Eugenics

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you might want to look up the definition of the word eugenics. because what you propose is not even close. by definition, it involves entire populations and is certainly not voluntary.

your scenario rocks though. hope it happens someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is arguing for eugenics in the classic sense.

But I think people overestimate the impact of relative status in society. Let's say that I'm the best person in the world at a certain task, but then I become the worst person in the world at that task. Did I get any worse at the task? No. In fact (and here's the important thing) I'm still excellent at the task. I still do a great job at the task. But now everyone else does an almost-perfect job.

For this reason, I don't think the "dumbest person" in a genius society can be likened to the "dumbest person" today. In particular, even the dumbest person in a genius society will be able to perform all the necessary functions of life, to make reasonable decisions, to manage resources, and to communicate effectively. Such a person might never end up in a leadership role (because everyone else has even better leadership abilities!), but they will be independent agents in society.

And they'll have a fine quality of life. Will they be poor by our standards? Damn right. But they'll have a spacious space-flat with perfect climate control and a great view on the window display panels, they'll have all the Nutri-Pellets they can handle, they'll have the holonet and all 7*10^14 channels of VirtuaPr0n.

And personally? I think they'll be less alienated. I think they'll be more caring. I think they'll have lots of kinky atheist sex. But even if not, chances are everyone will have a safe warm place to sleep, plenty of food, and the freedom to say and think what they please.

If eugenics were the only way to achieve that... Would it be so wrong?

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you might want to look up the definition of the word eugenics. because what you propose is not even close. by definition, it involves entire populations and is certainly not voluntary.

your scenario rocks though. hope it happens someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is arguing for eugenics in the classic sense.

But I think people overestimate the impact of relative status in society. Let's say that I'm the best person in the world at a certain task, but then I become the worst person in the world at that task. Did I get any worse at the task? No. In fact (and here's the important thing) I'm still excellent at the task. I still do a great job at the task. But now everyone else does an almost-perfect job.

For this reason, I don't think the "dumbest person" in a genius society can be likened to the "dumbest person" today. In particular, even the dumbest person in a genius society will be able to perform all the necessary functions of life, to make reasonable decisions, to manage resources, and to communicate effectively. Such a person might never end up in a leadership role (because everyone else has even better leadership abilities!), but they will be independent agents in society.

And they'll have a fine quality of life. Will they be poor by our standards? Damn right. But they'll have a spacious space-flat with perfect climate control and a great view on the window display panels, they'll have all the Nutri-Pellets they can handle, they'll have the holonet and all 7*10^14 channels of VirtuaPr0n.

And personally? I think they'll be less alienated. I think they'll be more caring. I think they'll have lots of kinky atheist sex. But even if not, chances are everyone will have a safe warm place to sleep, plenty of food, and the freedom to say and think what they please.

If eugenics were the only way to achieve that... Would it be so wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

if so, maybe not, but ultimately you are just speculating regarding the outcome of such a program.

[willie24]

wow.

what is your goal? i understand the draw for nationalists who want to dominate the world with a super race, and also for people who want an excuse to give their own group more rights than another, but i don't understand how eugenics could "better the world." actually, i guess i don't understand the concept of bettering the world in general. if i'm unhappy, the world goes on unscathed. if the human race is exterminated, the world goes on. if earth explodes and life ceases to exist, it makes no difference to the world. the world can not be said to be "better" or "worse," because it has no emotion or want.

the same is true of "the human race." it can't be better or worse, because it isn't human and doesn't care.

when most people talk about improving the world, i think they probably mean - giving each individual (on average) a better chance to achieve his goals. for philosophical reasons, i personally think this effort is morally unimportant - but i can understand why someone might care about it, and, for the purposes of discussion, am willing to assume that it is a reasonable goal.

if your goal is to increase individual human happiness on average, how will eugenics help achieve that goal? in your answer, recall that life is governed by biology.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. Hell, even in today's society that isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, [censored]. I'd be able to do more in such a society, because they'd have better training and education programs. The idea that I would forget how to take derivatives if everyone else became smart - that's absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]
ability is relative.

life is inherently competitive. there is only so much land on earth, sunlight etc. For you to live, something else must die (or at least not live).

your ability to do math problems would not suffer, but your share of the pie would.

[madnak]

There are more than enough resources for everyone to have plenty. More than enough for trillions of people. It's our ability to tap the resources that's limited.

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more than enough resources for everyone to have plenty. More than enough for trillions of people . It's our ability to tap the resources that's limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more than enough resources for everyone to have plenty. More than enough for trillions of people. It's our ability to tap the resources that's limited.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do we need eugenics to do this, it's not as though that can't be done currently. it seems like you think better genetics will solve this problem b/c you assume more intelligent people will have a better sense of personal responsibility and just be better people in general. idk why this has to be the case.

[madnak]

I'm not arguing for eugenics except to play the devil's advocate.

But I think smarter people will be better able to figure out how to cultivate a large amount of energy.

I think the rest is true as well simply because I think people are inherently "good." I think many people are systematically immoral because they don't recognize the implications of their actions, and I think intelligence can help solve this problem.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is arguing for eugenics in the classic sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there is an alternate meaning, im not aware of it.

"Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

now there is no doubt that the technological marvels that this theoretical society could produce would be staggering. i dont think anyone would argue that point.

however, this is a personal freedom/civil rights issue as much as anything. a society that actively classifies people, while giving fewer rights to certain groups is not one i want to live in. this is regress into a far worse time for humankind; regardless of what amazing things a society of elite intellectuals might produce.

and it is that very promise that has duped certain groups in the past into committing the worst sorts of atrocities.

[madnak]

"the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as..."

I believe in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species. I don't think "especially by such means as x" means necessarily by such means as x. Also, I don't think positive eugenics has to be systematic, and it certainly doesn't have to be involuntary.

Rights are only relevant to negative eugenics.

Misapplication can cause trouble of course, but then, so can misapplication of any idea.