EUGENICS – Is It Really Bad ?

[blue_cristal]

I found an interesting article about eugenics:

 

http://alexdracon.blogspot.com/2011/08/eugenics-throwing-out-baby-with-baths.html

 

What do you think about the ideas expressed in this article?

[Greg Boyles]

I found an interesting article about eugenics:

 

http://alexdracon.bl...with-baths.html

 

What do you think about the ideas expressed in this article?

 

Modern medical science is allowing individuals with all manor of genetic disorder to survive and in many cases pass their defective genes on to the next generation. Normally such individuals are weeded out by natural selection long before they have a chance to pass their genes on.

 

 

This must be having some detrimental impact on the human gene pool in the long term.

 

 

 

That is not to make a moral judgement on this practice, merely to dispassionately consider long term evolutionary consequences of doing so.

[120ThingsIn20Years]

Sometimes the bits that make us as people and as societies are deemed junk, but turn out to be useful down the track. If I have say some junk DNA that was good to have around when I ate grass, there might come a time when it's a handy thing to have in the armoury.

 

You never know when eating grass will make a big comeback, or being short sighted, or 2 foot tall, or whatever.

 

I dont actually have an opinion on this, but I suspect keeping a lot of different tricks in your bag is a good idea as a species, even if perhaps it's not so good for a particular person who's doing all the groaning.

 

I have an over active immune system that might have killed me in a different era or in a different country, no big deal in this one I'm lucky enough to live in, but perhaps there is some conceivable future where my slacker DNA might make me a super.

 

+1 for my junk

[Greg Boyles]

Sometimes the bits that make us as people and as societies are deemed junk, but turn out to be useful down the track. If I have say some junk DNA that was good to have around when I ate grass, there might come a time when it's a handy thing to have in the armoury.

 

You never know when eating grass will make a big comeback, or being short sighted, or 2 foot tall, or whatever.

 

I dont actually have an opinion on this, but I suspect keeping a lot of different tricks in your bag is a good idea as a species, even if perhaps it's not so good for a particular person who's doing all the groaning.

 

I have an over active immune system that might have killed me in a different era or in a different country, no big deal in this one I'm lucky enough to live in, but perhaps there is some conceivable future where my slacker DNA might make me a super.

 

+1 for my junk

 

Well evolution and genetics has never been black and white as to what is good and what is bad.

 

I am aware for example that the gene that gives rise to sickle cell anaemia when a person inherrits two recessive genes from both parents, also provides some resistance to malaria when the individual inherrits only one recessive gene.

 

But as a general rule the propagation of deffective genes through the human population must have some detrimental impacts eventually. If not for modern medicine it would rarely occur within the human population.

 

I can't remeber the precise details, but I remember watching a documentary where researchers are noticing and increased prevalence of deffective genes concerning sight and hearing among premature babies.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Ophiolite]

This must be having some detrimental impact on the human gene pool in the long term.

Which concerns you the more? The human gene pool, or humans?

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Which concerns you the more? The human gene pool, or humans?

 

This is a good question. Personally I don't think we have much need for a "human" race devoid of all it's humanity. Eugenics is inhumane for a multitude of reasons. I think the human gene pool will survive. The biggest threat to us is not the people with genetic disorders being kept alive by modern medicine (I think many of them would chose not to procreate if medical professionals took the time to explain the risks to their children) but rather all of the random stupid people left to run rampant and bring chaos to all. Stupid people procreate - and they often have stupid children (either as a result of nature/nurture/ or a combination thereof), these stupid people ruin the environment, vote, and in general bring down the overall IQ of the human race. So much energy and effort has to be placed into dumbing things down for these intellectually challenged individuals and they rarely respond to reason. Should we exterminate everyone with a crappy IQ? Surely dumb people are doing more damage to the human race than people with "defective" genes that cause illness..

 

Personally, I think if we want to remain human, we are stuck with both. As soon as we start trying to quantify the value of a human life based on some arbitrarily selected parameters - trust me if this goes to a vote being Paris Hilton will probably count more than being Stephen Hawking (if you don't believe me watch the Jersey Shore, and then ask yourself how it is possible that there are enough people out there interested in something like that show, for that show to get enough ratings for you to even be able to watch it) - that is when we've lost the plot..

