a very crude way of looking at the situation, and is steeped in assumptions about linked genes, phenotypic expression patterns, and even the way that the programme is implemented. Also, it would only apply under the strictest forms of eugenics, which are not required by Wolfgang's proposition. Yes, a highly strict and monocultural eugenics program implemented in the most literal way, with no means of reintroducing genetic material that has been removed, would be a spectacularly bad idea. But that is not a catch-all argument against all forms of eugenics. "Dating" is not social forethought. The vast majority of the time it is very short-term and unmitigatingly personal. A problem people will have with this concept is that virtually everyone in the West is utterly devoted to the idea of their self, particularly non-parents. In order for a system of socially-inclined mate selection to be feasible, the society would already need to have undergone a shift in attitude that lends people towards acting for the good of society as a whole, future generations, or some such non-self cause. This is, of course, something of a hitch. Yes, I'm aware of that. I was trying to illustrate the fact that responding with the Appeal to Authority, in any of its forms, is not a substitute for actually reading my points. When I proposed the idea of Social Forethought in mate selection, the implication was that the onus would rest with the individuals involved, not with the state. There is no particular need for the state to dictate to people requirements that they can see for themselves. Imagine that. "Some fiction someone wrote a bit like things that might happen in real life" shocker. The only reason you would compare an argument to the theme of a literary work is to draw a negative or positive parallel. That's not a counter-point by any measure, and I object to the practice in general. You might as well start talking about the Nazis. Actually I wasn't referring to that. If I had been, I would probably have mentioned it in some way. I am not sure that you can label numeric population control as a form of eugenics, so if you're going to use that in any kind of moral argument it would be an idea to show figures and causal evidence of some sort. Don't ascribe to me notions of support or approval for events or processes that I have simply stated are a matter of fact (and especially don't do it for scenarios I have not even mentioned, such as this one). That method of debate is precariously close to mud-slinging. See, I could just come back with a comment like "I suppose you think it's better for China to have uncontrolled population expansion, resulting in massive human suffering? You're a NAZI!" etc etc, and things will go downhill from there. Yes, there are plenty that don't necessarily require a eugenic approach as a solution, but that does not mean that eugenics could not be used as a solution. I'm sure there are plenty of applications for eugenics that neither of us have thought of yet. You seem to have an inherent objection to any kind of eugenic approach, no matter the conditions, which could be obfuscating your view on this. Do not make the mistake of assuming that I am not aware of the potential for abuse of eugenics, or of the fact that implementing any form of eugenics programme would raise a great number of issues and, no doubt, debate. While eugenics is historically controversial, I don't believe that every possible use for eugenics has drawbacks that outweigh the benefits (and let's be honest about this, few things do when you are dealing with any form of population shift). After all, we are essentially talking about guided selection - nothing more. No, but it does work. There was no requirement in Wolfgang's post for any kind of perfect method, and there was no requirement for perfection in my examples of the current applications of eugenics. This is why we have cultivars in agriculture, and breeds in husbandry. There are lines that have low resistance to a particular disease (or what have you), but then the same can be said of the population as a whole. Generally the success of selective breeding is measured by the achievement of the goal, not by avoidable or mitigatable side-effects. You should also keep in mind that such methods are rarely used in isolation. Combined approaches always work best in biology. Regardless, the aim of Wolfgang's proposal is to encourage a shift towards increased mating of intelligent couples. Now, this is not actually eugenics, although it does vaguely share some characteristics. The arguments you presented against intensive selective breeding would only apply to this scenario if the following cases were true: 1) Intelligence is genetically mediated, 2) Survival-critical phenotypes are linked to expression of the genes responsible for intelligence, 3) The programme creates a genetic monoculture. All of that is rather unlikely. There is no reason whatsoever why Wolfgang's proposal should result in any kind of homogenous genetic monoculture, in fact it's about as likely as that happening spontaneously for no particular reason. Cite some. You might want to focus on the dogs, seeing as the royal families in Europe in the last two centuries have not, as you imply, engaged in any form of planned, large scale genetic selection. I saw it as a sweeping statement because it was not backed up by any external information, yet it drew highly significant generalisations that were important to the discussion. If that is not the epitome of a sweeping statement, what is? The fact that it might be compatible with the ideas in a book written by someone you did not mention is completely irrelevant if you don't cite that to begin with. I think you are playing the revisionist card here. If, as you say, you were illustrating a point, perhaps you could make that point more clear? Maybe because a more intelligent population is highly likely to be less destructive, more productive, more progressive, and capable of achieving new cultural heights, whereas Aryanism was completely arbitrary? This is somewhat speculative, admitedly, but I suspect this is actually what we were supposed to be discussing from the start. The issue I have is that - despite the thread title - I don't believe that what Wolfgang is proposing can automatically qualify as an implementation of eugenics. I do tend to go on and on though instead of just saying that to begin with, as you can see. I'm disappointed that you find it easier to respond with obvious patronisation instead of having a little think about the sentence you quoted. If we consider this as a genetic change, the effect will be negligible. Just the plain maths tells us that. If we consider it as a cultural shift we have to take into account the introverted nature of the United States, the fact that few Americans travel abroad compared to the populations of other countries, the general habit of the administration to only enter the international arena when it wants something for the US, and so on. However, the implication of your original question ("The altering american society will not have an impact on our species as a whole?") was that the biology or ecology of all mankind would change, whereas now you seem to suggest that, because I called this change "essentially cultural", your argument can be transplanted to non-biological effects without the courtesy of pointing out that that was not what my prior post related to. It is the idea of large scale, species-wide biological impact I am poo-pooing, not the idea that the economical or political climates might be altered (undoubtedly they would be). I understand you think it would be negative. What I want to know is why? Your arguments so far have not really given me any coherent clue as to what your objection to guided selection actually is. For god's sake, I am not advocating or discussing the implementation of eugenics with regards to Wolfgang's first post - you are. Why don't you get this? I am not discussing a complete and mandatory system. Again, as I mentioned above, the way I interpret Wolfgang's idea is that it is a method for encouraging people to use socially aware decision-making before they create offspring. I really don't understand why that is so difficult for you to grasp. The fact that he used the word "encourage" surely precludes the suggestion of force or rules? It wasn't "sudden". If you read through my posts again you will see that it has consistently been the point of what I am saying. If you needed clarification you could have asked for it. I am perfectly happy to rephrase anything that I have not made clear, but make no mistake: it is not my responsibility to decide what you will do with information you do not understand.

