FOOTHOLDS

[Shahrazad]

I don't have the time or energy for a longer reply, but I just wanted to say that I am definitely buying Pye's book, and promoting it in the small circle where I move.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Women and men have the same genetic code, except for one chromosome, the y, which is very defective compared to the x chromosome. Even if you figured out a way to breed men with men, nothing at all would be changed, except for a huge increase in hemophilia, Daltonism and other y chromosome related diseases.

It seems to me you're wrong here Shahrazad. First of all the difference in one chromosome or a thousand genes would amount to something huge, looking at chimpanzees. The around 2000 genes on the X might be in theory similar between genders but they are activated in whole different ways in females because the 'other X' is not completely dormant as there are a few hundred genes still pulling string on the background, a very significant amount and quite varying.

So we're not just talking about a down-sized Y in males but also a quasi-dormant X in the background with females that influences the total genome immensely. Sometimes it's even being said that there are two separate human genomes, a male and female one (saw even a quote from Willard, a geneticist at Duke University, stating just that).

I suppose Pye would quickly insert the possibility here that this activation of dormant genes in the 'other X' could be triggered by circumstances - as need dictates and would turn the female genome in the potential most flexible one! But it's hard to come up with the evidence for that and even if it were so, there's no reason not to imagine breeding a master-race of female sages instead, if the code would require it. That last bit is not meant too serious but serves to make the point that if genetics would ever be mastered to such level [which I doubt], the gender divide would have become blurred beyond definition already.

[Shahrazad]

Diebert,

I know that I didn't express myself too clearly, but I get pretty lazy sometimes, besides the fact of having too much to do. But David is looking at this all wrong. One of his sage-wanna-be followers (I think his name is Cory) even called women a "different species". It is as if we need to remind them that men are born from women, and get half of their genetic code from them. The other half comes from a man, half of whose genetic code also comes from a woman, and so on. Trying to breed women into another species, apart from being extremely misogynistic, implies that they fail to realize that the best male genes are coming from them.

Let me use myself as an example, again. I am not a masculine woman, as I don't have a high level of testosterone. But whatever genes are responsible for making testosterone are there, in my genetic code; they just did not get activated when I was in the uterus, or now for that matter, due to the fact that I'm a female. I come from a family of overachievers. My father was an alpha male (still alive), my brothers are alpha males, and my uncle was arguably the biggest alpha male of Latin America of the 20th century. I have good breeding genes if you care about power at all, and if I were to have male offspring, they would be alphas too. You'd be much better off trying to breed me with an alpha male to produce more alpha males, than you would be breeding an alpha male with a beta male.

You are a smart guy, Diebert, and I expect you to understand this, even if David and his wanna-be followers do not.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Although it was a bit tongue in cheek, I think the word species is pretty apt, as it basically means: a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

Woman are definitely in a class of their own - they are a distinct sort.

Ideally, man should continue to differentiate himself away from womankind and towards a new species: Mankind.

-----

[Ryan Rudolph]

David Quinn wrote:

It's going to happen whether we like it or not. Except those in charge of the engineering won't be the fab-five sages, it will be business tycoons, politicians, actors, etc. The cream of society.

Yes, unfortunately, Its seems as though all walks of life will have the power to create humans based on their own preferences, and the result is going to be an increasingly polarized world of Barbies, Kens, G.I. Joes, Scientists, and Sages.

Looks like the lights in the circus are going to get a whole lot brighter!

I can also imagine that religious groups will attempt to engineer their prophets back into existence. Christians will want to try to bring back Jesus, while Arabs will want to bring back the harem loving, thieving pillager Muhammad. And all the other religions will want to bring back their jokers too.

People will basically want to engineer their role models, as people will want their children to be what they envied, and venerated their entire lives.

But the problem is that at least 80% of the population envy very superficial people like actors, wrestlers, musicians, athletes, soldiers, religious leaders, billionaire tycoons, and so on. And then those types of people that the mainstream envies will only want to engineer clones of themselves. Unfortunately, It is probably less than 15% of people would prefer to have their children engineered as great solitary philosophers, or maybe scientists, which is where the trend should go. And the best scientists and philosophers are always men, so the masculine brain should be the preference. However, not many people will go for that.

