GENIUS FORUMS

The obvious problem with David's suggestion of breeding drones to do menial tasks, is that they won't be able to do them properly. It could be a disaster, like in the Marching Morons. The thinkers would be their slave-like supervisors, just to keep humanity alive. And as David predicts quite rightly, there'd be a horrendously complicated legal system. Just like in Kafka's book, The Trial.

Well, actually, what's the difference?

I mean, look at how customer service persons have to keep passing decision-making responsibility up the line. No one can make sense of the legalities unless they are way up the line, in which case they're like The Ruler of the Universe in HG Galaxy, and have virtually no interest or time for deciding on individual cases.

Thinkers need total exemption from the law to get anything done.

Xerosaburu's question is easily answered, in that, if a person hasn't the wit or will to make sense of things, then they've opted to be open to nonsense. If such a thing can be decided consciously, that is.

Telling people that you'll treat them like meat if that's what they want, is good for them. They'll rail.

This topic reminds me of the film The Island.

The initial experiments showed that the harvested clone body did not survive without the brain having some input, some life, to keep the organs alive. The will to live. It's only science fiction, but the principal is valid.

harvesting wouldnt work in any practical way.

The human organism is already infinitely over-enginereed for its purpose.

Perhaps by the time we have perfected genetic engineering
(to the degree that we could try carrying out David's vision) we will have also developed robotics to the degree that menial labor could start being carried out by the robots. So maybe we could just, as robotics progresses, gradually eliminate stupidity altogether, while constantly increasing intelligence. To the degree we eliminate stupidity and increase intelligence, our robotics, you'd think, would become more and more sophisticated. But then again, how demanding would it be on the most intelligent human brain to understand how to design and maintain these robots. How enslaved would we be to our slaves?

If we were wise, not at all.

But a robotics engineer doesnt seem likely to be wise.

And a wise man doesnt seem likely to be a robotics engineer.

The same goes for genetic engineering.

Can a human being become a genetic engineer, and be wise?

How many times have we heard David express his Kierkegaardian distaste for Scientists? Yet many of David's visions seem to depend on the abilities of these wisdom-impaired scientists.

David's hypotheticals are stupid. He needs to stop engaging in them.

No reasoning, Dan?

David,

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

It is unethical. The main difference between what you are proposing and the society we already have is that the elite class would be formed by the thinkers instead of the capitalists. But for the masses, I don't see that much would change.

.

Cory wrote:

Can a human being become a genetic engineer, and be wise? But a robotics engineer doesnt seem likely to be wise.

Both of these functions are interesting and feasible for a wiseman, but only if they are done in small doses. A wise man could be a genetic engineer, but if he only had to work for few hours a day, look at the wisdom Solway possesses and he is a computer programmer.

For instance: if I got up everyday, and worked for a couple hours knowing that I was reducing stupidity in the world by manipulating the human genome, then that would a very fulfilling task.

it would be much more fulfilling and effective than trying to teach genetic misfits like Suergaz, Millipodium and Unwise what is means to be wise.

Technology will require much less labour, especially when it reaches the nano-stage of production when it can self-regenerate and replicate like the human cell.

My theory:

Eventually what needs to happen is that once genetic engineering evolves to the stage where it can treat things like heredity diseases, alcoholism and manic depression, a group of wisemen need acquire some power, build a research facility, and compare their genome’s to a regular bloke off the street. And then through analysis discover what the foundation is for a wiseman, and publish their findings, calling it the “Genius Genome”

However, this doesn’t mean that uniqueness would be eliminated; it just means that people’s existing genes could possibly be altered to reflect the “foundation”.

Moreover, I would imagine that if we took many of the tops thinkers from this forum, and isolated their genomes, we should discover a foundation that each one shares with the rest. and then if compared with the regular unconscious blokes off the street, we should discover that their mutations stifle the functioning of this “foundation’’

So if you fix the mutations, then the 'foundation' is able to function. That's what I think anyway.

