On organ harvesting - how would an enlightened person rule

[xerosaburu]

Would an enlightened person have any difficulty with the idea of scientists developing a breed of homo sapiens (actually sapien-less) sans cerebral cortex or midbrain for the use of organ harvesting?

Why or why not?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

We'd need a lot more information about the circumstances to answer that.

In present circumstances, it would not be a good idea. Why breed more brainless people when the planet is already overpopulated? For what? To save more of the already too-many people?

[sschaula]

If an enlightened person existed, they wouldn't be playing in this puddle of mud. Their mind would be focused on truth, and they'd have nothing to do with these things.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If an enlightened person wanted to stimulate thought in other people, the enlightened person would go where there are people who are open to having their minds stimulated. If that place happened to be a mud puddle, the enlightened person would not be snobbish about the location.
.

[sschaula]

Wrong. To the enlightened, the mud puddle and unenlightened people don't exist.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Your premise was

If an enlightened person existed,

If an enligtened person existed, then the unenlightened and the mud puddle would exist in an equivalent level of reality. If the unenlightened and the mud puddle did not exist to the enlightened person, the enlightened person would also not exist.
.

[sschaula]

If an enligtened person existed, then the unenlightened and the mud puddle would exist in an equivalent level of reality. If the unenlightened and the mud puddle did not exist to the enlightened person, the enlightened person would also not exist.

It's clear then that the enlightened person, the unenlightened person, and the mud puddle all don't exist.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'm fine with that. I'm not a fan of the word "enlightenment" or any of its derivatives, and the idea of mud not existing sounds grand to me, as that would mean that it would be impossible for mud-slinging to occur.
.

[Dan Rowden]

Would an enlightened person have any difficulty with the idea of scientists developing a breed of homo sapiens (actually sapien-less) sans cerebral cortex or midbrain for the use of organ harvesting?

Why or why not?

Well, the circumstances would have to be rather exceptional to have a need such as this. There are already better alternatives in the making.

Anyway, we have the Falun Gong for this purpose (yes, gratuitous organ harvesting joke - gratuitous because it seems to not actually be a joke).

[Dan Rowden]

Wrong. To the enlightened, the mud puddle and unenlightened people don't exist.

I don't know where you get this sort of idea but can you take it back and ask for a refund?

[David Quinn]

It might turn out that we will have to polarize the human race into two sub-species - one of these sub-species being the thinkers, the other the drones. We could use genetic technology to increase the philosophic capacity of the thinkers, and reduce the cerebral activity of the drones, programming them to experience pleasure in menial tasks. The drones could then be used as cleaners, maintenance workers, child-rearers, etc.

This is along the lines of what Aldous Huxley described in Brave New World - which I'm sure will cause a lot of people to shiver for no discernible reason. But it would be far better than the situation we have now, wherein everybody is half-thinker and half-drone. As it stands now, the drone in us restricts our thought-processes and limits our philosophic development, while the thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks. We should separate the two out and make both sides happy.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I have to disagree with the thought that child-rearers should be of low mental activity. Perhaps drones could be suitable for raising other drones, but to optimize thinking, children suitable for becoming thinkers should be raised, at least in part, by thinking adults - and not at all by totally dumbed-down drones. This would be a sacrifice on the part of the thinking adults, but perhaps the task could be split up so that it does not take a great deal of the thinkers' time. The time with the thinkers could be increased as the child gets older - and maybe graduated totally into the thinker's realm during the teenage years.
.

[sschaula]

I don't know where you get this sort of idea but can you take it back and ask for a refund?

I got it from thinking and not being told what to think. I could probably take it back for an exchange, but do you really think this kind of insanity is really worth the exchange:

"It might turn out that we will have to polarize the human race into two sub-species - one of these sub-species being the thinkers, the other the drones. We could use genetic technology to increase the philosophic capacity of the thinkers, and reduce the cerebral activity of the drones, programming them to experience pleasure in menial tasks. The drones could then be used as cleaners, maintenance workers, child-rearers, etc.