 

At some point population control will probably have to be implemented. I think there will come a time when fewer babies have to be born in order to sustain mankind - although - if we start trying to utilize eugenics to ensure the genetic "purity" of said babies I think we will have gone down a slippery slope that will be far more damaging to the human race than any addition of "defective" genes in to the gene pool could ever be.

 

I think prejudice, intolerance, and uncontrolled capitalism will take out humanity long before any "defective" genes do..

 

just my two cents..

Cheers

Edited August 29, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[120ThingsIn20Years]

Spin 1/2 ,

 

[stuff deleted]

 

Hmmm...

 

[stuff deleted]

 

You seem to be torn between wanting to add a little more chlorine to the gene pool, and understanding that there are people who have just as much right to exist as you. I know there are people fitter, smarter, prettier, and healthier than both of us. I just hope its not them deciding who gets to keep swimming, and who doesn't.

 

In spite of you seeming to come down on the side of "live and let live", there are some scary undertones.

 

The act of deciding that intellectual capability is in some way a more worthy thing than say, being a baker, horse whisperer, homeless person, or piano tuner, is the danger.

 

The tragedy is acting on it, the danger is in the thinking.

 

Most of us think we have the balance between whimsy, thought, fashion etc just right. It's not by coincidence. I happen to think shoes are optional. Few people share my thoughts, and most people look down on me in a supermarket. But the reason they think they have the shoe balance right in their life isn't because of some universal value, it's for all the other social and practical reasons too numerous to number here.

 

The reasons I think I have the shoe balance just right, are the same ones they would offer for me having the balance wrong.

 

Reasons, or reason, and your ability to see it, don't necessarily define someone as superior, just perhaps comfortable.

 

I'm pretty sure I could put a reasonable argument to you as to why you should stop wearing shoes. No doubt you could put up a reasonable argument as to why you shouldn't. But you might have to ignore, or at least appear to ignore, one of those reasonable arguments. If you,(thats you spin 1/2 not you the people) fail to see, or appear to see reason, you run the risk of low self esteem, and low reproductive value in your own eyes.

Edited August 29, 2011 by 120ThingsIn20Years

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Spin 1/2 ,

 

[stuff deleted]

 

Hmmm...

 

[stuff deleted]

 

You seem to be torn between wanting to add a little more chlorine to the gene pool, and understanding that there are people who have just as much right to exist as you. I know there are people fitter, smarter, prettier, and healthier than both of us. I just hope its not them deciding who gets to keep swimming, and who doesn't.

 

In spite of you seeming to come down on the side of "live and let live", there are some scary undertones.

 

The act of deciding that intellectual capability is in some way a more worthy thing than say, being a baker, horse whisperer, homeless person, or piano tuner, is the danger.

 

The tragedy is acting on it, the danger is in the thinking.

 

Most of us think we have the balance between whimsy, thought, fashion etc just right. It's not by coincidence. I happen to think shoes are optional. Few people share my thoughts, and most people look down on me in a supermarket. But the reason they think they have the shoe balance right in their life isn't because of some universal value, it's for all the other social and practical reasons too numerous to number here.

 

The reasons I think I have the shoe balance just right, are the same ones they would offer for me having the balance wrong.

 

Reasons, or reason, and your ability to see it, don't necessarily define someone as superior, just perhaps comfortable.

 

I'm pretty sure I could put a reasonable argument to you as to why you should stop wearing shoes. No doubt you could put up a reasonable argument as to why you shouldn't. But you might have to ignore, or at least appear to ignore, one of those reasonable arguments. If you,(thats you spin 1/2 not you the people) fail to see, or appear to see reason, you run the risk of low self esteem, and low reproductive value in your own eyes.

 

You've misunderstood me - there is no internal struggle here.

 

I personally value intelligence over looks or physical ability. I've never said that other people should too. The entire point of my post is simply that we are stuck with all kinds of "defective" people because that is what makes humanity "human", and there is no point in preserving humanity if we are going to lose that aspect of ourselves, at least from my perspective.

 

Thus, to be more clear,

I think we should live and let live. I personally think the explosion of stupid people in society is alarming, but I never suggested these people should actually be exterminated.. there is no internal struggle here..

 

In fact, the entire point of my post is that they shouldn't, and more importantly that whomever wants to start arbitrarily assigning "value" to humans will in fact be wandering down a slippery slope.

