Will we ever have philosopher-kings?

[three4jump]

Sometime between Darwin's voyage on The Beagle and the end of the 21st century, the natural selection that used to drive evolution will be replaced with artificial selection by humans, either through tinkering with the genes, tinkering with the environment, changing reproductive behaviors with cultural influences, or all three. In other words, humans have, or will soon have, the tools to decide what it means to be human. Assuming, for a moment, that the above is true or probably true (which many might debate) how are we to decide? Who gets to decide the genetic makeup of humans for all time after the present century, and why? The options seem to be:
1. Democratic processes.
2. Science.
3. Religion.
4. Commerce, or the will of the free market.
5. Philosophy.

I think the first four should not be permitted to make this most important decision. I feel that the philosophers should be the ones to decide this question, but I am afraid they either will choose not to, or never come to agreement, or if they do come to agreement no one will listen to them.

The problems with the first four methods of choosing.
1. Democratic processes:
George Bush. Need I say more? Probably not, but I would add that the troubles with democracy are:
a. Nobody pays attention to the important arguements because:
b. Voting with your dollars and your feet is far more effective than voting with your vote.
c. Even those who take their vote seriously often don't have the time to delve into every serious issue and be absolutely certain they are voting right. Often, you have to look to someone you trust to advise you how to vote on many of the issues, and those people have put so much spin on their point of view that you can never really know what is true.
d. The majority is often wrong.

2. Science.
Science has much to say about our genetic future. It can help define what it means to be human by exploring whether or not consciousness is a real, empirical property or just an illusion. It can tell us the details of how evolution works. In many cases, it can tell us the consequences of our actions, or at least make predictions. Science is not designed to tell us what we ought to do. If science gives us the tools to create a new species, it probably won't be able to tell us if we should make a new species or what the characteristics of that species should be.

3. Religion.
Of course, religion will try to tell us what to do with our power to create a new species, and they may even succeed in controlling that choice, but I obviously don't think they should for reasons that would be obvious to most everyone else at this forum. They are liars, for starters.

4. Commerce, or the "free" market, will try to influence our genetic future, if it hasn't already. The market will not make the decision based on what is right and what is wrong, but merely on what is profitable. Some economists might argue that what is profitable is what is right because the marketplace is infallible. I think the marketplace is very fallible for many reasons, but mostly because it is short-sighted. In the short term, a man dying of cancer is better for the economy than the person who eats fruits and vegetables every day and runs and is very healthy because the cancer patient is employing an army of highly-paid doctors and nurses and technicians. But the market only values things that can have a price tag. It may calculate the cancer victim's life's value in terms of lost production, but it can't really say what that life was worth. The free market will probably begin to influence our genetic futures as soon as the means becomes available for parents to choose the traits of their offspring. Many will argue that it is not ethical to do so, but once the opportunity exists, legal or not, ethical or not, some parents will be compelled to choose genetic enhancement for their children just to ensure a competitive advantage, and the force of the marketplace will reward this type of choice until it finally becomes legal and accepted. Whether or not it was the right thing to do will never have been relevant to the market's decision.

That leaaves
5. The philosphers. Philosophers (among which I am not qualified to count myself--I am a philosopher in the sense that I ask these sorts of questions, but I lack the training and the discipline to master all the tools that a true philosopher should have) are the ones who have been trained and who are qualified to answer these sorts of questions. They have discussed the nature of what is right and wrong and how we go about determing that. They have studied consciousness, democracy, religion, and politics, most likely. Although many philosophers are probably not well versed on genetic processes and evolution, they would be capable of finding that information and incorporating it into their decisions. Other than the religionists, they may be the only ones to even ask the question of which is the right road to take. I hope that philsophers will tackle this question of whether we should create a new species of human and what it should be like. If they do, I hope they will find a way to get people to listen to them. Also, I would hope the philosophers would find a way to make the average person understand how they came to their decision. It would be nice if every person had a PhD in philosophy, but it won't happen soon. As it stands now, a philosophical discussion is viewed but most people as either interesting or tedious, but it is hardly ever viewed as practical or necessary. That must change if philosophy is to help us decide the most important questions of the 21st century.

[Diabolical Vengeance]

I must say I agree with certain aspects of your post. I agree that cloing/stem cell research is something that should be encouraged (if it will eliminte genetic disorders and otherwise 'clean-up' the genetic makeup of the human race, its worth striving for). I agree that free marketers, the religious, and the democratic herd should have little to do with this process for the reasons you decide. However I think scientists should have input in this process (since they are essentially the impetous behind it, and without scientits we would've never achieved this knowledge and by scientists i mean doctors, geneticists, biologists, etc). I'd add a third category to those would should have input: Scholars (by this i mean proffessors, writers, researchers, academics, etc). I believe they posses a significant body of knowledge to warrant imput on this, some of the most informative debates on this subject that I have heard have come from proffessors. But maybe thats just 'cause i'm a university student and you rarely see intelligent debate on tv :D

However before we move on to genetic tinkering with the human race I believe there are too many people on this planet who are nothing but a hinderance to society's evolution (criminals, fundamentalists, conservatives, people with limited knowledge/intellligence/wisdom, the ignorant, dogmatic monotheists, etc). Once we, the elite of society, find a way to educate or otherwise reduce their threat to societal progress, that will be the time to embark on genetic altering.


btw this is my first post and i've seen many message boards but this is the first thats struck me as being intelluctually fulfilling.

[xorbie]

*tear* You don't find any of my posts intellectually fullfilling (check out the philosophy room or morals room for threads started by me).

Now here's the thing about genetic altering. I personally think those in academia (this includes, philosophy, economincs, sociology, politics, biology and maybe some more) and professional scientists should be the ones calling the shots here. And they ARE the ones calling the shots in this early stage in which their duty is mostly in telling us what to expect when the technology finally rolls along.