This is along the lines of what Aldous Huxley described in Brave New World - which I'm sure will cause a lot of people to shiver for no discernible reason. But it would be far better than the situation we have now, wherein everybody is half-thinker and half-drone. As it stands now, the drone in us restricts our thought-processes and limits our philosophic development, while the thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks. We should separate the two out and make both sides happy." - David Quinn

[Dan Rowden]

Well, you know Dave, he likes to pluck hypotheticals out of the air without really thinking them through properly, mostly, I suspect, to get a rise out of people like you. Having said that, what part(s) of the above do you find insane?

[sschaula]

People like me...haha.

One insane thing about it is breeding humans to be stupid. It's unethical. Remember the golden rule...would you want to be bred to be stupid? No? Then don't do it to others.

Another insane thing is David thinking he's wise (that's just my opinion of course).

Another is assuming that by setting up the genes for it, people would automatically become wise...or stupid if they were the drones. Indians have tried this with the whole caste system. Brahmins don't appear to me to be anything special. In fact, it seems that most of the "wise men" India produces don't come from Brahmin lineages.

Another is assuming that thinking and being physical oppose eachother. "The thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks." Is that a true statement?

And I'm not even mentioning the idea that a person who has a mental condition (even if it's just a way to get out of working) is saying that people like him may end up kind of ruling the world. "It might turn out that we will have to polarize the human race..."

This isn't simply a matter of David not thinking before he posts. It's a matter of him being kinda delusional. In my opinion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One insane thing about it is breeding humans to be stupid.

I didn't take it as he was thinking of breeding them to be stupid, just that once a fetus is conceived, determine if the person could be a thinker or not inclined to thought, to make life easier on those not inclined to thought by relieving them of their troublesome thinking. People do this all the time normally anyway - look at the rampant drug problem. People not inclined to thought already want to turn that part of their brains off so they can just happily get through the day. David's just talking about regulating that so that they can get their drug by natural endorphans which would be connected to accomplishing something useful.

Much of this is essentially academic anyway (since such technology doesn't exist), but it also serves as a good exercise in challenging what ethics are logical and loosening emotional reactions to outrageous suggestions to sift through for usefulness. It's philosophical batting practice.
.

[sschaula]

"We could use genetic technology to ... reduce the cerebral activity of the drones, programming them to experience pleasure in menial tasks." - David Quinn

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

"We could use genetic technology to ... reduce the cerebral activity of the drones, programming them to experience pleasure in menial tasks." - David Quinn

Yeah, I caught that the first time around. Maybe if I repeat myself... maybe if I state this in smaller chunks, you'll understand.

We do not currently have genetic technology capable of programming drones.

Programming drones is different from intentionally causing the conception of unintelligent people.

Unintelligent people are going to happen anyway - why not make their lives as meaningful and pleasant as possible?
.

[Shahrazad]

Elizabeth,

I didn't take it as he was thinking of breeding them to be stupid, just that once a fetus is conceived, determine if the person could be a thinker or not inclined to thought, to make life easier on those not inclined to thought by relieving them of their troublesome thinking.

But this is what David said in his first sentence:

It might turn out that we will have to polarize the human race into two sub-species - one of these sub-species being the thinkers, the other the drones.

Two subspecies means that your lineage will determine whether you will be considered a thinker or a drone, not your actual brain capacity.

I have to give you credit for trying hard to accept an idea that you know wouldn't work.

.

[sschaula]

E,

Maybe if I repeat myself...maybe if I state this in smaller chunks, you'll understand:

I didn't take it as he was thinking of breeding them to be stupid, just that once a fetus is conceived, determine if the person could be a thinker or not inclined to thought, to make life easier on those not inclined to thought by relieving them of their troublesome thinking.

There you said, "David wasn't talking about breeding people to be stupid."

"We could use genetic technology to ... reduce the cerebral activity of the drones, programming them to experience pleasure in menial tasks." - David Quinn

There David said, "We could breed people to be stupid."