 

Trust me, I have no risk of low self esteem or low reproductive value in my own eyes. My self esteem is fine because I prefer to link my self esteem to things I am actually good at doing [trying to help people less fortunate than me, taking care to place my friends and family members first whenever possible, being a good scientist, being a good pilot, being okay at motorcycle racing, etc, etc], thus I avoid wishing for other people's skills and/or trying to be other people. We are all different..

 

As far as my reproductive "self esteem" goes. I don't plan on having children - ever.

 

I've had a rather difficult life [despite coming from a rich family] since the choices I've made [joining the military to get combat flight, working as a medevac pilot, volunteering my time in Africa for AIDS and TB related research after learning that qualified researchers with my computational background are hard to come by in these parts of the world] have exposed me to many of the darker sides of humanity, and since I'm personally unhappy with the way the world is going right now I have decided not to have kids of my own. Thus, I will simply adopt children once I have completed my postdocs/obtained tenure/or landed a stable industry job. There is no need to add an additional life to this planet when there are so many unwanted little kids suffering right now as I sit here and type this message.

 

So, in short,

 

Thinking that stupid people will be the downfall of mankind - as I see it - is perfectly reasonable (we are all autonomous individuals with rights to our own minds)..

 

I never said exterminating stupid people is appropriate nor do I have any internal struggle about this issue - but personally, I cannot deny that fanatics of all types (stupid), racists/intolerant/bigoted/hatefilled people (stupid), violent people (stupid), selfish people (stupid) will be the downfall of mankind. So when I hear people moaning about the gene pool and worrying that allowing a few sick individuals to live will be the demise of mankind I have to laugh a little - because I think we will take ourselves out just by being ourselves - (since there are more stupid people than there are smart people)...

 

I also think you are confusing stupid with ignorant.

 

I said that stupid people will be the downfall of mankind - (i.e. people who think they know everything, know nothing, make no attempt to learn anything about what they don't know, and form opinions and positions (that to them are the word of God) solely from their own preferences with no regard to the validity of their position when viewed objectively, nor a care given to the thoughts, feelings, rights, or preferences of anyone else) - not ignorant people.. As I see it, there is a huge difference between those two..

 

stu·pid/ˈst(y)o͞opid/

Noun: A stupid person (often used as a term of address): "you're not a coward, stupid!".

Adjective: Lacking intelligence or common sense.

 

vs.

 

ig·no·rantAdjective/ˈignərənt/

1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

 

Cheers

Edited August 30, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[Greg Boyles]

Which concerns you the more? The human gene pool, or humans?

 

 

That assumes I am making a moral judgement about modern medicine and saving premature babies etc.

 

 

My comment is not intended to make such a judgment, merely to point out the probable populaqtion wide evolutionary consequences of circimventing the natures natural genetic filtering process. It occurs with no other species, at least not on the same scale as it is occuring within the human population.

[StringJunky]

This should be in Ethics.

[Greg Boyles]

 

At some point population control will probably have to be implemented. I think there will come a time when fewer babies have to be born in order to sustain mankind - although - if we start trying to utilize eugenics to ensure the genetic "purity" of said babies I think we will have gone down a slippery slope that will be far more damaging to the human race than any addition of "defective" genes in to the gene pool could ever be.

 

I think prejudice, intolerance, and uncontrolled capitalism will take out humanity long before any "defective" genes do..

 

just my two cents..

Cheers

 

Agreed in principle, but please note that eugenics already occurs with couples who know they carry genetic disorders and choose to carefully screen their embryos and selectively abort those that carry the defective gene(s) or choose to adopt rather than procreate.

 

There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion.

 

As we are seeing with aged care throughout the west, you can't allow the dependant portion of the population rise above a certain level without there being serious economic and social consequences.

 

So we need to be mindfull of this when deciding how far we should go in preserving life at any cost.

 

 

Thus, to be more clear,

I think we should live and let live. I personally think the explosion of stupid people in society is alarming, but I never suggested these people should actually be exterminated.. there is no internal struggle here..

 

 

There are no doubt a small proportion of people that are inherrently unintelligent.

 

But in most cases it is not a case of people BEING unintelligent, rather them being allowed to become unintelligent through poor education standards. That can be easily remedied by requiring children and adolescents to remain at school.

[swansont]

This should be in Ethics.

 

!

Moderator Note

Agreed

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Agreed in principle, but please note that eugenics already occurs with couples who know they carry genetic disorders and choose to carefully screen their embryos and selectively abort those that carry the defective gene(s) or choose to adopt rather than procreate.