However, I think one important group you left out was politicians. This is different from democracy (what, you thought people's votes actually matter?) although somewhat similiar. And they should NOT have anything to do with this. Politicians seem to have the ability to ignore all science and philosophy when making decisions (look for example at the so called War on Drugs) at the cost of billions of tax dollars and who knows how much wasted time. They will of course have to be the ones to make laws (which is unfortunate), but I think they should simply be the medium through which the scientists and others speak, and not have any part in the decision making process because many of them understand not one iota of the science involved and many represent ideas that are most certainly not representative of any good philosophy and/or science.

[three4jump]

Originally posted by Diabolical Vengeance
(if it will eliminte genetic disorders and otherwise 'clean-up' the genetic makeup of the human race, its worth striving for).

Diabolical, welcome to the Infidels. I’m glad you like what you find here, and I hope you won’t get discouraged if your initial posts get picked apart, which I found discouraging at first. I think you run up against the problem, of who gets to decide and how, very early in your response: “…eliminate genetic disorders and otherwise 'clean-up' the genetic makeup of the human race….” Who gets to decide what is a genetic disorder? How do we apply a value system to clean up the genome? Is autism a genetic disorder? Temple Grandin has made significant contributions to society in part because of her autism, and if we weed out the genetic predispostion for this condition, will we be robbing ourselves of a valuable resource? Science can tell us much about how certain disorders arise. Let us suppose that one day soon you could go to a fertility specialist who could guarantee your future child would not be born with autism, Down’s syndrome, or even “substandard intelligence.” In order to accept this service, you would have to be confident that you wouldn’t be giving up any special, useful, interesting qualities in your future child. Einstein had trouble in school and was perceived as not very bright. If we weed out anomalies, will we weed out one Einstein for every 100 Down’s syndrome cases? Is this worth the price? Certainly would should ask the scientists for as much good data as possible, but science can’t establish our value system for us, can it?

What do we want? What is “good”? Why? I suspect most people don’t even know what they want because they simply believe that they really want what commercials and parents and peers and politicians tell them they want. It is in the realm of philosophy to ask the question, “Do I really want this SUV or this Big Mac because it is best for me and best for the environment and my community? Or do I want this because someone told me I want it, because I’ve been conditioned to want it?” In the not-too-distant future, you may be able to choose options on your child the way you would choose power steering or air conditioning on your new car, and reproduction will become a consumer industry like any other. Scientists will provide the research that makes this possible, along with the warning that it is probably not a good idea to implement it without safeguards. Business always takes the technology that science gives and rejects the warnings that might hamper profits, because if company X doesn’t do it, somebody else will.

You being a university student, perhaps you might ask the question, “Should I get a PhD in philosophy to make sure that people make the right choice when tampering with the genome? Or will this be a waste of time because no one will listen to me?” What do you think?

[three4jump]

Originally posted by xorbie
* And they should NOT have anything to do with this.

I definitely agree that politicians should not have the final say regarding genome science. Unfortunately, since the average voter's attention span won't handle a newspaper article about stem cell research, the politicians will make laws written either by pharmacutical lobbyists or religious groups. Unless someone wakes up the general public.

[Diabolical Vengeance]

Originally posted by three4jump
Diabolical, welcome to the Infidels. I’m glad you like what you find here, and I hope you won’t get discouraged if your initial posts get picked apart, which I found discouraging at first.

not at all, I realize that this will only aid to strengthen my arguments. in the dubious words of dubya "bring 'em on" :D


I think you run up against the problem, of who gets to decide and how, very early in your response: “…eliminate genetic disorders and otherwise 'clean-up' the genetic makeup of the human race….” Who gets to decide what is a genetic disorder?

I suppose the best way to come about to this would be some sort of a concensus among scientitsts, ethicists, etc. I know that this causes plenty of debate. while conditions such as cancer are almost uniformily negative, other conditions such as ADD have positive effects as well as negative ones (a significant percentage of people with ADD are very creative artisitically i believe).

How do we apply a value system to clean up the genome? Is autism a genetic disorder? Temple Grandin has made significant contributions to society in part because of her autism, and if we weed out the genetic predispostion for this condition, will we be robbing ourselves of a valuable resource?

There are exceptions I realize, there are great individuals who can overcome great burdens that nature have bestowed upon them. (personally i think they fit the description of the Nietzschean overman but thats another topic). However, over the long haul we will be economizing/saving ourselves from great burdens. For everyone like Temple there are hundreds who just waste away, living meaningless lives, draining ressources from those who can benefit from them. If i can make a analogy, why do we insist on keeping terminally ill people alive. If there is no hope, why bother keeping them on lifesupport, taking away hospital spaces and ressources from those who actually have hope? I know this sounds heartless but i feel that mainstream society is too weak and seems bent on preserving and protecting weakness and mediocrity when I feel mankind would benefit if this wasn't tolerated... I seem to be veering offtopic here (sorry!) For a better example, there is a disease (i think its systic Fibrosis but i'm probalby wrong about the name) that affects only children and its a fatal disease and they have a life expantancy of 7 years. And during these 7 years these children are unable to function, they have to be 'burbed' like a baby to promote digestion, they have siezures, etc. Wouldn't it be better if we could prevent conditions like this so this child instead of living a short, meaningless and miserable and painful life could life a full life and contribute to society?




Science can tell us much about how certain disorders arise. Let us suppose that one day soon you could go to a fertility specialist who could guarantee your future child would not be born with autism, Down’s syndrome, or even “substandard intelligence.” In order to accept this service, you would have to be confident that you wouldn’t be giving up any special, useful, interesting qualities in your future child. Einstein had trouble in school and was perceived as not very bright. If we weed out anomalies, will we weed out one Einstein for every 100 Down’s syndrome cases?

You bring an interesting and valid argument here. However I wasn't aware that Einstein had down syndrome. I was aware that he did poorly in school but i've never been one to believe that intelligence has a correlation with school grades. AS to the choice, I think its ultimately up to the parents of the child to decide if they want any altercations or if they'd just like to try it 'the old fashion way'. But I think the ethical community (non religious since they have no opinion on this matter other than utter oppoition to the concept and hence have little critical bearing on the subject because they have an agenda) should provide what is 'acceptable'. I know this isn't the best answer but thats the best I can come up with, I'm sure others have better ideas, besides i'm not pushing any set agenda so i have no problem with people contradicting me. (now, when i become world dictator, then things will be different :D).