It will be like breeding dogs, and the result will be a huge spectrum of extreme breeds. You have the jack Russell terrier, which I consider one of the stupidest dogs, as all it wants to do is play endlessly through habitual animalistic behaviors. However, then there are breeds like the gold retriever, which are quite calm, well-behaved, and very attuned to human communication and cues.

People will basically create exaggerated mutations of their former selves – for both the cause of supreme good and supreme evil.

[Cory Duchesne]

David Quinn wrote:

It's going to happen whether we like it or not. Except those in charge of the engineering won't be the fab-five sages, it will be business tycoons, politicians, actors, etc. The cream of society.

Yes, unfortunately, Its seems as though all walks of life will have the power to create humans based on their own preferences, and the result is going to be an increasingly polarized world of Barbies, Kens, G.I. Joes, Scientists, and Sages.

Looks like the lights in the circus are going to get a whole lot brighter!

I can also imagine that religious groups will attempt to engineer their prophets back into existence. Christians will want to try to bring back Jesus, while Arabs will want to bring back the harem loving, thieving pillager Muhammad. And all the other religions will want to bring back their jokers too.

This is doubtful. I think the religious types are going to be quite opposed to genetic engineering. I mean, just look at how anti-science Islam is. And consider how much controversy stem cell research has been in the states.

When genetic engineering becomes available, the first people in line will generally be the cleverest and most educated. And the ones who are most opposed to it will be the stupidest.

First, it will be the world's great academics, psychologists, neurologists, engineers, scientists, economists, teachers.

Second, it will be the world's great artists, actors, entertainers, athletes.

Last in line will be the religious types, who are generally less wealthy and intelligent.

[David Quinn]

Jason: You said earlier that "there is no escape" from culture, and the influence of socialization and role models.

And I say that again. Ever and ever increasing consciousness can only set up new conditions and live by them.

Pye seems to mean that we can indeed escape our own present-day culture through increasing consciousness, but not culture itself in the broadest sense of the word.

It is hard to know what she means by this. If a person is so conscious that his every thought and action is independently derived from his own reasonings, then in what way is he bound to a particular culture? Even if such people were to set up a new culture, a culture of optimizing consciousness, they still wouldn't be bound to it at an individual level.

I'm also not sure that Pye realizes that consciousness can really only be increased through increasing truthfulness. That is, by shedding mental blocks and delusions and every other hindrance that stands in the way of undistorted perception. But to Pye's mind, perhaps, the valuing of truth would constitute a limit and thus be an automatic no-no in her book.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Pye. Does the valuing of truth, and the process of mentally striving for perfect truthfulness, represent a hindrance or a springboard to optimizing consciousness, in your view?

-

[Leyla Shen]

First, it will be the world's great academics, psychologists, neurologists, engineers, scientists, economists, teachers.

Second, it will be the world's great artists, actors, entertainers, athletes.

Last in line will be the religious types, who are generally less wealthy and intelligent.

[laughs] From my understanding, Cory, you yourself fit in the "last in line" category, falling vastly short of any relationship with the other two...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory.

Last in line will be the religious types, who are generally less wealthy and intelligent.

You maybe right old boy, but then again, you could be dead wrong. You forget that many middle-eastern countries are run by Islamic clerics who are billionaires due to the oil wealth generated by decades of American, European and Asian thirst for oil. And many of these extreme groups are predicting the return of their prophet very soon, but when he fails to return, after many promises to their people, what will they do? Some Islamic radicals have convinced themselves that if they start large wars in the middle-east that their prophet will return, but how long can they get it wrong without drastically altering their strategy?

Christians are the same way, large followings are predicting the return of Jesus, especially evangelicals who have made millions of dollars from the dumbest Americans, and what will they do as they keep getting their predication date wrong? How desperate will they become? what alternatives will they turn to?

They are just wacky enough to turn to genetic engineering. Perhaps they’ll convince themselves that they’ve discovered the tomb of Jesus, or the tomb of Muhammad, and they’ll try to engineer a human based on the DNA samples that were found from hair or what not. Who knows…

It isn’t that far fetched. I predict that genetic engineering will be used for all sorts of tomfoolery. And the statistics speak for themselves – the majority of the wealth of the world is in the hands of humans that do not value ‘absolute truth’ so the result of that is we are going to see a fairly wide range of outcomes based on individual preferences.