Eventually Eugenics could be regarded as something that creates superhumans that do not suffer like that rest, and this could create a desirable atmosphere. Eugenics Companies would produce genius children for people, and would advertise their services suggesting that to that to have a child the natural way is primitive, inferior and child abuse.

Dan Rowden wrote:David's hypotheticals are stupid. He needs to stop engaging in them.

I still think this is good mental exercise, prompts more posting than the stuff that has been over many times, and are an improvement over such topics as what to do with a philosophy degree. So what if as far as practicality goes, these exercises have holes in the theories big enough to lob melons through, especially as far as defining parameters? We have observed how quickly mental pathways deteriorate if one does not engage in thinking regularly, so the exercise is still good.

David Quinn wrote:We need to face the fact that genetic technology with far-reaching powers is just around the corner, whether we like it or not.

Well it is a pretty big, opaque corner - we don't know exactly what the possibilities and limitations are of it yet. A single gene may be ultimatly responsible for multiple things. For example, what if by turning down the wisdom, we simultaneously turn up the unwise compassion? I would have to say that people who bomb women's health clinics that perform abortions are not particularly wise people. What if the drones decide that the wise are compassionless, cold-hearted monsters? Even if each drone is happy with his/her life, with their intelligence turned down they may have increased compassion for other drones and perceive that other drones are being abused - and compassionatly go out and kill wise people in order to set their fellow drones free?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Perhaps by the time we have perfected genetic engineering (to the degree that we could try carrying out David's vision) we will have also developed robotics to the degree that menial labor could start being carried out by the robots.

Much menial labor is already carried out by robots. Even if we increased robotics technology to the point of androids that could do everything from incubate fetuses to care for newborns, ill/injured and elderly - we would still have unintelligent people being born, at least for awhile (plus a few genetic throwbacks and the occassional birth defect [actually, unintelligence could come to be regarded as a birth defect or life-incurred injury like mental retardation is currently considered]). The robots/androids would then become a redundancy - or the unintelligent humans could be seen as redundancies that might as well be exterminated. Wouldn't it be more ethical to keep the unintelligent humans alive and help them be happy with their work than just exterminate them?

Furthermore, by the time we improve robotics technology to that degree, we probably also would have been able to program thinking into computers to the point that a computer could think far better than any human. At that point, the sages would become worse than redundant as their thinking would be inferior to the computers, so then the sages might as well be exterminated.
.

David said:

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

Sort of. I would answer yes, but the answer could very well be no for a few reasons. One is that western culture as a whole doesn't know what it's doing to itself. You know that whole idea about a blind man leading another, and both falling into a trap? Can it really be said the blind man was unethical when he wasn't able to see the trap?

Also, western society doesn't value wisdom. It doesn't want to be wise. If it did, then western society breeding its populations to be stupid would be unethical.

Third, I don't think people are extremely stupid on the whole. People are pretty smart. It takes a lot of intelligence to know how manifest intelligence on a large scale, though. Takes a lot of teamwork. When you have a lot of intelligent people with different opinions, it makes the group seem like a bunch of morons.

Also, when you look at famous people like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, or whatever dumbass is famous in Australia...keep in mind that they don't represent the population. They're just one person who a lot of people watch.

Looking at people from a distance distorts who they truly are.

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?

Yeah, I don't like the idea of breeding good animals into pet animals. For instance, my relatives recently had to put down their golden retriever because its hips were in horrible shape...a normal condition for that breed. Was it worth the choice to make such a loyal and compassionate pet, and have it live in pain? Seems like a very selfish thing to me - to selectively breed based on what we think is correct.

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?

Apparently there's a few different kinds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule

There's only one in the sense that we're talking about, in my opinion best said by Jesus. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Also in my opinion, this is the core of any discussion on ethics or morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

It would be ethical if the thing you valued most was happiness. But since the thing you value the most, apparently, is truth - it's unethical.

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

Do you know anything about modern genetic technology? Selective breeding isn't outdated.

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.

Haha...yeah maybe so. We had better think about how to use this technology responsibly and ethically, then.

