28 replies to this topic

[a1s]

well here's a question for you: are anthills natural?
if no, why not?
if yes, why aren't skyscrappers?
if they are why aren't cars?
and if even cars are antural, surely so should be GA humans?

[Juni Ori]

@Tulac: But the environment doesn't alter itself only slowly, there're numerous events in past where the ecosystem has itself caused huge changes in short times. Thus I don't think your point is valid. On extraterrestrial issue I think it's purely point of view. But where goes the line of artificial? You say it's everything living creatures create. As we today have difficulties to draw the line of life, what is and what isn't, I don't think we can approach the issue that easily, because certainly small life forms, of any scale, that join together and thus create larger structures of living and dead material are questionable. Are they natural? Same goes with everything in microlevel evolution. Which leads into question where goes the line, if we draw it?

However, question of nature, natural, artificial, etc, is only how we determine them. Thus you are at least partially correct, but on the question of anthills etc, I'm not that sure anymore. However I personally believe that technological evolution is natural, however the process in itself isn't.

@a1s: I'd say anthills are artificial and still part of the nature. I think it's the human mind and egoism that is tricking us all here. We want understandably consider ourselves as something greater than nature and thus our creations aren't natural. Or something like that.

[greywolf]

a1s, on Jan 28 2007, 07:26 AM, said:

yes and no. first of all yes "Superhumans" will most certinetly dominate. but since being a SH is availble to pretty much everyone I don't see why that is a problem. the Nazi analogy you were trying to make failed for one reason- Geramns just weren't superior (or at least not by much), had they really been better they would probably have won, and allso they would probably just take over all the worlds governments rather then start a big war- violence as you know is a sign of inability to resolve the problem otherwise.

The point is, it's NOT available to everyone, which is why it would be a problem. To get that kind of engineering for your child, you have to have money in the first place, and the kind of money that not everyone has. In fact, the kind of money that only the rich have. If you think that this kind of thing would be readily available to the general public as soon as it's made available, you're sorely mistaken. Just look at what it costs to have surgery on a normal person in the United States today, and the cost of genetically engineering your child would probably be at least tenfold that, especially if it's illegal. There's no reason for it to be readily available, as its inventors (and especially their investors) will want to restrict the supply so that they can maximize profits.

I wasn't trying to make any Nazi analogy at all; the simple fact that there are superhumans would lead to the creation of a sub-class of normal humans once the superhuman group got big enough. Because their skills and abilities are far superior to normal humans in every way, they would end up taking over the top tier of jobs, thus controlling important aspects of everyone's life. Even if the superhumans didn't look down on normal humans as being inferior and treated them as equals, there would always be a muted tension (in general) between the two classes that would never go away, much like it is today with mexican immigrants and the average joe.

[Juni Ori]

greywolf, on Jan 28 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

Even if the superhumans didn't look down on normal humans as being inferior and treated them as equals, there would always be a muted tension (in general) between the two classes that would never go away, much like it is today with mexican immigrants and the average joe.

Like there would be a day, when everybody was truly equal? I can't see such future. First of all, there will always be differences between people, others better than others in certain areas, and truth is that there are multitalented people already, who are better than average Joe. Thus I don't see problem with genetic engineering and "superhumans". Which is kind of extremely stupid term, btw...

[Tulac]

@Juni: Well whatever you call it technological or natural evolution, the point is that altering the genes is the next step.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Juni Ori, on Jan 28 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

greywolf, on Jan 28 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

Even if the superhumans didn't look down on normal humans as being inferior and treated them as equals, there would always be a muted tension (in general) between the two classes that would never go away, much like it is today with mexican immigrants and the average joe.

Like there would be a day, when everybody was truly equal? I can't see such future. First of all, there will always be differences between people, others better than others in certain areas, and truth is that there are multitalented people already, who are better than average Joe. Thus I don't see problem with genetic engineering and "superhumans". Which is kind of extremely stupid term, btw...

Greywolf said "Mexican" lol.

[a1s]

greywolf, on Jan 28 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

The point is, it's NOT available to everyone, which is why it would be a problem. To get that kind of engineering for your child, you have to have money in the first place, and the kind of money that not everyone has. In fact, the kind of money that only the rich have. If you think that this kind of thing would be readily available to the general public as soon as it's made available, you're sorely mistaken. Just look at what it costs to have surgery on a normal person in the United States today, and the cost of genetically engineering your child would probably be at least tenfold that, especially if it's illegal. There's no reason for it to be readily available, as its inventors (and especially their investors) will want to restrict the supply so that they can maximize profits.

I wasn't trying to make any Nazi analogy at all; the simple fact that there are superhumans would lead to the creation of a sub-class of normal humans once the superhuman group got big enough. Because their skills and abilities are far superior to normal humans in every way, they would end up taking over the top tier of jobs, thus controlling important aspects of everyone's life. Even if the superhumans didn't look down on normal humans as being inferior and treated them as equals, there would always be a muted tension (in general) between the two classes that would never go away, much like it is today with mexican immigrants and the average joe.