 

There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion.

 

I've already stated that I personally plan to adopt, but I don't consider adoption or even abortion quite the same thing a eugenics. I have no moral objection to abortions for any reason - so long as said abortions aren't being forced on the person/couple via public policy to preserve the "purity" of the gene pool.

 

As we are seeing with aged care throughout the west, you can't allow the dependant portion of the population rise above a certain level without there being serious economic and social consequences.

 

So we need to be mindfull of this when deciding how far we should go in preserving life at any cost.

 

I think we should focus more on keeping people that are already here alive - i.e. anti-aging technology etc - than we should on moving the aged population (typically those with the most knowledge and experience) out of the way just to get more people born each year. I think quality rather than quantity should be more important. What we need is a balance between birth rate and death rate so that population control is not something that has to be forced on society.. and certainly even if it is - it should never be in the form of eugenics. That is my opinion.

 

Thus, I think if - for example - people start living to 150 years and can live well thanks to modern medicine - that isn't a bad thing - can you imagine another 70 years with someone like Einstein contributing...

 

obviously people hooked up to life support machines indefinitely is not an option, nor am I advocating that, but I do think finding a way to prolong human life (usefully) and cure illness and disease - are worth the costs..

 

There are no doubt a small proportion of people that are inherrently unintelligent.

 

But in most cases it is not a case of people BEING unintelligent, rather them being allowed to become unintelligent through poor education standards. That can be easily remedied by requiring children and adolescents to remain at school.

 

Well, I disagree with this. Ignorance can be combated with education, but you can't tell a stupid person anything, by their very nature they are rigid in thought and do not readily respond to reason. Now that, in my opinion, is a major waste of resources.. Sheeple don't tend to respond to reason - it's actually quite alarming.

 

Willful ignorance can often come off as stupidity, but again I maintain that those are not the same. Ignorant people can obviously benefit from education, but I think there are a great deal more selfish, hatefilled, violent, and intolerant people than you realize (all of those people - as far as I'm concerned - fall under the category of stupid because they absolutely will not respond to reason)

 

They already KNOW they are right due to their rigid thinking - you are not impacting those people no matter what you do. They respond to force and violence - but those aren't really options because that is not humane.. and as I said before - human civilization devoid of all it's humanity - as far as I'm concerned - is just a waste..

 

Yet, as I said before, those people (stupid people) have been plaguing mankind since we started walking upright and they will continue to do so for the rest of time as far as I'm concerned..

 

I really don't think any amount of education will do much for people like that. I'm pretty sure most of the germans supporting the Nazi agenda back in the day were well educated at the primary school level, at least in the basic first principles, and many of the Nazi scientist [Haber comes to mind] were certainly well educated and yet they were still quite stupid. I mean that guy hated on his own people? Strange..

 

So much devastation and destruction and for what? Because Jews were genetically inferior? Well, Einstein is proof that this was surely not the case.. Thus, as I see it, there are some things that education can't teach - tolerance is one of them - and many people (those people I like to call stupid people - don't have an ounce of tolerance and from my experience can earn PhDs in the hardest subject you can think of and still not obtain it)..

 

Socially forced eugenics is not the answer in any situation, even for people such as those mentioned above, that is my personal opinion. The only way to combat people like that is to legislate away their power. Isolating their views and harmful assertions from society and thereby protecting it via wrapping those people up tight with saran wrap is really the only way to do it. Then they can sit in their little plastic rooms tossing poo all over the place with no physical harm coming to innocent bystanders..

 

If someone wants to hate Jews - fine - but it shouldn't be allowed to go any further than whatever they envision in their own head..

 

There are some things that should never be allowed under any human government.

 

1. slavery, indentured servitude, military drafting

2. genocide

3. forced segregation (including institutionalized class separation)

4. discrimination of any kind in regards to: race, gender, sexual orientation, looks, intelligence level, and any other innate properties of humans that cannot be controlled by the individual.

5. thought policing should be prohibited in all of it's forms (i.e. religious freedom, artistic freedom etc should always be protected).

6. propaganda should be removed from all forms of government campaigning and government sponsored schooling.

 

I'm sure there are more things, but I think the point is well expressed at this stage.

 

Cheers

Edited August 30, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[John Cuthber]

Last time I checked it was generally considered that genetic diversity was a good thing.