Is this worth the price? Certainly would should ask the scientists for as much good data as possible, but science can’t establish our value system for us, can it?
Then values are based on the available data.



What do we want? What is “good”? Why? I suspect most people don’t even know what they want because they simply believe that they really want what commercials and parents and peers and politicians tell them they want. It is in the realm of philosophy to ask the question, “Do I really want this SUV or this Big Mac because it is best for me and best for the environment and my community? Or do I want this because someone told me I want it, because I’ve been conditioned to want it?” In the not-too-distant future, you may be able to choose options on your child the way you would choose power steering or air conditioning on your new car, and reproduction will become a consumer industry like any other. Scientists will provide the research that makes this possible, along with the warning that it is probably not a good idea to implement it without safeguards. Business always takes the technology that science gives and rejects the warnings that might hamper profits, because if company X doesn’t do it, somebody else will.

I agree with your argument here. I live in CAnada so we have a public health care system. There are government safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing. Besides, it is a doctors ethical obligation to notify his patients of any possible side effects of a treatment, from the most complex surgery to antihistamines. A doctor, examining a couple wishing or inquiring about genetically modifying their child, will have to tell his patients what the risks. However this safeguard probably falls apart because, at least in the beginning, only specialized (privaltely owned) clinics will be able to handle this sort of thing and hence more open to profit based incentives than ethical/medical ones.


You being a university student, perhaps you might ask the question, “Should I get a PhD in philosophy to make sure that people make the right choice when tampering with the genome? Or will this be a waste of time because no one will listen to me?” What do you think?


I think it would be a waste of time since intelligence has a way of frightning away the herd so i'd chose not to get a PHD. for reasons other than the one mentined (practical and fincancial ones). I'm sure there are some people with more of a background in science/ethics than I who posses similair views. you pose some good arguments. I'm not sure if this really answers you questions or not but this is the best i can come up with considering i'm at work right now and can't fully apply myself to this thread as it should.

[three4jump]

Diabolical, I didn't mean to imply that Einstein had Down's syndrome. What I meant to say was that, since we don't know all the interactions between genes, it is possible that for every 100 cases where genetic screening weeds out a disorder of some sort, there might be one case where the screening process also eliminates the particular genetic combination that allows a rare genius. I would say, just from a cost/benefit analysis, that it would be worth the cost of supporting low-functioning people with tax dollars if it results in someone discovering a theory like relativity.

It sounds like you might be in favor of eugenics. I would be opposed to a forced eugenics program, such as when they used to sterilize "retarded" people (let alone Nazi Germany.) It might be possible to have a voluntary eugenics program, a breeding program, but who knows if it would be any more succesful than the British royal family. (A beautiful woman wrote to a famous scientist suggesting that they should marry because their children would be beautiful and smart. The scientist wrote back, "What if our children ended up with my looks and your brains?") A breeding program run by scientists, with thorough data collection and tight controls, might be informative, but I am skeptical that it would be beneficial to the participants.

My original point, though, is that before roughly 1850, people were stumbling around blindly, thinking they were making the world a better place but really making things worse. Since the industrial revolution, the age of instantaneous global travel, the understanding of the genome, nuclear weapons, and the possibility of colonizing other planets, the potential for well-intentioned people to cause great harm has multiplied exponentially. Now that we have the power to change things permanently, how can we be certain which is the best road to take?

There is another thread on this board, What is beautiful? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59741) where philosophers are debating how we decide what is beautiful. Some have defined beauty is that which is natural. Children with Down's syndrome are produced through a natural process, and could be considered quite beautiful in and of themselves.

Anyway, it seems like the people who have the power are not encumbered with doubts about how to use it, while people who are thoughtful and would be mindful of the consequences of their actions are too smart to be in a position of power. I can think of no solution to that.

[Jack Kamm]

If genetic engineering is to happen, why shouldn't parents be able to choose the traits for their children?

Philosophers often disagree over what is right. In this case, who decides?

Why should what is "right" even matter? Why should someone be forced to do what someone else considers right?

[Diabolical Vengeance]

What I meant to say was that, since we don't know all the interactions between genes, it is possible that for every 100 cases where genetic screening weeds out a disorder of some sort, there might be one case where the screening process also eliminates the particular genetic combination that allows a rare genius. I would say, just from a cost/benefit analysis, that it would be worth the cost of supporting low-functioning people with tax dollars if it results in someone discovering a theory like relativity. [\quote]
I disagree with you on this point, I believe there are of course exceptions, however, over the long haul, doing a C-B analysis leads to the opposite conclusion, as the odds of an exception are rare, and the longterm costs of supporting these people, I believe, are quite hight.


[quote]
It sounds like you might be in favor of eugenics. I would be opposed to a forced eugenics program, such as when they used to sterilize "retarded" people (let alone Nazi Germany.) I would also be against a forced genetic program, people still have the right to do what they want with their genes/bodies, its a basic, fundamental human right.


It might be possible to have a voluntary eugenics program, a breeding program, but who knows if it would be any more succesful than the British royal family.
well, considering the state of the british royal family, that wouldn't be too hard :D.

(A beautiful woman wrote to a famous scientist suggesting that they should marry because their children would be beautiful and smart. The scientist wrote back, "What if our children ended up with my looks and your brains?") A breeding program run by scientists, with thorough data collection and tight controls, might be informative, but I am skeptical that it would be beneficial to the participants.

I believe it would be worth trying, just at first do it on a trial basis with volunteers and see what the results are. If they're positive, it should be implemented in some way, if they're negative, they should be scrapped.

My original point, though, is that before roughly 1850, people were stumbling around blindly, thinking they were making the world a better place but really making things worse. Since the industrial revolution, the age of instantaneous global travel, the understanding of the genome, nuclear weapons, and the possibility of colonizing other planets, the potential for well-intentioned people to cause great harm has multiplied exponentially. Now that we have the power to change things permanently, how can we be certain which is the best road to take?

well, we can truly never be sure about anything, Gallieo wasn't always sure of himself, same for Colombus, etc. All we can do is proceed with the best information available. That is how mankind has progressed, by taking risks, it hasn't always worked out for the best of course, and I'd like to believe that overall we do learn from our mistakes. No risk=no gain. If we don't try, we stagnate.