First of all, we are assuming that one day genetics will be safe and legal (the other scenario is just a temporary situation, that some people will have to live through but it should pass within a generations time, and even during that time I doubt the rich people would risk it, statisticaly the upper class is allsmost entirely conservative), and that GA child is something a middle class person can afford (it's a choice- you can buy a new car a year early or you can modify your child). Sure there's allso the lower class, who wouldn't be able to afford this, but I hope (I'm a technooptimist) something will come up- maybe a government subsidy for standardised improvements (after all, the country directly benefits from better population, much like it benefits from a one that's helathy or educated.), not to mention that as time goes this will become both cheaper and safer (as all things become with time).
addressing the Idea of "classes" (which are better described as "races", but it's your term and I'll use it), that could be seen as an incentive to upgrade your children- by seeing in reality how that is better than the plain old nGAH.
another thing I wated to know is, when you gave us that analogy with mexicans, which isde did you assume would be the Mexicans? with all my optimism I'm not all that sure that at first the fear of GAHs won't turn them into the superior but still unappreciated "mexicans". it could be the 1850s all over again... (or was it the 1860s? I'm not too well versed in other countries' histories)

P.S. The word "super human" ("ubermann") is in my mind closely connected with the Ideology of Nazism, so I though that was what you were refering to.

Blood-Pigggy, on Jan 29 2007, 12:10 AM, said:

Greywolf said "Mexican" .

Am I missing something?

[greywolf]

Well, I think you're a bit more optimistic that I am; I'm more of a cynic when it comes to human nature, and while I believe that it's possible the scenario you're describing could come to pass, I'm more inclined to believe that a few greedy people will bottle up the advantages of genetic engineering, and pass it out to a select few, in the interests of becoming rich (which, of course, they would).

I see what you mean about the race thing, though, and I agree; genetically advanced humans would be a separate race entirely. However, history has proven time and time again that people have a hard time relating to people of other races (i.e. people that are different from them), mostly due to cultural upbringing, among other things (cough cough like human nature cough cough). In modern times, we've made big steps forward to eliminating these aggravated race relations, but a lot of the world isn't like that, and even a portion of the US still believes that white people are the most superior race.

In any case, it looks like our opinions differ on how we view people in general. You, being opimistic, see a brighter future made possible by genetic engineering, while I, being cynical (realistic? ), see things in a much darker light.

[Juni Ori]

a1s, on Jan 29 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

First of all, we are assuming that one day genetics will be safe and legal (the other scenario is just a temporary situation, that some people will have to live through but it should pass within a generations time, and even during that time I doubt the rich people would risk it, statisticaly the upper class is allsmost entirely conservative), and that GA child is something a middle class person can afford (it's a choice- you can buy a new car a year early or you can modify your child).

I have to disagree on that conservative part. There're growing numbers of liberal filthy rich people and conservatives have been steadily reduced percentually. And why only the upper class would have money for genetic engineering? Technological advancement is even still picking up the pace. Thus I wouldn't be surprised if in my lifetime genetic engineered children would become everyday issue.

a1s, on Jan 29 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

P.S. The word "super human" ("ubermann") is in my mind closely connected with the Ideology of Nazism, so I though that was what you were refering to.

Problem there being that the super human ideology is far more older than nazism and super human theorists were in UK far more popular than in Germany until NSDAP took the power. However, this is trivial.

[Havell]

In the first case, I would have the treatment to cure the disease and in the second I would abort the child and try again (if the disease is very serious, of course, there's no real point in aborting a child with a disease such as diabetes that can be lived with relatively easy with the proper treatment).

As for the physical and mental upgrade, and the superhuman in the last case; I am strongly opposed to such things.  If this sort of technology comes to fruitation, then a huge, Brave New World-style class divide will arise, with rich people having super-intelligent, 7 foot tall, unbelievably attractive children and poorer peole having normal children.

This isn't to say I'm opposed to transhumanist "upgrades for humanity" in general, it's just their advent in class-divided society like we have today that I'm worried about.

[Juni Ori]

I've been thinking this long and in our modern capitalism every new product or service or whatever is first expensive, but competition and improvements drive the prices down. Thus I don't believe that huge class differences would appear. However, if we think in global view, such differences already exist between countries. Some countries have superior medical care to others, as well as enough food (in some cases it however may be too much), pure water etc, giving their population remarkably longer lifespan.

[BeefontheBone]

They also have the means, but not the will, to fix that difference. What makes you think the same wouldn't apply to more advanced medicine? It's not like provdidng clean water and sanitation is difficult right now, but we don't do anything about it.

[Juni Ori]

Well, it's actually understandable that people aren't too willing to spend money to help people far away. However, there's still many places where this is not true, anymore. Thanks to poor-friendly development and distribution. It's not only the will, it's also the expanses. The less it costs, the less you need will to help. Which is compareable to instate businesses too. Thus technological advancement - even genetic engineering - really helps everyone. Here we come to the point, which I used to debate somewhere here earlier, where moderation and government regulation must come in, or the worst case scenario may happen. If the markets is uncontrolled, it may lead to even deeper class differences. Which eventually will lead into next working class uprise - remember, it hasn't happened only in early 20th century, it has been happening every now and then around the world; thus it isn't necessarily leading to socialism or communism.

[Docktor_Worm]

I'm against the whole enhancement concept, but would you condemn your child to a life of mediocrity if everyone did it. I would only consider such an option if normal children were becoming disadvantaged