"Avoid Voyager"? Heathen.

1) You don't speak for mooeypoo, 2) If they can, the "example" means nothing. Let me make this very clear: Every animal species on this planet is subject to ecological interactions which modulate their population sizes. Maybe for the USA and UK it is, with their ability to bomb targets from high altitude or from the sea, but for the people at the other end of the smoking barrels I don't think it is quite what you'd call "non-lethal". Skye was talking about war being used as a counter-population mechanism. I think people being killed is somewhat implied What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that? That situation exists now in the vast majority of countries, and to a certain extent in the democratic West. Pure speculation. Say hello to random drift etc. So do humans. I am not sure what role this plays in your argument.

By having more mass.

You missed off the bit where he went on to say "...but at least they aren't like those annoying guys who have to quote people to borrow authority - they really piss me off, especially when I am busy getting corrupted".

Why did your parents experiment on twins? Isn't that a bit unethical, separating them at birth just to make a point to you?

At some point in the future we might be so busy that we need to open more forums to make moderation feasible. Not yet though.

As ludicrous as it sounds, that does appear to be what we are meant to be discussing.

That was kind of my point. Read the original post. Well I'd love to chat with you on the subject of how you think you know what I'm going to say about something we've never discussed, but it has nothing to do with the thread. Why not start a new thread on the ethical position of genetic engineering in medicine?

Are you saying the blind and/or deaf can't or don't reproduce? If you are, then you are wrong. If you are not, then you are putting words in his mouth.

Oh right, that's the standard practice in China is it? Mass infanticide from house to house? Well, if that's what you heard then OBVIOUSLY any social change that bears the slightest resemblance to that kind of population control will invariably have the same results, even if the people in question are sterilised and wouldn't be able to replace their murdered offspring.

Since I don't believe you are this dumb I have to assume you are trolling.

They have no metabolism or reproduction capabilities, which are the criteria by which you claimed "a piece of random RNA in a lipid bubble" is not a cell.

Listen, if the problem with the thread was just the forum it was placed under, then I would have moved the thread. The problem was that it was - and this one is - redundant. NOBODY TOLD YOU THAT YOU COULD NOT USE STRING THEORY. You are referring to JaKiri's comments to you regarding the use of non-model physics in responses to questions that have model answers. If you don't understand what he means one might imagine he is the best candidate for explaining the matter.

We call things like erythrocytes "cells".

I don't know about you but I have no plans to bring children into this god forsaken world, so consider his first volunteer found. If there is one there will be others. He's not proposing that anyone should be given or denied the right to live. Evidence? What about it? Just saying "look at China" isn't very helpful. Why? I'm assuming from your reaction and from your previous posts that you don't consider the needs of any one person to outweigh the needs of any other, and that the rights we assign to people should not be contravened no matter how arbitrary they are. We are now so numerous that we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that in order to put food on a plate, it is becoming ever more necessary to take food away from another plate. If you extend the argument to protect the rights of the individual, you end up with a lunatic asylum situation, where society tears itself apart trying to give everyone the same things in an environment that cannot support it. Clearly that is not sustainable, and the only logical solution is to reduce demand. That means reducing the rate of reproduction of the population. You don't actually need to reduce the size of the population - don't forget that people do die anyway. Why is it so important that we protect the "rights" of one individual or couple to create a new life, while at the same time we cannot guarantee the rights of already existing parents to get access to the resources they need to raise their child? That's a monstrous way to run a society.

The way you describe genetic engineering makes it sound exactly like the principle behind eugenics. "I imagine that very soon individual genomes are going to be collected and placed in libraries." One would imagine any civilisation that messed about with its genetic stock without taking this simple precaution would deserve the consequences.

Not going to happen. The only reason we would send a PM or other message is if the material posted was of an extreme nature. The rest of the time posts are deleted because they are off-topic, spam, or otherwise break the rules. Chances are everyone knows perfectly well when they make such a post that it will end up being deleted. The mods are not going to be asked to send a PM for every "lol!" they delete.

When we close threads we don't expect to see another thread opened with the same subject. Nobody has said that you aren't supposed to answer questions using string theory. Go back and actually read JaKiri's post this time.

When you say "evolved", do you mean the historical structure of cells as a group, or the development of a single cell?