There is another thread on this board, What is beautiful? where philosophers are debating how we decide what is beautiful. Some have defined beauty is that which is natural. Children with Down's syndrome are produced through a natural process, and could be considered quite beautiful in and of themselves.

Anyway, it seems like the people who have the power are not encumbered with doubts about how to use it, while people who are thoughtful and would be mindful of the consequences of their actions are too smart to be in a position of power. I can think of no solution to that.



I think it was Bertrand Russell who said 'the problem with the world is that the smart people are so unsure of themselves and stupid people are sure of themselves' I agree with your last point, any matters of taste, really, are purely subjective and it becomes difficult to impose who subjective views on another. its actually one of the reasons i hate religion so much.

thanks for this discussion

[three4jump]

Thanks for the Russel quote. I'll have to remember that.

[Mexicola]

Hey! I was gonna say that! Yeah, that is a good Russell quote, thanks Diabolical Vengeance (Hehehe, won't get to say that too many times in my life :D) Perhaps I should revisit some of his 'popular' works. I kinda abandoned him when I discovered that his 'proper' philosophy (he basically invented analytic philosophy) was a bit...well, shite ;)

[Albert Cipriani]

Allow me to provide a more direct succint and pragmatic response to your question: Yes.

We will have a philosopher king just as soon as some fool sends me $3,500 so that I can register to run for the governership of California. So far we've got an adult film actress, a horor film actor, and a pornographer in the running. Several hundred jerks in all have thrown their hat into the pig sty, yet nary a one is a philosopher.

Goes to show where we are as a people. Goes to show that I'd have no chance even if I had $3,500. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Endymion]

I don't think its quite right to judge with static premises. Its that terrible ringing in the ears left behind by "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Philosopher kings carry their ideals just like the business man carries his machinations of the market, as the 'hordes' carry their mutual consensus, as Science carries her faith. If we hold evolutionary theory, propagation of memes and genes
as predeterminate factors of man then what is the point in holding high the ideals of the philosophers when they come from the same necessary grounds of the masses, are they not mathematically equal. The lies of religion come from necessity to know just as well as the lies of philosophers.
Whose to say who has the rightful decision, because as has been stated rightful becomes wrong and wrongful right in certain circumstances.

In the spirit of the rational chopping block I suggest that because intent to survive diverges in a variety of forms and man learns of his form only after it has been and thus values its propagation, the choice for man should be given exclusively to those who require it.

[three4jump]

[comment withdrawn]

[exnihilo]

posted by three4jump:
Sometime between Darwin's voyage on The Beagle and the end of the 21st century, the natural selection that used to drive evolution will be replaced with artificial selection by humans, either through tinkering with the genes, tinkering with the environment, changing reproductive behaviors with cultural influences, or all three. In other words, humans have, or will soon have, the tools to decide what it means to be human. Assuming, for a moment, that the above is true or probably true (which many might debate) how are we to decide? Who gets to decide the genetic makeup of humans for all time after the present century, and why? The options seem to be:


This is a very interesting question to say the least, but I think you left out the most important option and the one most likely to take precedence over all the others: political power. At this moment this power is concentrated mainly in global corporations, which pretty much control every piece of legislation that is passed in the US, if they are oppossed it simply will not pass, not to mention the control these entities wield over multinational structures such as the world bank and the so called g-8 nations.

<Insert your own Orwellian scenario here>

However this "tinkering" will turn out, i think it is safe to say that the great majority of people will have no say in it whatsoever, even though the appearance of contral may be there, i.e. the 2000 presidential election. I just don't see how any of the other options could/can overcome the disturbing trend revealed through the unfolding of history over the last 200+ years.

My guess, based on this scenario, would be that genetic technology will be used to make people even more domesticated and prone to conformity--in the name of public safety, of course--in order to produce more efficeint and docile workers and consumers, as described in Michel Foucault's, Discipline and Punishment.
It is interesting that Diabolical Vengence mentioned criminals in his list of undesirables, because the whole issue of criminality and how that label is applied seem seriously flawed and are produced by the very fundamentalist/dogmatic structures that criminality is listed with.

[John Page]

Originally posted by three4jump
I feel that the philosophers should be the ones to decide this question, but I am afraid they either will choose not to, or never come to agreement, or if they do come to agreement no one will listen to them.
Numberspring:
We are all philosophers, no? If so, this leads you back to the democratic process as "the one most likely".

Also, I would like to observe that the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" selection is a fine one. Do we not indulge in the specialized breeding of animals? Do we not select our mates already?

I guess the difference is engineering for specific outcomes, whereas natural selection is "blind" and has no conscious selection process.

I would like to change who I am at will, exploring different lives and points of view to better understand reality more objectively. Do you think there is a better survival objective than this, given this competition is between our dreams and imagination?

Cheers, John

[three4jump]

John Page, I was going to tweak you name around, but the only thing I could come up with was Toilet Paper, which, although amusing, might imply an insult. ( I hate to use emoticons, and I find I am frequently misunderstood on this board, so I must add, even if it's probably unnecessary, that I liked the name Numberspring, and I do not intend any insult, just amusement.)

I would agree that we have been selecting our mates through more and more artificial means as the centuries slip by. As you say, the flip from natural selection to artificial selection happens when we become conscious of the choices we are making, how we make those choices, and the consequences of them. Many people are now aware of the artificiality of the selection process, but most of the planet's population doesn't even know that natural selection exists.

I would also like to change who I am at will. I could imagine that, because of my frustration with my inability to change, I would be tempted to give my child special gifts through genetic selection in the embryo. And given my experiences with my father, I can also imagine that my child would be extremely annoyed for tampering with his genes and might rebel against the path I had chosen for him. I am not saying genetic engineering is a bad thing, and it is inevitable whether it is good or bad.