Can anyone think of a reason why that doesn't apply to humans?

[Ophiolite]

That assumes I am making a moral judgement about modern medicine and saving premature babies etc.

There was no assumption. The questions were asked in order to determine whether or not you were making a moral judgement, and if so, what it was.

 

My comment is not intended to make such a judgment, merely to point out the probable populaqtion wide evolutionary consequences of circimventing the natures natural genetic filtering process. It occurs with no other species, at least not on the same scale as it is occuring within the human population.

Natural selection favours genes that are fit for a particular enviroment. All that modern medicine has done is to change the nature of the environment, so that previously unfit genes are now fit. Evolution is alive and well.

[CharonY]

Precisely. Same goes for all other organisms that change their local environments to accommodate their lifestyle.

[matty]

Vehemently, yEs, I think. We could liken the question to feigning on whether or not Hitler was 'bad.'

 

Consider its origins, a tidbit from PBS, here, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/.

 

I think this thread's gone askew from whence it came, considering eugenics was based on a twisted elitist perception of inequality, from a vantage point even presuming to sneer down its highbrowed nose at likes of such things as pauperism, race.--(See Margaret Sanger)

 

All of this only being further ironic evidence of the fact smart people are just as menacing to the whole, do as much damage to the gene pool--a questionable term on its own--as the sum total in all the rest.

Edited October 10, 2011 by matty

[dragonstar57]

in a perfect world we could steer the traits of humanity so that future people are an intelligent well adjusted capable well-meaning fit and all around representing the best of all of us this at its uncorrupted heart is a noble sentiment.

the problem is in the actualization of this ideal. a bad meme getting into humanity can be far more dangerous than any number of bad genes.

I can't think of a way of influencing peoples mating decisions in any fair way without lending validity to the idea that some people are genetically superior to others (perhaps a group of some sort to suggest genetically strong matches might bypass this qualm)

Well, I disagree with this. Ignorance can be combated with education, but you can't tell a stupid person anything, by their very nature they are rigid in thought and do not readily respond to reason. Now that, in my opinion, is a major waste of resources.. Sheeple don't tend to respond to reason - it's actually quite alarming.

 

Willful ignorance can often come off as stupidity, but again I maintain that those are not the same. Ignorant people can obviously benefit from education, but I think there are a great deal more selfish, hatefilled, violent, and intolerant people than you realize (all of those people - as far as I'm concerned - fall under the category of stupid because they absolutely will not respond to reason)

 

They already KNOW they are right due to their rigid thinking - you are not impacting those people no matter what you do. They respond to force and violence - but those aren't really options because that is not humane.. and as I said before - human civilization devoid of all it's humanity - as far as I'm concerned - is just a waste..

 

Yet, as I said before, those people (stupid people) have been plaguing mankind since we started walking upright and they will continue to do so for the rest of time as far as I'm concerned..

 

 

it is more than alarming if you take the position that these people are genetically that way.

if people are genetically stupid taking in account the stupid and their reproduction and compare it to most of the intelligent I know who have sworn off having children this idea is truly terrifying.

it is my firm belief that intelligence does not truly exist (I have limited anecdotal evidence) I think all people are born equal of the mind (assuming no damage to the brain)

I think we will eventually learn that the rigid sheeple thinking is learned and can be unlearned.

when I was younger. I was not so different the only problem facing this world is arrogance

all our issues are nothing but varying faces of one thinking himself/herself better than someone else ergo this conversation is part of the problem.

perhaps we can teach people how to use their mind and think objectively.

sorry for this Naive optimism

[questionposter]

Brain power isn't completely inherited. I can't really find a good source, I see numbers as high as 80% inherited to less than 1%. Anyway, it shouldn't really matter, there are mentally retarded people who have had perfectly normal kids, and it's not like the entire population is becoming mentally retarded. There's even potentially treatments for it if research goes well.

Not only that but a less smart person can do anything anything a smarter person can do but they will have to expend more energy or conscious effort.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

If your interest is humanity your interest is the human gene pool so... some degree of eugenics is necessary, but not one biased towards racism or classism but more thoughtful of what genes are detrimental.

[questionposter]

If your interest is humanity your interest is the human gene pool so... some degree of eugenics is necessary, but not one biased towards racism or classism but more thoughtful of what genes are detrimental.