Like I said, we'll have barbies, kens, G.I Joes, rockstars, attempts to reincarnate religious leaders, and so on. And hopefully some masculine philosophers and scientists in the mix there somewhere too.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory.

Last in line will be the religious types, who are generally less wealthy and intelligent.

You maybe right old boy, but then again, you could be dead wrong. You forget that many middle-eastern countries are run by Islamic clerics who are billionaires due to the oil wealth generated by decades of American, European and Asian thirst for oil. And many of these extreme groups are predicting the return of their prophet very soon, but when he fails to return, after many promises to their people, what will they do?

Hopefully drop their religious beliefs. But I guess that's just as likely as them wanting to genetically engineer a Jesus.

Christians are the same way, large followings are predicting the return of Jesus, especially evangelicals who have made millions of dollars from the dumbest Americans, and what will they do as they keep getting their predication date wrong? How desperate will they become? what alternatives will they turn to?

They'll probably keep doing what they've always done - blunder, die and be replaced by their kin who pridefully repress consciousness of their parents idiocy and hence repeat the same mistakes.

They (religious types) are just wacky enough to turn to genetic engineering.

What traits would they request? As far as I can see, the only trait that will make for a sensible request is compassion. And honestly, what kind of religious extremist really cares for compassion? What these extremists want is magic.

Perhaps they’ll convince themselves that they’ve discovered the tomb of Jesus, or the tomb of Muhammad, and they’ll try to engineer a human based on the DNA samples that were found from hair or what not. Who knows…

Just consider how important it is for religious extremists to have a sense of free will, soul and immortality. They would probably be disgusted by the idea that their savior has to be engineered like a robot. What extremists want is miracles and magic. They won't settle for any less.

[David Quinn]

Trying to breed women into another species, apart from being extremely misogynistic, implies that they fail to realize that the best male genes are coming from them.

Cloning techniques, IV technologies, surrogate wombs, and other such tricks will easily overcome that.

For example, we could select the brightest, most rational, most courageous, most creative people (of both sexes) on the planet, extract their genes, clone them and store them for future use. We could also select the most servile, dull-witted, contented, hard-working people on the planet and do the same with them. And then, if we wish to widen the sexes into different species, a master species and a slave species, we could ensure that male babies are only created out of the master genes, and the female babies out of the slave genes. Or vice versa.

Or even simpler, we could create a master race of both sexes, and a slave race of both sexes. Although, for this to be successful from a spiritual perspective, the females of the master race would have to be very different to the way women generally are now.

I'm not necessarily saying this should be the way to go. Just illustrating how easy it would be to do it on a technical level.

Also, I disagree with you that the desire to either raise women into master status or reduce them to slave status is misogynistic. At the moment, women are caught in between two worlds. They are expected to lead independent lives like men, without having the psychology and mental tools to do it properly. As a result, women are experiencing levels of stress like never before. It would be cruel, indeed misogynistic, to keep subjecting women to that kind of suffering, especially if we had the tools to do something about it.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

First, it will be the world's great academics, psychologists, neurologists, engineers, scientists, economists, teachers.

Second, it will be the world's great artists, actors, entertainers, athletes.

Last in line will be the religious types, who are generally less wealthy and intelligent.

[laughs] From my understanding, Cory, you yourself fit in the "last in line" category, falling vastly short of any relationship with the other two...

I was just giving a rough sketch, which didn't include the fate of admirers. For instance, there's much I admire about great psychologists, scientists, teachers, economists, neurologists and even artists. So, much like the people who I think will be "first in line" - I too would be eager to genetically engineer my children (if I was in a position where having children made sense).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One of his sage-wanna-be followers (I think his name is Cory) even called women a "different species".

But you don't see me doing something similar when I was referring to two separate human genomes, in the minds of at least a few scientists? The whole human genome usually stands for the human species genetically and that includes any common variation.

You'd be much better off trying to breed me with an alpha male to produce more alpha males, than you would be breeding an alpha male with a beta male.