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.

Just because a lot of people think something is true, that doesn't make it true.

Katy,

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!?

A very good point. Maybe we could torture the wise men, and throw stones at them and spit on them. Just really make them suffer, so they could rise to the highest heights of wisdom.

Still want to be wise?

Just kidding of course.

David again,

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?

That's the greatest commandment, not the golden rule. :)

If I believe that the Golden Rule is the most important thing Jesus said, it doesn't follow that I must believe everything he said. I am believing in the Golden Rule, not in Jesus' words. So if he said "Love God, that's the most important commandment", I don't have to believe that he's right there simply because I believe "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is right.

The importance lies in the idea, not the person with the idea.

Both of these functions are interesting and feasible for a wiseman, but only if they are done in small doses. A wise man could be a genetic engineer, but if he only had to work for few hours a day, look at the wisdom Solway possesses and he is a computer programmer.

Sure, that's not a bad point. But then again, the difference between writing some basic computer programs independently compared to genetically engineering human beings in cooperation with other geneticists - may prove to be quite a significant difference.

It's not just the ammount of study and devotion that might significantly differ basic computer programing from genetic engineering, but also the lack of independence a Solway-type would have if he wanted to dabble in genetic engineering.

He would have to cooperate with the agenda of the other geneticists or roboticists - and my concern is that, sure, a very rare human might emerge who both has an interest in genetic engineering (or robotics) and philosophy, but he would be at odds with the more mediocre agenda of your more typical scientist who is concerned more with augmenting what gives base pleasure - femininity. And if feminity is what is prioritized, then we will surely enslave ourselves further.

There will be a superficial change in regards to sophistication, but the same basic underlying dynamic will continue.

For instance: if I got up everyday, and worked for a couple hours knowing that I was reducing stupidity in the world by manipulating the human genome, then that would a very fulfilling task.

Have you given any thought to what modern psychology is advocating as the ideal psychological temperment?

When the geneticists attempt to engineer the ideal temperment, they are going to be aiming through the scope of modern psychology, which seems to regard wisdom as psychopathic, anti-social, dyfunctional, etc.

But then again, my first year textbook in psychology does suprise me at times. It doesnt shy away from showing distinct differences in men and women. After reading the text book, a fairly logical person can't help but see women as the weaker sex. There's a much greater susceptibility in women to almost all psychological disorders, especially those pertaining to anxiety, dissociation, depression and panic. So perhaps its not that unreasonable that a concensus may develop among geneticists that masculinizing human beings further is the way to go.

If you consider the influence hollywood has had on humanity, it's a no brainer. It's time that scientists make that big step and start valuing masculine and feminine psychology as a subject, and begin applying it to societies ills.

* edited for spelling and grammar ;)-

(clipped to isolate points)

Ryan Rudolph wrote: through analysis discover what the foundation is for a wiseman...
...this doesn’t mean that uniqueness would be eliminated; it just means that people’s existing genes could possibly be altered to reflect the “foundation”.
...we should discover that their mutations stifle the functioning of this “foundation’’

So if you fix the mutations, then the 'foundation' is able to function.

I'm going to nit-pick the terminology here to reveal what may (or may not) be a significant point.

Since wise people are so rare, wouldn't it follow that wisdom is the mutation?
.

Elizabeth,

Cory: Perhaps by the time we have perfected genetic engineering (to the degree that we could try carrying out David's vision) we will have also developed robotics to the degree that menial labor could start being carried out by the robots.

Eliz: Much menial labor is already carried out by robots. Even if we increased robotics technology to the point of androids that could do everything from incubate fetuses to care for newborns, ill/injured and elderly - we would still have unintelligent people being born

If you go back and give my post a closer read, you'll see that I addressed this problem by advocating that we simply engineer all new pregnancies to exclude stupidity. The problem I should have addressed though, is people would be slipping under the radar contantly - we couldnt depend on all humans to plan their pregnancies and have their kids engineered. There would be too many pregnancies and not enough engineers. With David's idea it's exactly the same, we could attempt to engineer a polarization of humanity 'IF' we could get humans to cooperate with the plan. But there would be to many unplanned pregnancies that we wouldnt be able to keep track of.


What option do you think the public would swallow most readily?

a) Half of you are going to engineer your kids to be happy, idiotic, menial-task-doing drones, while the other half of you are going to have your kids engineered to be God's. (quite an indignant stir would result from this I would think)

or

b) All of you are going to have your kids engineered to be super intelligent Gods, and robots will be created to serve as menial-task doing drones. (I think this will be the easier medicine for people to swallow)

But then again, who says that these new humans have to be anybody's kids?

And that question brings us to option c) babies are going to be born in labratories - -

And if that's the case, then why not just settle for making only intelligent humans and leave it to the roboticists to create the menial-task-doing drones?

You say that it's problematic due to the excess of untreated stupid people who are left to stumble about more naturally - - but those people are going to be a problem no matter what way you choose to go.

Cory Duchesne wrote:After reading the text book, a fairly logical person can't help but see women as the more weaker sex. There's a much greater succeptibility in women to almost all psychological disorders, especially those pertaining to anxiety, dissociation, depression and panic.

(bold added to poke fun at Cory)

So are men the "most betterest" (roll eyes) and as for "succeptibility" - did you mean "susceptibility" or were you demonstrating that men are more prone to not paying attention to details to the point that males more often have ADD and ADHD? It is also more common for males to get schizophrenia and to be physically violent.

There are differences between the genders, but neither gender is perfect - they both have problems related to being in the animal realm.
.

Let's hope Elizabeth that they study your genes for the key to good spelling and grammar - and exclude mine.

;)

As for paying attention to details, yes women do tend to focus on trivialities at the expense of the big picture.

ADD and ADHD may simply be the masculine mind rebelling against the feminine insistence to focus on trivialities and inanities.

Cory Duchesne wrote:a) Half of you are going to engineer your kids to be happy, idiotic, menial-task-doing drones, while the other half of you are going to have your kids engineered to be God's. (quite an indignant stir would result from this I would think)

Where are you getting this "half" stuff? You're still acting like it's arbitrary from before the fertilization of the egg.

Nevermind - I'm not going to argue this or the other points that are just a matter of repeating what has already been said. I have learned that once you get an idea in your head from only half-paying attention, even after a lot of typing there is still only a small chance that you'll get the rest of the idea.

Cory Duchesne wrote:But then again, who says that these new humans have to be anybody's kids?

That's kind of what I was suggesting on the division of labor of raising the children. Shift work would work out better for raising children anyway as all children eventually wear on their parent's nerves. Even if attachment were kept active amongst the drones to provide children with emotional nurturance, a situation more like a boarding school where the attached adults could visit regularly (and go away before they lose their tempers) would provide the children with a continual stream of refreshed adults to guide their development rather than just one or two frazzled adults in charge of the majority of their young lives.

Cory Duchesne wrote:You say that it's problematic due to the excess of untreated stupid people who are left to stumble about more naturally - - but those people are going to be a problem no matter what way you choose to go.

Not if they are managed wisely.
.

Elizabeth,

The crux of the problem is this:

Whether you go with David's polarization idea, or you instead focus on engineering all humans to be more intelligent and depend on robots for labor - you are still going to have the crude, unplanned pregnancies happening.

Whether the polarization is between superhumans and docile humans, or superhumans and robots - we are still faced with the challenge of what to do with the volatile general pop. stuck in the middle.

Can they be managed wisely? Perhaps. If you take away all vices from the market and leave them only with the most harmless tools, then maybe they will do little harm to themselves, to the robots, and to the masters.

Perhaps you are suggesting that hope lies in the possibility of a successful dictatorship lead by the genetic elite.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Whether you go with David's polarization idea, or you instead focus on engineering all humans to be more intelligent and depend on robots for labor - you are still going to have the crude, unplanned pregnancies happening.

Gads, okay, I'll go through this one more time.

1. A pregnancy happens -planned or unplanned.

2. Scientists look at the fetus to see if it is going to become a buddha or an Anna Nicole Smith.

3 (a). - It's a buddha - so leave it alone.

3 (b). - It's an Anna Nicole. It has a propensity to care about the environment, plants, and that sort of thing, but it will get bothered by things going wrong. Adjust it so it won't be so bothered by things going wrong by causing it to not think about things so much. It leads a happy life spent raising crops instead of drugging itself to death over problems. Let the buddha deal with the problems.
.

Elizabeth,

It's an Anna Nicole. It has a propensity to care about gardening a lot

I would think the propensity would be more aimed at wanting to be loved by men, to be famous, to eat junk, to lose weight, wear makeup, etc.

As for the gardening, maybe raising flowers, it doesnt require much thought - but the science of sustainable food production, if you can appreciate Bill Mollison, David Holmgren and Fukuoka, requires a fairly single-minded, hardworking, scientific and philosophical mind.

But it will get bothered by things going wrong. Adjust it so it won't be so bothered by things going wrong by causing it to not think about things so much.

Why not just take that extra step and adjust it to not be bothered by thinking?

And again, I'll repeat:

Whether the polarization is between superhumans and docile humans, or superhumans and robots - we are still faced with the challenge of what to do with the volatile general pop. stuck in the middle.

In other words, there is going to be a massive disproportion between supply and demand. Between the geneticists and the the rest of the population, most of which will be angrily opposed to the idea anyway.

I mean, Dan doesnt even like it.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I mean, Dan doesnt even like it.

Oh, well, if Dan doesn't like something, let's just pack up and walk away. Heaven forbid we disagree with Dan's unsubstantiated dislikes.

This is just an exercise.

Cory Duchesne wrote:there is going to be a massive disproportion between supply and demand. Between the geneticists and the the rest of the population, most of which will be angrily opposed to the idea anyway.

You keep throwing around terms like "ruling class" and "dictatorship" but it would be more like sages taking on the role of servant-leader. By definition of a sage, the sages can not go on a power-trip over this.

Furthermore, the drones get the nice life, and the life of the sage will comparitively suck. The drones get to be happy for doing simple tasks, and the sages have to manage everything. Something goes wrong and the sages have to fix it while the drones wander around to the theme song "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

Nevertheless, like you said, nobody is going to actually go for this, so it would never be implemented. Like I said: this is just an exercise.

Cory Duchesne wrote:what to do with the volatile general pop.

That's already turned off with the undue thinking and the built-in reward mechanism for doing right things.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I would think the propensity would be more aimed at wanting to be loved by men, to be famous, to eat junk, to lose weight, wear makeup, etc.

These things are useless - why enhance them? She also had a propensity to love and want to nurture children, but since that is mostly to be handled by sages, there's no need to enhance that in her. She can tend children too, especially when the children are too young to get much benefit from the sages.
.

Dan wrote:

David's hypotheticals are stupid. He needs to stop engaging in them.

I think they are useful in throwing a different light on people's attachments. It doesn't matter if these "hypotheticals" are science-fiction or not.

-

Elizabeth,

Cory: I mean, Dan doesnt even like it.

Eliz: Oh, well, if Dan doesn't like something, let's just pack up and walk away. Heaven forbid we disagree with Dan's unsubstantiated dislikes.

Thanks for taking it out of context.

My point is that if a close colleague of David's opposes the idea, even if on illogical grounds, the rest of the population will thus not have anything to do with it. This isn't really about dogmatically following Dan simply because he's Dan. You were smart enough to figure this out, but I guess, once again, your desire for bravado and caricatured masculinity outweighed your better sense.

Elizabeth wrote:
This is just an exercise.

Well, maybe for you, it's just a big hamster wheel to give your vanity a work out. For me, I think genetic engineering is a very real possibility and deserves serious discussion rather than just academic hypothesizing for the sake of exercise.

But God knows what you mean by excercise. Excercise as opposed to what? Reality?

I am doing my best to find reality - - often this involves taking a perhaps unrealistic or overly simple proposition and refining it to a point where it might possibly become valued as a potential reality to aim for.

The drones get the nice life, and the life of the sage will comparitively suck. The drones get to be happy for doing simple tasks, and the sages have to manage everything.
Something goes wrong and the sages have to fix it while the drones wander around to the theme song "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

Isn't the whole point of a sage is that he prevents problems instead of experiencing/creating them? That he works without doing? That he is free from suffering? It doesnt seem right to say that he is always fixing problems and managing everything as if it's a big hassel. It doesnt seem right to say that his life comparitively sucks more than the mindless lemming.

Nevertheless, like you said, nobody is going to actually go for this, so it would never be implemented. Like I said: this is just an exercise.

Well, again, for you, this might be nothing more than intellectual indulgence, a mere gratification without any practical value.

In my case, I am open minded to some sort of scenario that involves genetic engineering, I think people should seriously talk about it so that by the time scientists start doing it, people will have a better understanding of what the motives, implications, complications and rationalizations are. And so that means being open to facing and anticipating the sorts of resistances, sociological and ethical problems we are going to have to deal with when the time comes.

Cory: what to do with the volatile general pop. ?

Elizabeth: That's already turned off with the undue thinking and the built-in reward mechanism for doing right things.

And it is the above statement, along with your glib emphasis on 'excercise' that indicates to me that there is not much point in having a serious discussion with you on this topic. You've reduced the whole issue down to a pointless cartoon.

Genetically engineering even 10% of the population successfully would be quite a feat - not to mention an incredibly expenseive one. It would only be the wealthy and well connected who would be served. Like I said before, there would be a tremendous disproportion between the demand of the public and the limited supply of geneticists. And let's not forget to mention the ammount of effort and money that will go into treating the most obvious of non-mental disorders.

Furthermore, the general public are not going to be keen on having their children purposely engineered to be a sub species of menial workers. But they might like the idea of having their childrens genes improved on all levels, and having robots do the menial labor.

Besides, how much menial labor is caused by a stupid lifestyle?

Are people merely working the long hours they work solely for the sake of serving the extravagent, glamorous, multi-million dollar lifestyles of a minority? Would there be brain dead, miserable work if we didnt value junk food, crass movies, tv, luxury and drug?

And please, no more bolded, italicized, glib assertions. For you this may be a trivial excercise with no pratical value. If that is the case, then please, keep it to yourself.

Cory wrote:

And a wise man doesnt seem likely to be a robotics engineer.

The same goes for genetic engineering.

Can a human being become a genetic engineer, and be wise?

How many times have we heard David express his Kierkegaardian distaste for Scientists? Yet many of David's visions seem to depend on the abilities of these wisdom-impaired scientists.

Yes, that is the core problem with my scenario. It is exceedingly unlikely that wise people will have a say in the upcoming genetic engineering program. Because scientists aren't very wise themselves and because they happily serve an ignorant society to the best of their ability, there is very little chance of wise outcomes being played out in the genetic program.

All joking aside, the most likely outcome is that the human race will fracture into a variety of specialized groups, exaggerating what already occurs today. The beautiful people will want their children to be even more perfect and beautiful, the scientists will want their children to even more intelligent and brainy, the workers will want their children to be even more committed to the work-ethic, and so on.

Thus, alongside the Ken and Barbie clones, we will probably see autistic types with noticeably bigger heads and an almost total obsession with science, workers with big physiques and strong discipline, religious leaders with glowing skins and enhanced psychic abilities, and so on. The notion of what it means to be "human" will be even harder to pin down.

There is even talk nowadays among scientists of the need to create humans who are only one foot tall, making them suitable for long-term space travel. If that happens, there is going to be no chance of interbreeding between these tiny people and the rest of the human race. Indeed, there is a strong possibility that all of these specialized groups will only be able to breed amongst themselves, which would officially turn them into separate species.

So it looks like we are heading into the territory of Brave New World, whether we like it or not. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out in the meantime, of course.