 

Objectively, Eugenics isn't ultimately necessarily because diversity can be good and regardless of whatever may be optimal, we can still decide to do something else because we don't want to be animals who's sole purpose is to blindly believe evolution is some mystical force we have to bow down to.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

Objectively, Eugenics isn't ultimately necessarily because diversity can be good and regardless of whatever may be optimal, we can still decide to do something else because we don't want to be animals who's sole purpose is to blindly believe evolution is some mystical force we have to bow down to.

 

I agree with the importance of diveristy, that is the same point I made on an essay against the assumption that "social darwinism" is darwinism correctly interpreted... But the idea that we would be animals because we accepted universal darwinism is mistaken... Animals do not seem to bow down to mystical forces, that is what pre-civilized humans and what fundamentalists do, so it is a human trait... Now we are not considering evolution a mystical force either, we are considering its worth from undertsanding of it... Eugenics does not need to say "sterilize this person" or "avoid those two from mating", eugenics can say "modify that zygote so their children does not has that gene and that gene and that other gene"... Eugenics could even be applied to humans to create transgenic humans... But it is indeed risky so we better not make laws regulating it until we learn better.

[questionposter]

I agree with the importance of diveristy, that is the same point I made on an essay against the assumption that "social darwinism" is darwinism correctly interpreted... But the idea that we would be animals because we accepted universal darwinism is mistaken... Animals do not seem to bow down to mystical forces, that is what pre-civilized humans and what fundamentalists do, so it is a human trait... Now we are not considering evolution a mystical force either, we are considering its worth from undertsanding of it... Eugenics does not need to say "sterilize this person" or "avoid those two from mating", eugenics can say "modify that zygote so their children does not has that gene and that gene and that other gene"... Eugenics could even be applied to humans to create transgenic humans... But it is indeed risky so we better not make laws regulating it until we learn better.

 

I suppose it would be less extreme to try and modify a zygote, but other than that there actually isn't a real reason other than "I think it would be best", it's just a personal opinion, life would go on either way. By why should we judge so many people along those lines anyway? They're already working on research for mentally handicapped people anyway.

Even with just zygotes, it is still jsut a forced judgement of a personal view of what's "better". Let's say we come up with a breakthrough and can genetically modify everyone to be a mathematical super-genius. But, what will we have to sacrifice to make it that way? Imagination, social skills, physical strength, the things that make a working society work, because the energy to support a more complex brain that can do those processes will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere could easily be other parts of the brain. What? Make people's brains bigger? What will require the deformation of people's skulls putting them off balance, and to support a big of enough brain to make that big of a difference, you also need more energy and oxygen, and that would come from your muscles and lung modification which there are limits to, which would make us dependent on machines for many physical tasks. What? Make a machine that can give us energy? Well in both those scenarios, what happens when machines fail?

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

I suppose it would be less extreme to try and modify a zygote, but other than that there actually isn't a real reason other than "I think it would be best", it's just a personal opinion, life would go on either way. By why should we judge so many people along those lines anyway? They're already working on research for mentally handicapped people anyway.

Even with just zygotes, it is still jsut a forced judgement of a personal view of what's "better". Let's say we come up with a breakthrough and can genetically modify everyone to be a mathematical super-genius. But, what will we have to sacrifice to make it that way? Imagination, social skills, physical strength, the things that make a working society work, because the energy to support a more complex brain that can do those processes will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere could easily be other parts of the brain. What? Make people's brains bigger? What will require the deformation of people's skulls putting them off balance, and to support a big of enough brain to make that big of a difference, you also need more energy and oxygen, and that would come from your muscles and lung modification which there are limits to, which would make us dependent on machines for many physical tasks. What? Make a machine that can give us energy? Well in both those scenarios, what happens when machines fail?

 

Lets think of a gattaca model. where improvement is not only on intelligence but on physical skill... however with everyone at such level of advancement... Who would take the minor jobs? Well, I hope by then we can assign those menial tasks to machinery becuase it is a way to eliminate class struggle...

[questionposter]

Lets think of a gattaca model. where improvement is not only on intelligence but on physical skill... however with everyone at such level of advancement... Who would take the minor jobs? Well, I hope by then we can assign those menial tasks to machinery becuase it is a way to eliminate class struggle...

 

If you think Gattaca supported Eugenics you completely misunderstood it in every way shape and form. Your vision of "better" is your on personal opinion, and again, what happens when those machines fail?

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter