And, yeah, I think the real issue behind elective, free-market genetic engineering is indeed going to turn out to be class. If genetic enhancements become available, they're going to be expensive, and so available primarily to families who can afford to give their kids an extra edge. As a society we place a great deal of value on the idea that a poor kid still has a reasonably good chance of pulling himself up and competing in the meritocracy against kids less humbly born than himself. So what happens when lower-class people start to realize that they actually are, provably and irreversibly, not as smart, not as attractive, not as whatever as rich people, simply because their parents couldn't afford to give them these extra enhancements in the womb? When being born rich really can make you a "better person" by any meaningful metric?
Even if some enhancements to get cheaper, the best ones will always be available to the upper-upper class. And then, oops, we've created a permanent master class, in which the folks who couldn't afford genetic enhancements will never be able to compete for the best jobs, and as a result they won't be able to buy their kids those enhancements either.
I dunno, it just seems like a can of worms.
Originally posted by darthmixIt's already been opened. Look at plastic surgery...expensive designer clothing etc. It's all designed to separate people from one another and to give someone a perceived edge over the rest of us.
And then, oops, we've created ac permanent master class, in which the folks who couldn't afford genetic enhancements will never be able to compete for the best jobs, and as a result they won't be able to buy their kids those enhancements either.
I dunno, it just seems like a can of worms.
Someone gets something so you have to get something better...then they have to get something else even better...it's a never ending loop.
Genetic enhancement is inevitable because humans can't stand feeling like they aren't as good or equal, or better than someone else.....and there's a boatload of money to be made by capitalizing on this falability.
Originally posted by uzlessTrue. The loop is pretty insidious, too. Once everyone's been enhanced, the playing field has been leveled, and then everyone will be on to the next new enhancement.
It's already been opened. Look at plastic surgery...expensive designer clothing etc. It's all designed to separate people from one another and to give someone a perceived edge over the rest of us.
Someone gets something so you have to get something better...then they have to get something else even better...it's a never ending loop.
Genetic enhance ...[text shortened]... ne else.....and there's a boatload of money to be made by capitalizing on this falability.
Hands-on reshaping of boobs and reeling in the cash all day - I should have been a plastic surgeon. 😞
Originally posted by uzlessSure, but I get the sense that what's coming is going to be qualitatively different from stuff like plastic surgery. We have a deep cultural skepticism of vanity; the moral sense (though we don't always follow it) is that we shouldn't focus overmuch on personal appearance, but should judge people by their character. That's why people who've had plastic surgery often deny it. There's the sense that getting it implies shallowness, which runs counter to our social conception of personal virtue. Celebrities who overemphasize physical beauty - the Paris Hiltons, the Britneys - are made mockeries of. They're not the golden children of the culture.
It's already been opened. Look at plastic surgery...expensive designer clothing etc. It's all designed to separate people from one another and to give someone a perceived edge over the rest of us.
Someone gets something so you have to get something better...then they have to get something else even better...it's a never ending loop.
Genetic enhance ...[text shortened]... ne else.....and there's a boatload of money to be made by capitalizing on this falability.
But now we're on the brink of genetic enhancements that could actually make your kid smarter than the other kids. Intelligence is a trait that is universally prized and respected. When we get to the point that we can actually buy our kids superior minds, in addition to better bodies, we're calling into question the whole nature of individual responsiblity, competition and self-reliance. Today we can at least hope that the kids who find their way into positions of power and influence got their on their own merits. Tomorrow, they'll have gotten there on merits which were purchased for them, and installed in-utero, by their rich parents. And they won't have reason to hide the fact that they've been enhanced; they'll want to advertize the fact, since it'll look better on job applications, etc.; any prospective employer would have reason to believe that the enhanced applicant has an edge over the unenhanced one.
Today people who live humble lives can take critical self-satisfaction in the fact that, to a large degree, they're the lives they chose. I didn't get plastic surgery because I don't want it; I don't value looks that much. I value deeper qualities. And so on. But tomorrow, I won't be able to say that. I'll have to admit that the reason I'm middle class, or lower middle-class, or poor, etc., is because I'm competing against well-adjusted supergeniuses whose smarts were bought at birth. My lot in life ceases to be something I've chosen, and I can no longer claim - even to myself - that I'm not inferior to the upper class. That becomes a serious social problem, I think.
Originally posted by darthmixYou make valid points.
Sure, but I get the sense that what's coming is going to be qualitatively different from stuff like plastic surgery. We have a deep cultural skepticism of vanity; the moral sense (though we don't always follow it) is that we shouldn't focus overmuch on personal appearance, but should judge people by their character. That's why people who've had plastic surg rior to the upper class. That becomes a serious social problem, I think.
But I also suggest, in parallel i suppose, that our current society also doesn't value intelligence. Just look at what's on TV, radio, news. Almost everything out there doesn't demand any thinking on the part of the participant.
"No one likes a know-it-all" comes to mind as the catchphrase for today's society. People who are cute/sexy or do stupid things tend to get all the attention while someone doing worthwhile things are ignored or labelled as "boring".