-

Scott wrote:

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

S: Do you know anything about modern genetic technology? Selective breeding isn't outdated.

That's true, but with genetic technology the selective breeding process will be accelerated beyond measure. We will be able to accomplish more in one generation what the Indians tried to do over hundreds of generations.

DQ: 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?

S: Yeah, I don't like the idea of breeding good animals into pet animals.

What about the idea of enhancing chimpanzees to the drone status, instead of reducing humans? That way, both chimps and humans will be enhanced - chimps to drone status, and humans to thinker status. Would that dispell the ethical concerns you have?

-

Cory Duchesne wrote:My point is that if a close colleague of David's opposes the idea, even if on illogical grounds, the rest of the population will thus not have anything to do with it.

My point is: Think for yourself. (bolded so you can see the main points despite your limited attention span)

This is a message board. We discuss philosophy here. Although it is true that the admins here have dedicated themselves to philosophy, that does not make Genius Forum a religion. This is not a religion, and the admins are not priests. Good grief. Nor are they parents that must present a unified front to the children. They do not demand a following. They try to prompt people to think - and instead you are regarding them as demi-gods and trying to follow what parts of the QRS philosopies that do not conflict as if it were doctrine.

Get over it. David and Dan are not your replacement fathers. You're a grown-up now and playing the old "But Mommy said... but Daddy said" isn't going to wash anymore. Grown-ups can hear different statements, think them through for themselves, and arrive at their own conclusion. Although it is fine to have an admiration for someone else, the only person you should look up to anymore is yourself - and the only way to do that is make yourself someone you can look up to.

Now as for your attachments to the QRS - they are mortal human beings. How do you know that Dan didn't die last night? What if he said that David's hypotheticals were stupid, not because he thought that through, but because he was irritable because there was something suddenly terminally wrong with him? Any one of them, just as any one of us, could die at any moment. What if the last survivng QRS is Kevin? Would you model yourself after him? Would you rush down to Australia to take David's place? What if all 3 died in a car accident? Would you think for yourself then, or would you clutch on to their writings as if that was now unquestionable gospel?

Cory Duchesne wrote:For me, I think genetic engineering is a very real possibility and deserves serious discussion rather than just academic hypothesizing for the sake of exercise.

Until we have the specifics of what genetic engineering can or can not do realistically, this can be nothing more than an exercise. Perhaps you would like to put your brain in a jar until science can present you with actual data about what the realistic possibilities are?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Isn't the whole point of a sage is that he prevents problems instead of experiencing/creating them? That he works without doing? That he is free from suffering? It doesnt seem right to say that he is always fixing problems and managing everything as if it's a big hassel.

I didn't say it would be a hassle for him, that he would be suffering, or creating problems. I said the sage's life would comparatively suck. (bolded because obviously you missed that word in your original read) Compared to the misery that a lot of people live in today, sagacity is fine and dandy. Compared to being happy, joyous, and care-free, sagacity sucks - but the sage would not be bothered by the responsibility either, just because that is part of what being a sage is.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think people should seriously talk about it so that by the time scientists start doing it, people will have a better understanding of what the motives, implications, complications and rationalizations are. And so that means being open to facing and anticipating the sorts of resistances, sociological and ethical problems we are going to have to deal with when the time comes.

Yes, that sounds like a fine topic.

Cory Duchesne wrote:... the above statement, along with your glib emphasis on 'excercise' that indicates to me that there is not much point in having a serious discussion with you on this topic. You've reduced the whole issue down to a pointless cartoon...

...

For you this may be a trivial excercise with no pratical value.

I never said there was no practical value; I said the opposite - that there is practical value to the exercise. If anyone, you indicated that you thought there was no practical value because Dan said this was stupid.

If you feel that discussing this with me is pointless, that is fine - the feeling is mutual because you repeatedly demonstrate your inability to pay close enough attention to what is being said to follow a point. This results in much wasted time and effort to repeat the points you missed just from your not reading carefully.
.