[three4jump]

exnihilo, the Foucalt book looks interesting. In fact, I think I bought it a while ago, and it ended up at the bottom of a stack of books I intended to read. I'll have to see if I can dig it up again.

[John Page]

Dear Counterbalance:
Originally posted by three4jump
John Page, I was going to tweak you name around, but the only thing I could come up with was Toilet Paper, which, although amusing, might imply an insult.
How about WipeOut?
Originally posted by three4jump
( I hate to use emoticons, and I find I am frequently misunderstood on this board, so I must add, even if it's probably unnecessary, that I liked the name Numberspring, and I do not intend any insult, just amusement.)
:)
Originally posted by three4jump
Many people are now aware of the artificiality of the selection process, but most of the planet's population doesn't even know that natural selection exists.
Poor bastards!
Originally posted by three4jump
And given my experiences with my father, I can also imagine that my child would be extremely annoyed for tampering with his genes and might rebel against the path I had chosen for him.
Yep, I think I would keep that in the program. Anarchy is the atomic engine of social change.
Originally posted by three4jump
I am not saying genetic engineering is a bad thing, and it is inevitable whether it is good or bad.
Yes, we should nurture our nature, carefully.

Cheers, John

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by three4jump
I would agree that we have been selecting our mates through more and more artificial means as the centuries slip by. As you say, the flip from natural selection to artificial selection happens when we become conscious of the choices we are making, how we make those choices, and the consequences of them. Many people are now aware of the artificiality of the selection process, but most of the planet's population doesn't even know that natural selection exists.

I've often heard about the supposed opposition between that which is considered 'natural' and that which is called 'artificial,' as if any real dichotomy between the two actually exists.

I don't agree that it does.

What is 'natural' about choosing a mate for specific traits (which are a reflection of specific genes)?

What is 'artificial' about choosing specific genes to produce specific traits?

What's the salient difference?

I can also imagine that my child would be extremely annoyed for tampering with his genes and might rebel against the path I had chosen for him. I am not saying genetic engineering is a bad thing, and it is inevitable whether it is good or bad.

The human race has always engineered their genetic make-up.

It's nothing new.

What is new, however, is that we're acquiring the knowledge, skills and technology to do it more efficiently and effectively.

[three4jump]

Who decides what is more efficiently or more effectively? Many people prefer a natural lifestyle, given the choice, with organic foods, natural fibers, and lots of contact with nature. There's no way for a corporation to make buckets of money off that scheme, so there will be considerable pressure from powerful companies to improve your children for the sake of immediate profits, and with the promise of benefits over the next ten to fifty years. The genetic changes themselves have the potential for consequences cascading down millenia. If you were king of the world, how would you pursue changing the human genome? If I were the king of the world (we'd all be doomed) I would say, "Slow down until we figure this out much better."

As for the salient difference between natural and artificial selection, up until recently, we were simply fucking every chance we got, and before Mendel no one had a clue how any of it impacted the genome. Even if a giant corporation had wanted to create the ideal worker/consumer, they wouldn't have known how. Now that the tools are there, someone is bound to use them, possibly to the detriment of everyone. What safegaurds do we have if we can't even agree on what is desireable when it comes to changing the genome?

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by three4jump
Even if a giant corporation had wanted to create the ideal worker/consumer, they wouldn't have known how. Now that the tools are there, someone is bound to use them, possibly to the detriment of everyone. What safegaurds do we have if we can't even agree on what is desireable when it comes to changing the genome?
Have you watched MTV lately, i am afraid they have already created this consumer. Just look at any college campus, it is very hard to tell a great majority of these people apart, as they wear the same clothes, the same hairstyles, etc.
As from organic foods are you familar with some of the things companies like monsanto are trying to do such as genetically alters seeds so that their fruits produce only sterile seeds so that planters will become permanently reliant upon these companies for seeds (instead of using a part of a crop to grow the next crop) many of which may be patented in the near future. If the current goals of these coirporations are realizedwe could easily end up with a scenario where a company like monsanto would be in control of a great part of the world's food supply.

[three4jump]

Yes, and nobody is really even paying attention to Monsanto, let alone mounting a serious opposition.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by three4jump
Who decides what is more efficiently or more effectively? Many people prefer a natural lifestyle, given the choice, with organic foods, natural fibers, and lots of contact with nature. There's no way for a corporation to make buckets of money off that scheme, so there will be considerable pressure from powerful companies to improve your children for the sake of immediate profits, and with the promise of benefits over the next ten to fifty years. The genetic changes themselves have the potential for consequences cascading down millenia.

Nature again....the human world is part of the so-called 'natural world.' We don't exist apart from nature; we are of nature. We are always in contact with 'nature.' 'Nature' is us...we are not separate from it. A hike in the forest is just as 'natural' as a walk along a tarmac path in a landscaped park, or a stroll through a mall.

Anyway, just because something (a food, a lifestyle, a pair of jeans, or whatever) is called 'natural' doesn't necessarily make it good. The 'natural' = 'good' notion comes more from clever marketing and advertising than it does from any intrinsic 'goodness' in what is called 'natural.' As for the issue of corporations making money, fortunes are already being made in the vitamin industry, organic food industry, etc., etc.

(However, thank you Linus Pauling for your contributions to progress through research into the benefits of Vitamin C... :notworthy: )

Anyway, here's an example of when that which is 'natural' is not necessarily that which is 'good':

It used to be the case that 'natural' childbirth was the status quo. It was also the case that midwives and physicians didn't know about certain aspects of the 'natural world'--namely, bacteria. It was 'natural' that there was a high rate of mother and infant mortality. However, just because this was 'natural,' it still wasn't good that so many women and babies died during such a 'natural' procedure. Only with relatively recent advances in medicine, skills, knowledge and technology have we managed to bring down both mother and infant mortality rates.

Now it is 'natural' for there to be a much lower rate of mother/infant mortality...to 'return to nature', in this case, would be inadvisable.

If you were king of the world, how would you pursue changing the human genome?

Queen of the World ;)...if I were Queen of the World, and I had the ability to change the human genome, I would make certain to eradicate each and every single disease (or potential for disease) from humanity. I would make human beings resilient to infection and injury by boosting the immune system and our regenerative capabilities. I would hope to eliminate mental, psychological, emotional and physical disabilities once and for all. Hell, I would see to it that we could live indefinitely, in good health, if we wished...

If I were the king of the world (we'd all be doomed) I would say, "Slow down until we figure this out much better."

Who is 'we'? Genetic scientists understand the human genome well (and are still in the process of understanding it, of course), as well as the potential benefits of genetic engineering. How much do we need to know before it's enough to allow progress to happen?

As for the salient difference between natural and artificial selection, up until recently, we were simply fucking every chance we got, and before Mendel no one had a clue how any of it impacted the genome.

Most people still don't understand, exactly, how sexual reproduction 'impacts the genome,' but people chose and still choose mates through 'natural selection'.

Genetic research has made it easier to understand the role that sexual reproduction plays in the process, and how it impacts the genome. It has clarified issues for us.

The discovery of the genome has made the processes involved in sexual selection more understandable, more detailed. It has also given us the potential to guide our own evolution more knowledgeably, more responsibly, more efficiently and more effectively.

Now that the tools are there, someone is bound to use them, possibly to the detriment of everyone.

And equally likely for the benefit of the human race. Why not be optimistic about genetic engineering?

What safegaurds do we have if we can't even agree on what is desireable when it comes to changing the genome?

Safeguards against what, exactly? Brave New World dystopias?

[John Page]

Hi Queen Lu:
Originally posted by Luiseach
I would hope to eliminate mental, psychological, emotional and physical disabilities once and for all.
Oh no! No more cathartic soap-opera to testify to the genius of the human condition. No abnormalities, no progress, no evolution.

Cheers, John

[three4jump]

Luiseach, sorry about the gender assumption.

You've taken away the meaning of artificial and made it an unnecessary word. Poptarts and Prozac are 100% natural because everything comes from nature. Fine. But even if you define our current and future states of reproduction as natural selection, it is very much a different process from the one that slowly made us over three billion years or more. The old way of creating intelligent life involved cooking atoms inside the nuclear reactors of stars for one to ten billion years, then randomly bumping chains of atoms together for another billion or so years until you accidentally got a replicator, and then creating millions of different species, most of which go extinct, until one accidentally becomes intelligent and self-aware. In the not-too-distant future, it is conceivable that someone could create a new form of intelligent life overnight (relatively speaking). This is a different process in many ways besides being millions of times faster. (Interesting related thread) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60612)

Natural selection can be clearly defined as different from artificial selection, and the difference has more relevance than just semantics. If you were Queen of the world, and the infant mortality rate went to zero, you would be very popular indeed, because who likes to see innocent babies dying? In my grandmother's generation, it was not uncommon for a family to have about eight children, of which only about a third lived to the age of reproduction. In scenario A, all the genes are getting through the selection process. In scenario B, some genes were being selected against. I suppose it is possible that if the infant mortality rate drops to zero, you could treat all the troublesome genes with gene therapy, but it would still be a very different world, and all of the human genome would be changed by the dislikes and desires of the same people who voted Britney Spears Queen of the Universe. I'm a bit more apprehensive than you. I would rather have you as Queen of the world than B.S., but I still don't think your ready.

I do agree with you that science and technology are giving us the tools to guide our own evolution more knowledgeably and much faster, but do you think we will ever come to a consensus as to what is desireable?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by John Page
Hi Queen Lu:

Oh no! No more cathartic soap-opera to testify to the genius of the human condition. No abnormalities, no progress, no evolution.

Cheers, John

John!

So you actually agree with me about this?!

*faints with shock*

;)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by three4jump
Luiseach, sorry about the gender assumption.

Not at all...

You've taken away the meaning of artificial and made it an unnecessary word. Poptarts and Prozac are 100% natural because everything comes from nature. Fine. But even if you define our current and future states of reproduction as natural selection, it is very much a different process from the one that slowly made us over three billion years or more.

Absolutely...I agree that with technological advances, natural selection does change form from what it has been.

The old way of creating intelligent life involved cooking atoms inside the nuclear reactors of stars for one to ten billion years, then randomly bumping chains of atoms together for another billion or so years until you accidentally got a replicator, and then creating millions of different species, most of which go extinct, until one accidentally becomes intelligent and self-aware. In the not-too-distant future, it is conceivable that someone could create a new form of intelligent life overnight (relatively speaking). This is a different process in many ways besides being millions of times faster. (Interesting related thread) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60612)

Thanks for the link...I'll take a look.

Natural selection can be clearly defined as different from artificial selection, and the difference has more relevance than just semantics. If you were Queen of the world, and the infant mortality rate went to zero, you would be very popular indeed, because who likes to see innocent babies dying? In my grandmother's generation, it was not uncommon for a family to have about eight children, of which only about a third lived to the age of reproduction.

Same with my grandmother...who had 11 children, 7 of whom died either during childbirth or very shortly thereafter. This was during the 1940s and 1950s.

In scenario A, all the genes are getting through the selection process. In scenario B, some genes were being selected against. I suppose it is possible that if the infant mortality rate drops to zero, you could treat all the troublesome genes with gene therapy, but it would still be a very different world, and all of the human genome would be changed by the dislikes and desires of the same people who voted Britney Spears Queen of the Universe. I'm a bit more apprehensive than you. I would rather have you as Queen of the world than B.S., but I still don't think your ready.

So your concerns about genetic engineering centre around the potential for the abuse of power? I agree that this is a very real possibility...it's a risk, like most things are (especially where 'progress,' technology, etc. are involved), I suppose.

I propose that the risks involved in genetic engineering are worth it. As long as these risks are educated ones, and with the necessary moral and ethical safeguards in place, then I don't see the difference between pushing for advancement in genetic engineering and, say, exploring the potential for extending life through vitamin/supplement therapies and exercise, or the past and continuing research into safer and more effective methods of birth control.