Okay perhaps I misunderstood the topic. To me it appeared to be about consciousness in a masculine sense but not being caused by specific typical male genes at all. It might be more a case of it being inhibited and obscured by various factors, many of those being gene expressions that develop more readily through the female genome than the male one. Out of necessity of course, I mean, one could conceive of many good reasons for that in the course of evolution.

So any future meddling [which I personally doubt to develop to the extremes as suggested here] would involve isolating all genetic factors that endanger awareness and intelligence without removing essential elements needed for development. And such isolation might end up amounting to hardly anything at all, for all we know.

[xerox]

...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Just consider how important it is for religious extremists to have a sense of free will, soul and immortality. They would probably be disgusted by the idea that their savior has to be engineered like a robot. What extremists want is miracles and magic. They won't settle for any less.

That is only part of it. Many extremists resort to miracles and magic because there is no other quick solution to their moral indignation. Take Iran as an example. The Islamic Clerics are very upset over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and because they are quite powerless to stop them, they predict that their prophet will return to straighten the whole mess out after they have tried and failed themselves. It isn’t all about magic alone, it is about man’s desire for fairness, and his inability to witness suffering that he identifies with. So supernatural intervention is the best solution his dull mind can come up with. However, these same types of minds are also increasingly open to science and technology as they are witnessing what it is doing for the west.

All walks of life may get used to genetic engineering over time. All technology is eventually accepted, but the problem with genetic engineering is that even after it is accepted, man will still have a dimwitted consciousness, so superficiality is inevitable. I think you maybe a little too optimistic with your belief that GE will be dominated by the most intelligent. Look at the world, the people with the most power are not necessarily the most intelligent, and perhaps genetic engineering will be seen as an attractive new power that anyone with the money can weld.

Especially if GE becomes associated with a sort of financial elitism that only the richest can afford, everyone who can do it probably will. Moreover, Man’s desire for financial elitism will probably overcome his desire for things to stay magical and supernatural. Some deep rooted desires in men take precedence over each other. Moreover, as Free-market capitalism evolves, it has a way of allowing anyone to satisfy their desires easier. For instance: you want a nuclear submarine – sold. You want to live your life in a virtual world as a sexually desirable rock star – sold. You want to engineer a human that resembles Elvis Presley – sold. Anything and Everything is on the table in capitalism. And it makes for a bizarre world, as man’s desires are bizarre.

[Pye]

David: Pye seems to mean that we can indeed escape our own present-day culture through increasing consciousness, but not culture itself in the broadest sense of the word.

It is hard to know what she means by this.

We are not just conditioned by present day culture, but past culture as well. And we are not just conditioned by people and their collective doings (culture), but by everything we come in contact with. Everything. Food, air, sounds, animals, accidents, gamma rays . . . well, I simply cannot go on listing everything in the universe. I think perhaps folks are assuming that conditioning only comes from other people and that I mean to restrict this to human-generated things only (like culture). No, I mean all possible cause and effect. None can be sliced off from any other. Culture is only one aspect of what we are conditioned by. It is perhaps the most powerful because we can see like-beings doing things that we can mime, to more or less conscious degrees.

We should take note, though, that not one single feral child recognized the human being(s) that saw or "rescued" them as one of their own. There was no evidence whatsoever of innate recognition of being with one of its own species. None.

David: If a person is so conscious that his every thought and action is independently derived from his own reasonings, then in what way is he bound to a particular culture? Even if such people were to set up a new culture, a culture of optimizing consciousness, they still wouldn't be bound to it at an individual level.

Independent reasoning. What is that? You an island, David?

Even if this 'independent' thinker decides for itself it shall not go the way of culture, it still has culture defining where it will not go. Being not-bound is to recognize what means to bind. Moving away from that is shaping one's movements anyway.

David: I'm also not sure that Pye realizes that consciousness can really only be increased through increasing truthfulness. That is, by shedding mental blocks and delusions and every other hindrance that stands in the way of undistorted perception. But to Pye's mind, perhaps, the valuing of truth would constitute a limit and thus be an automatic no-no in her book.

You still feel the need to test me on truth?

What possible else could ever-and-ever increasing consciousness be becoming conscious-of?