...Maybe I'm missing something?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yes, you are missing something, but at the moment I'm not sure how to simplify it any further. It's almost 1:00 a.m. where I am, so I'll sleep on it. Maybe meanwhile someone else can explain the difference between breeding people to be stupid and rewiring the already developing fetuses that are destined to be stupid people.

[sschaula]

Ah I get it now. That's a really tiny difference between the two Elizabeth. Whatever...bed time.

[David Quinn]

Scott wrote:

One insane thing about it is breeding humans to be stupid. It's unethical.

Western culture currently breeds people to be extremely stupid, so can we conclude from this that Western culture is unethical?

Humans have been domesticating animals for thousands years, changing them from wild, alert animals to docile, passive ones. Would you say this is unethical as well?

Remember the golden rule...would you want to be bred to be stupid? No? Then don't do it to others.

I thought the Golden Rule was maximum happiness for everyone, in which case breeding two subspecies of happy beings fits the bill nicely. How many Golden Rules are there?

Another is assuming that by setting up the genes for it, people would automatically become wise...or stupid if they were the drones. Indians have tried this with the whole caste system. Brahmins don't appear to me to be anything special.

Not having the benefits of modern genetic technology, the Indians haven't even begun to explore the possibilities.

We need to face the fact that genetic technology with far-reaching powers is just around the corner, whether we like it or not. It's reality. If intelligent folk are just going to stick their heads in the sand and ignore it, then it opens the way for the cretins of this world to make use of it and breed people of their own design. In a hundred years, men everywhere will have jutting chins and the women blond hair and perfectly shaped breasts. Ken and Barbie clones will dominate the earth. They'll all want to be lawyers.

Another is assuming that thinking and being physical oppose eachother. "The thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks." Is that a true statement?

A lot of people seem to think so. It is more or less a basic tenet of modern society that thinking gets in the way of fun. People are constantly popping up on this forum to preach this.

-

[Katy]

Scott wrote:
Western culture currently breeds people to be extremely stupid, so can we conclude from this that Western culture is unethical?

Well, there is a difference between doing it intentionally and having it "just happen" as a result of our ancestors' own stupidity. There is a fairly significant difference between the two, I think because we're interfering directly. In other words, if there is someone who is destined to become a great thinker, but we decide to flip the "stupid switch" we could easily deprive ourselves of the best thinker of our age.

I thought the Golden Rule was maximum happiness for everyone, in which case breeding two subspecies of happy beings fits the bill nicely. How many Golden Rules are there?

No the Golden Rule - the only one I've ever heard anyone refer to as such - is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus said it, I think.

Another is assuming that by setting up the genes for it, people would automatically become wise...or stupid if they were the drones. Indians have tried this with the whole caste system. Brahmins don't appear to me to be anything special.

Not having the benefits of modern genetic technology, the Indians haven't even begun to explore the possibilities.

Not to mention the fact that there has to be a level of discontent before one can bother to want to be wise. The Brahman class in India really doesn't have too many problems to worry about - and thus no reason to desire to become wise or whatever.

Which is, in itself, another flaw with David's plan. We would need a way to prevent this utopia from actually seeming like a utopia to make people still care enough to think. And if we're making utopia not seem like utopia, what on earth is the point!?

Another is assuming that thinking and being physical oppose eachother. "The thinker in us prevents us from finding any real enjoyment in menial tasks." Is that a true statement?

A lot of people seem to think so. It is more or less a basic tenet of modern society that thinking gets in the way of fun. People are constantly popping up on this forum to preach this.

-

Basic tenets of modern society don't have a very strong pattern of being correct. There is certainly enjoyment to be had in discovering a new idea...

[David Quinn]

Katy wrote:

No the Golden Rule - the only one I've ever heard anyone refer to as such - is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus said it, I think.

Well, let's just hope that masochists don't adopt that rule.

Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength and all your soul". Shouldn't this be regarded as the Golden Rule?

-