It'll be interesting to see which way society turns, but I suspect it'll be like the environment and politics. Everyone "says" they care about the environment but when you have two parties, one offering tax cuts and then other offering improvements in the environment, people vote for the tax cut.
Pay money for my kids intelligence or buy a new tv? We'll see but i think at best (or worst), the rich will go for it, and the middle-class and poor will continue deriding intelligence while they lap up the testicle and fart jokes.
It is an interesting notion, human evolution. Some might say it has already happened in the way so many ethnic groups breed amongst themselves that they have quite different genetic characterstics.
I suppose the only way we could truely claim to have 'evolved' would be for two group to become so genetically different that they could no longer interbreed. I am sure it would happen in several thousand years time, whether the human race will still be around to see it is another matter...
Originally posted by darthmixHitler wasn't interested in improving the whole human race, just making everyone more Aryan, I think that is a major difference in our present era. We want to eliminate Tay Sacs because its bad not because some set of Jews get it, for example. And the trend would or should be if a kid has a genetic defect, then try to correct that defect FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL, not eugenically eliminate his gene pool, but to make the existing gene pool better one person at a time getting better, fixing what is doing bad things to them. I think that is a much better aim for Eugenics than weeding out characteristics by involuntary
For the record, I wasn't saying that eugenics isn't bad; I was just rejecting the argument that it's bad BECAUSE it was associated with Hitler et.al.
sterilization. That kind of thing will be relagated to the same level as female circumcision morally speaking.
I suppose the only way we could truely claim to have 'evolved' would be for two group to become so genetically different that they could no longer interbreed. I am sure it would happen in several thousand years time, whether the human race will still be around to see it is another matter...
Well, people arrived in the Americas at least 10,000 BCE, and then had basically zero contact with the old world until the fifteenth century. Since they still interbreed with Europeans etc. just fine, it looks like speciation in humans takes more than a few thousand years.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexYeah, I think that's it exactly. We've created a way of life that insulates us from most of the pressures of survival that drive evolution in nature.
Or, more likely, we ignore the concept of survival of the fittest which would weed out the weaker genes from the pool and allow any advantagious mutations to flourish.
Originally posted by PBE6Balanced Polymorphism
[b]Here's a definition of eugenics taken from Wikipedia:
"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
The improvement of human hereditary traits has actually been happening since we became humans, through the process of natural sele pete every other human due to increased strength, intelligence, disease resistance, etc...
Looking at sickle cell anemia, caused by a single nucleotide mutation.
although this is a seriously debilitating disease, it actually provides
a genetic advantage in providing resistance to malaria infections.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html
It's important to note that it is not always the immediately obvious
traits that provide benefits to an evolving species.
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm ok with genetic manipulation to correct genetic diseases.
Can we take a moral stand to improve the lot of humans through genetic manipulation? Like to genetically get rid of Tay-Sacs, or to rid the genes of some of the virus loads, or to find the compassion gene if there is one, and enhance it in the world's population, or fine-tuning the immune system to eliminate auto-immune disorders if it is proven in the future to be possible to do just that, stuff like that, are we as a race ok with such tampering?
On the other hand, I'm very skeptical of most behavioural genetics where most of the knowledge we have is purely statistically-based, with no causality link observed. Also, who decides what is 'compassion' and what is the 'perfect' behaviour? It also raises such ethical questions, which are not the usual "what do we have the right to do", which I don't tend to support.
So I'd be staunchly against doing things like 'enhancing the compassion gene'.
To answer the thread title, I'd say then "Yes, but it depends on which aspects of evolution".
Originally posted by darthmixIf IQ test results are to be believed, kids all over the world ARE getting smarter for whatever reason, IQ numbers going up by a few points per decade. Is that evolution or environment? One point of the idea of genetically modifying progeny to be smarter, even though society as a whole dumbs down in entertainment, smarter ones are usually the ones who end up in power so they will by their activities create a cultural divide. I would think even in a culture that downplays intelligence, the ones who are brighter will still have the advantage, easier time through school, higher level degrees, better able to manipulate the dumber ones and so rising higher in political power, etc. They may also be the ones who save our sorry assses from destroying the planet.
Sure, but I get the sense that what's coming is going to be qualitatively different from stuff like plastic surgery. We have a deep cultural skepticism of vanity; the moral sense (though we don't always follow it) is that we shouldn't focus overmuch on personal appearance, but should judge people by their character. That's why people who've had plastic surg ...[text shortened]... rior to the upper class. That becomes a serious social problem, I think.
Man has interfered with his own evolutional improvement for quite some time. Simpletons, at one time in history, would fall prey to their own unintelligent acts, trapping themselves in life ending situations, or providing food to carnivours, before they could reproduce. Another example is improved medical proceedures in the last half century. Take heart defects as one example. Children and babes with, lets say a defective heart valve as example, are repaired, thus this defect has been multiplied. That is only one example of how modern man has negated natural selection. Although, who cannot feel the joy of parents when such a child is saved.
One must understand the overall efect. Since the genetically inferior have been given a full life on one hand...is it a responsible act to use eugenics to avoid their reproduction on the other? Compassion is expensive. Great cost was first incurred with saving these lives and secondly, afer defect proliferation, even greater cost if one choses to employ genitic alteration.