I would be interested in your thoughts on this, Pye. Does the valuing of truth, and the process of mentally striving for perfect truthfulness, represent a hindrance or a springboard to optimizing consciousness, in your view?

It's not even a "springboard"! It's the whole enchilada! Truth is the what-is. What else would one be seeing with an ever and ever increasing consciousness?

xerox:
The male possesses both sets of sex selecting chromosomes.

The female selects exclusively for its own sex.

The male divides its commitment to the sexes.

The female commits exclusively to self preservation.

That sets up the primary foundation of the so-called 'lived being' and all its subsequent manifestations, as far as it relates to sexualised psychology and behaviour and the limitless directions in which that stuff gets projected.

I just love watching science set itself up as "neutral" with value-laden terms like these.

So you think you have found the ultimate, foundational, reductionary point from which all else springs? And you think in no way you have phrased it all to favor a superior role for the male?

No matter. I can work with this. If, by nature, males are committed to both sexes, then by transcendent idea, he has shoved off all the work on his selfish mate in order to claim his natural autonomy. Feminists all over the world would be applauding you right now for supporting male power-over as a social construct alone with no basis of authority in nature.

[Pye]

For anyone who is interested, just this last year, I found one book that comes the closest to the philosophical implications (i.e. wisdom/truth) about the problem of human nature presented by feral children. It is not as deep as I intend to go, but this book finally speaks of this topic in the depth it deserves.

It is titled, interestingly enough, Wolf Children and the Problem of Human Nature - some old work (1972) from a French professor of social-psychiatry.

ISBN#: 0-85345-264-4

edit: author Lucien Malson

[Fujaro]

xerox:
The male possesses both sets of sex selecting chromosomes.

The female selects exclusively for its own sex.

The male divides its commitment to the sexes.

The female commits exclusively to self preservation.

That sets up the primary foundation of the so-called 'lived being' and all its subsequent manifestations, as far as it relates to sexualised psychology and behaviour and the limitless directions in which that stuff gets projected.

I just love watching science set itself up as "neutral" with value-laden terms like these.

So you think you have found the ultimate, foundational, reductionary point from which all else springs? And you think in no way you have phrased it all to favor a superior role for the male?

No matter. I can work with this. If, by nature, males are committed to both sexes, then by transcendent idea, he has shoved off all the work on his selfish mate in order to claim his natural autonomy. Feminists all over the world would be applauding you right now for supporting male power-over as a social construct alone with no basis of authority in nature.

The above words of xerox cannot be science, though. Science doubts, religion claims absolutes.

[Pye]

Pye: I just love watching science set itself up as "neutral" with value-laden terms like these.

Fujaro: The above words of xerox cannot be science, though. Science doubts, religion claims absolutes.

Yes, perhaps I have the inverted commas around the wrong word in my sentence above!

"so-called . . ."

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Just consider how important it is for religious extremists to have a sense of free will, soul and immortality. They would probably be disgusted by the idea that their savior has to be engineered like a robot. What extremists want is miracles and magic. They won't settle for any less.

That is only part of it. Many extremists resort to miracles and magic because there is no other quick solution to their moral indignation.

Just as significantly, I think they fancy magic due to their fear of death and their fear of living without a God. To my mind, belief in afterlife and God is caused by weak intelligence and cowardice. And hence, the problem is that the Islamic clerics are going to want their savior to be courageous and intelligent - and naturally the geneticists are going to foresee this as problematic. They are going to ask perplexedly: "You want us to engineer someone who is courageous and intelligent, but you want him to passionately subscribe to your religion?"

But even that is shallow reasoning. What's more significant is that you cannot reconcile the view that humans are like robots with the view that a savior is someone sent by God to perform miracles.

Take Iran as an example. The Islamic Clerics are very upset over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and because they are quite powerless to stop them, they predict that their prophet will return to straighten the whole mess out after they have tried and failed themselves.

Straighten out the whole mess? Via what traits? The whole idea of a messiah/prophet is that he was sent by God with the ability to do miracles. You cannot reconcile this with GE, which claims that humans are robots.

It isn’t all about magic alone, it is about man’s desire for fairness, and his inability to witness suffering that he identifies with.

And it's about his fear of death, and his fear of living without a God.