And, anyway, what would be wrong with allowing people to 'engineer' their babies? What would be wrong with people having a say in how their children looked, in how intelligent they were? We do this now, in our choice of such-and-such a mate, and our rejection of others...the difference with genetic engineering is that we could actually be more precise, and more deliberate, in our selectiveness. With genetic engineering, natural selection would be a more exact science, instead of a russian-roulette, hit-and-miss affair.

Yes, it would be a 'different' world, but why should this be a concern? Is the world such a great place as it is? If we could eradicate physical and mental disabilities, wouldn't we be improving the quality of life for millions upon millions of future human beings?

If I may borrow an oft-touted phrase (usually used as an objection against genetic engineering), what's so wrong with 'playing God'?

I do agree with you that science and technology are giving us the tools to guide our own evolution more knowledgeably and much faster, but do you think we will ever come to a consensus as to what is desireable?

I don't think we need to have consensus on what is and isn't desirable. We don't have such consensus right now, as the world is at this moment in time.

[Thomas Ash]

Hi three4jump (and everyone else...),

Originally posted by three4jump
Sometime between Darwin's voyage on The Beagle and the end of the 21st century, the natural selection that used to drive evolution will be replaced with artificial selection by humans, either through tinkering with the genes, tinkering with the environment, changing reproductive behaviors with cultural influences, or all three.

Uh, hasn't that timeframe already happened? :confused:

In other words, humans have, or will soon have, the tools to decide what it means to be human. Assuming, for a moment, that the above is true or probably true (which many might debate) how are we to decide? Who gets to decide the genetic makeup of humans for all time after the present century, and why? The options seem to be:
1. Democratic processes.
2. Science.
3. Religion.
4. Commerce, or the will of the free market.
5. Philosophy.

I think the first four should not be permitted to make this most important decision. I feel that the philosophers should be the ones to decide this question, but I am afraid they either will choose not to, or never come to agreement, or if they do come to agreement no one will listen to them.

The problems with the first four methods of choosing.
1. Democratic processes:
George Bush. Need I say more? Probably not, but I would add that the troubles with democracy are:
a. Nobody pays attention to the important arguements because:
b. Voting with your dollars and your feet is far more effective than voting with your vote.
c. Even those who take their vote seriously often don't have the time to delve into every serious issue and be absolutely certain they are voting right. Often, you have to look to someone you trust to advise you how to vote on many of the issues, and those people have put so much spin on their point of view that you can never really know what is true.
d. The majority is often wrong.

Well, these are very common objections to democracy. They're all good, and I think they provide a useful corrective to the idolisation of democracy as an ideal system that can do no wrong. But the point of democracy isn't simply that it's the system which produces the best decisions (though, in practice, compared to all the Lenins and Pinochets of history, it has proved to be "the worst system of government, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time...", as Churchill said :D ) The main point of democracy is instead that people should have power to make the decisions that affect their own lives, rather than some ultimately arbitrarily chosen individual or group taking it upon themselves to do it for them. After all, I'm more likely to know what I want, and what's best for me, than you (the reader) would be, were you Grand El Presidente of the World (no offence! ;) ) People are always (well, those in the beret-wearing, radical-politics-coffee shop attending world at least are always) talking about how great a benevolent dictator would be, but this overlooks the fact that you are far more likely to get a benevolent democracy than a benevolent dictatorship. To quote the old saying by Lord Someone-or-other (?), "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." As I already mentioned, history bears this point out.

2. Science.
Science has much to say about our genetic future. It can help define what it means to be human by exploring whether or not consciousness is a real, empirical property or just an illusion. It can tell us the details of how evolution works. In many cases, it can tell us the consequences of our actions, or at least make predictions. Science is not designed to tell us what we ought to do. If science gives us the tools to create a new species, it probably won't be able to tell us if we should make a new species or what the characteristics of that species should be.

Agreed :) .

3. Religion.
Of course, religion will try to tell us what to do with our power to create a new species, and they may even succeed in controlling that choice, but I obviously don't think they should for reasons that would be obvious to most everyone else at this forum. They are liars, for starters.

Again, I completely agree :D . In fact, religion continues to surpass even my low expectations (in the downwards direction) by its knee-kery opposition to any new biotech technology. Remember the now-forgotten war against IVF?

4. Commerce, or the "free" market, will try to influence our genetic future, if it hasn't already. The market will not make the decision based on what is right and what is wrong, but merely on what is profitable. Some economists might argue that what is profitable is what is right because the marketplace is infallible. I think the marketplace is very fallible for many reasons, but mostly because it is short-sighted. In the short term, a man dying of cancer is better for the economy than the person who eats fruits and vegetables every day and runs and is very healthy because the cancer patient is employing an army of highly-paid doctors and nurses and technicians. But the market only values things that can have a price tag. It may calculate the cancer victim's life's value in terms of lost production, but it can't really say what that life was worth. The free market will probably begin to influence our genetic futures as soon as the means becomes available for parents to choose the traits of their offspring. Many will argue that it is not ethical to do so, but once the opportunity exists, legal or not, ethical or not, some parents will be compelled to choose genetic enhancement for their children just to ensure a competitive advantage, and the force of the marketplace will reward this type of choice until it finally becomes legal and accepted. Whether or not it was the right thing to do will never have been relevant to the market's decision.

Well, I don't think you quite do the pro-market argument injustice, though I obviouly agree that it's ludicrous to see the market as infallible, even in the narrow field of what's best for the economy (in practice, individual economic actors [translation for economese = people] are far too short-term for that.) The market won't really promote people getting cancer, even though it boosts the GDP hugely on paper. The problem here is with the concept of GDP, not the market itself.

That leaaves
5. The philosphers. Philosophers (among which I am not qualified to count myself--I am a philosopher in the sense that I ask these sorts of questions, but I lack the training and the discipline to master all the tools that a true philosopher should have) are the ones who have been trained and who are qualified to answer these sorts of questions. They have discussed the nature of what is right and wrong and how we go about determing that. They have studied consciousness, democracy, religion, and politics, most likely. Although many philosophers are probably not well versed on genetic processes and evolution, they would be capable of finding that information and incorporating it into their decisions. Other than the religionists, they may be the only ones to even ask the question of which is the right road to take. I hope that philsophers will tackle this question of whether we should create a new species of human and what it should be like. If they do, I hope they will find a way to get people to listen to them. Also, I would hope the philosophers would find a way to make the average person understand how they came to their decision. It would be nice if every person had a PhD in philosophy, but it won't happen soon. As it stands now, a philosophical discussion is viewed but most people as either interesting or tedious, but it is hardly ever viewed as practical or necessary. That must change if philosophy is to help us decide the most important questions of the 21st century.