So supernatural intervention is the best solution his dull mind can come up with. However, these same types of minds are also increasingly open to science and technology as they are witnessing what it is doing for the west.

Computers, planes and air conditioning - non-threatening stuff like that, yes. But the whole idea of a prophet/messiah is that he is sent by God to perform miraculous feats. This notion cannot be reconciled with the notion that humans are like robots whose traits are programmed. The former and the later cannot coexist - one of them has to go.

All technology is eventually accepted, but the problem with genetic engineering is that even after it is accepted, man will still have a dimwitted consciousness, so superficiality is inevitable.

I'll concede that GE will have no problem profiting off of those who want to engineer beauty/charisma. But I think GE services will face very serious logical and ethical difficulties when dealing with the the rare event of a religious guy wanting to engineer more than merely charisma.

I think you maybe a little too optimistic with your belief that GE will be dominated by the most intelligent. Look at the world, the people with the most power are not necessarily the most intelligent, and perhaps genetic engineering will be seen as an attractive new power that anyone with the money can weld.

I think at first the one's who are going to be most open to GE will be both A) the one's who understand it the clearest and B) the one's who are suffering from physical ailments the most.

Following these successes, yes, you'll see very wealthy people who want their children to be super athletic, charismatic and intelligent in some unique or general way.

But prophets/messiahs? I just think an attachment to such fancies represents a high level of irrationality, and such irrationality will have a very difficult time coherently coexisting with a GE service.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Straighten out the whole mess? Via what traits?

The only traits he could suggest are generic obscure traits that have many different meanings to different people. IE: honesty, compassion, trust, sympathy, patience, but with the appearance of his messiah.

But I think GE services will face very serious logical and ethical difficulties when dealing with the the rare event of a religious guy wanting to engineer more than merely charisma.

Or he might convince himself that just by creating the appearance of his savior, that god will take care of the rest, and magically fill the vessel with the life-force of the savior itself. Haven’t you ever watched the Mummy Trilogy? Come on, use your average joe generic imagination.. : )

Btw, It would be a farce, they would end up creating some mediocre John Dingleberry, but I think the possibility is there.

But prophets/messiahs? I just think an attachment to such fancies represents a high level of irrationality, and such irrationality will have a very difficult time coherently coexisting with a GE service.

Actually, perhaps you’re right, but here's one last counter, and then I'm spent….

How do you think a religious fanatic will react when he sees rich men creating the most sexually appealing women or the most athletic men on the planet? Could he be blown away by the results, and convince himself that GE MUST be aided by the hand of god? If he convinces himself that that god’s hand must be helping the scientists to create such “perfection”, then he might make the logical leap to convince himself that perhaps god’s hand will be with him as well, if he attempts to bring back his messiah of choice. Who knows… people don’t have to believe in the idea that humans are robot-like to subscribe to GE, they just have convince themselves that GE is divine somehow.

it's not impossible, but I'll admit that it won't as as common of an occurrence as Barbie, Ken, The Guitar hero, and the ultimate fighting championship competitor.

Now that I think about it, men will probably get fairly greedy and demand to look like Ken, with the superior music skills, combined with the brute strength. yes, its going to hurt the cause of wisdom quite a bit - To exaggerate all the characteristics that stunt the growth of rationality.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The male possesses both sets of sex selecting chromosomes.

The female selects exclusively for its own sex.

The male divides its commitment to the sexes.

The female commits exclusively to self preservation.

That sets up the primary foundation of the so-called 'lived being' and all its subsequent manifestations, as far as it relates to sexualised psychology and behaviour and the limitless directions in which that stuff gets projected.

This is especially funny coming from a guy who calls himself "xerox."

[Alex Jacob]

The Wild Child
The Wild Child---Musical

[Carl G]

Alex Jacob, linkster non pareil, no long diatribes tonight, just two enigmatic blue jots and fffffffssshhhhh --he's gone, like Batman, into the inky evening.

[Tomas]

Alex Jacob, linkster non pareil, no long diatribes tonight, just two enigmatic blue jots and fffffffssshhhhh --he's gone, like Batman, into the inky evening.

Don't bother clicking his links anymore. If he'd put some hint of what's there, perhaps.

A=A

.