Yay! But I disagree - you are a philosopher. Anyone who asks philosopical questions is, regardless of whether or not they have a PhD. That's a nice feel-good statement for people on this board isn't it? :)

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

_____

Check out my website Atheist Ground (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/)

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by John Page
Dear Counterbalance:

How about WipeOut?

:)

Hi John/Toilet Paper/WipeOut,

Hey, if you want that to be your new name...! :D How about changing your profile to match ("Interests: Sanitary products, etc."...) ;) . Even if you don't, I propose that everyone on this board now call you either Toilet Paper or WipeOut. Maybe someone should set up a poll to see which is the people's favourite...

Best Wishes,

Overweight Wombat

[John Page]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Hi John/Toilet Paper/WipeOut,.
.
Best Wishes,

Overweight Wombat
To bring this back to the OP, I think the suggested full title would be King Toilet Paper III of Wipeout.

Anyone car to prognosticate on "Will we ever have a philosopher president (of the USA, France whatever)?"

[three4jump]

Thomas Residue, the term philosopher-kings was one that I read somewhere, but my feeble memory can't track down the source. The idea is not so much that they are dictators, but just leaders of whatever form of government you've got. As King T.P. hints at, it would be very difficult for a philospher to get elected. I don't think Conan the Barbarian is a philosopher, unless it is in some Machiavellian way.

The only way I can see that a philosopher would come close to leading a state, and the only way a sane philosopher would agree to do it, would be if the state was ruled by a constitution. This constitution would have to be much more clever than our Constitution, which just tells everyone what their job is and some basic abuses they can't indulge in. The constituion could "rule" the state, and the philosopher would be the administrator or judge. Still a very dicey problem. We are supposed to have the "rule of law" in this country, but it's not working.

[three4jump]

Originally posted by Luiseach

If I may borrow an oft-touted phrase (usually used as an objection against genetic engineering), what's so wrong with 'playing God'?



Nothing, necessarily. Who could do worse than the christian God? If I were playing God with my own child's life, I would not have complete confidence that I was doing the right thing. So many times I have set out on some course of action with the hope of making things better, and I've made things worse than if I'd done nothing at all.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by John Page
To bring this back to the OP, I think the suggested full title would be King Toilet Paper III of Wipeout.

Anyone car to prognosticate on "Will we ever have a philosopher president (of the USA, France whatever)?"

Hi King Toilet Paper III of Wipeout,

OK, the new name is official then. I trust you'll be changing your website-wide profile soon... ;)

As to your question, I actually have more faith in democracy than more people seem to. I think there have been some pretty intelligent people elected, not necessarily philosopher kings, but at least good rulers. As ludicrous as this will surely sound to anyone who lives in the UK and knows how unpopular he is right now, I think Tony Blair is a good Prime Minister. Some US presidents have been pretty good too - actually Jefferson was in some sense a philosopher, as well as President.

Well, I feel very embarassed now, having come close to calling Tony Blair a 'philosopher king'! :o

Best wishes,

Overwight Wombat/ Thomas Residue (;) - I like that!)

[John Page]

Dear Mash O'Shat:
Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Hi King Toilet Paper III of Wipeout,
(waits for bog roll)
Originally posted by Thomas Ash
......I think Tony Blair is a good Prime Minister.
By Jingo!
Originally posted by Thomas Ash
...actually Jefferson was in some sense a philosopher, as well as President.
Agreed, I've been to Monticello and he was certainly curious about many things - clearly political philosophy was high on his agenda and he can be said to be an heir of Rousseau and Locke.

Cheers, John

[Clutch]

I don't think Conan the Barbarian is a philosopher, unless it is in some Machiavellian way.Oh, pshaw. He's an act-utilitarian who thinks the maximization of utility is one of those things that cannot be said and must be shewn.

That's how I always understood him, at least.

[premjan]

Moses and Muhammad were philosopher-kings in a meaningful sense (that religion is just a kind of applied philosophy).

[premjan]

Moses and Muhammad were philosopher-kings in a meaningful sense (that religion is just a kind of applied philosophy).

[the_cave]

We will never have philosopher-kings, and actually it's a good thing--they would probaby be tyrants. Or at least completely unresponsive to the desires of those they ruled ;) peons...

As for genetic engineering, it will be decided the same way things have always been decided--a combination of the free market and the government. Remember that "the government" includes the courts, who are only elected in certain areas and at certain levels. Otherwise, they are appointed by elected officials, and rely on the instincts of entirely unelected lawyers to bring cases to their attention. And don't forget the influence of unelected advisors in the elective process (policy makers, et al). Not to mention the influence of the free market...It's a complex system, which in America thankfully includes a voice for The People. Or those who vote, anyway...but the point is, "democracy" (somethig of a misnomer, admittedly), combined with a (substantially, but not entirely) free market is truly the best system we have devised for creating a just society. It doesn't achieve justice overnight; it takes time. It's not always right, but over time it stands the best chance of correcting itself of any system. So it will take time to deal with genetic engineering, as well. There will be some mistakes. Expect them. And in time they will be fixed. And The People will have a say in it.

Remember, there is also the Marketplace of Ideas! In a (relatively) free society such as ours, this is truly a wonderful marketplace, where everyone gets a voice and where ideas are truly abundant. Philosophers I suppose can be useful in this area, inasmuch as they can bring ideas into popular consciousness (where they are often distorted and misunderstood...) and provide frameworks for discussing those ideas. But they certainly can't ever control those discussions (nor should they ever, probably) which for better or for worse are in the hands of Everyone. Same as it ever was...

Sure, I would love it if philosophers could have a better chance at educating others about ideas and how to think about them. That would probably help a lot.