|
| Thread: Baby making project.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:23 PM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 16:25, 04 Apr 2011.
|
@ Doomforge
Quote:
If you are defined by a dice roll in your life and your identity relies on genetic traits, I'd say you're a really, really boring person and not superior at all.
You, as well as all of us, indeed are defined by the roll dice, your genetic traits and the environment in which you grew up (being the product of our genetic traits and environment) thats a given fact ! If you think you would be the same person if you had other genetic traits, you are wrong.
Quote:
Why? Because genes and everything they bring would not stop people from being special. There would be still adventurous, curious people with lots of passion for different things in the world, and couch potatoes with no real personality. So tell me, dear homo superior, what are you actually afraid of? that such a couch potato may look as good as you? Let him! He'd still be a boring guy with no interesting hobbies. That obviously doesn't come from his intelligence or looks.
It's a highly hypothetical thing to say because that "boring couch potato" probably became to be what he is because of his roll dice, as he wasnt born with a certain personality but instead developed it and became the guy/girl with no real personality... that process was infulenced by his genetic traits
Quote:
Let's address this "boring" part one more time. Imagine everyone gets good looking and smart. Once you actually cope with the fact you're not so special anymore (which is not your doing anyway), you can embrace the possibilities of such world. Think of it! Everything is better in such world. Even the "normalized" looks you're so scared about are actually a blessing. When searching for a partner that has similar character to yours, you no longer have to care about whether such a person will repulse you visually and thus fall to the "just friend" box.
I agree with the fact that if everyone were pretty it would be cooler for all of us, but pretty is just one part of the topic and actually a facial and a less important one
Quote:
Also, it would open much more possiblity for everyone. Right now, even if you dream about being a model or a soccer player, you probably can't, because your dice roll prevents you. But, being a person "engineered" to have a high "roll" in everything that counts, you could do it. YOu could do whatever you want. The world would be filled by people that do their job because they really LIKE and WANT to do it, and not because their dice roll pushed them in that way.
Unlike the facial part of being pretty, this is the actual problem, answer this :
1. Would you dream of being a janitor ? Who would ?
2. If everyone in the world looks like a model, what is a model anyways ? Would a model get paid much if every, basically any person off the street looks just as good as her and can do it for less money ?
3. If everybody can play basketball like michael jordan, will there be basketball at all ? think of 10 million of basketball players who share the same talent, will any basketball league exist in the world ? How would you choose players for your team ? According to their witty personality ?
4. Everybody paints like Leonardo de vinci, Mona lisa is worthless.
5. Take diamonds for example, Are you aware of the fact that 90%+ of the diamonds in the world are in basements of banks in switzerland and UK ? You know why ? Simple, as long as there arent that many diamonds in the market value of a diamond is high, release dimonds into the market and they become worthless (because of finally not being the rare stones everyone thinks they are), same thing applies to human traits/talents/intelligence
Quote:
Also, it would definitively end the whole "I got born with super dice roll so I can do nothing and take million $ per month because of it". Which is in my eyes extremely unfair. Entertainers earning $$$ for nothing because they got a good dice throw at conception did really totally nothing to deserve their "gift" and a child dying of cancer in the age of 10 did nothing to deserve such fate. We learned to accept it, but if there was a chance to change it, I'd so totally be for it. After all, the poor "entertainer" that suddenly is not so special anymore and his hurt ego doesn't even compare to the fact that humanity just prevented a terminal disease and granted a kid a normal, happy life.
Saving lives is a noble cause, complete agreement 
blaming entertainers is false as it is us, the society obsessed with celebrities who allowed this to happen, hate the game not the player 
what you claim and think is somewhat noble yet naive way of thinking IMO since you dont dig deeper and try to understand the true consequences of "the new world"
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:30 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 07 Apr 2011. |
Edited by Corribus at 16:33, 04 Apr 2011.
|
@Smithey
Quote:
Regarding the "questioning one's believes can never yield anything but positive results toward that end" you are wrong IMO since questioning ones beliefs can in fact lead to devostating results to that person, people are individuals hence each and every one may react in a different manner to "ground shaking revelations" when it comes to their beliefs
Ah, so you’re a proponent of the “ignorance is bliss” school of human psychology? Perhaps you think we were better off when we thought Zeus was responsible for lightning, hmmm?
Quote:
Regarding Selcy, I dont know her, I've read a couple of her posts, I think its safe to assume that her stance on this specific topic will remain unchanged regardless of what anybody says
You are missing the point.
Quote:
I’m sorry but simplifying things to level where you claim DNA is DNA is absurd to me since one sequence can be the difference between us exchanging posts here and being unable or unaware of the wonderful world of internet, logic which you’ve asked me to use is not the same as hypothetical reasoning, claiming DNA is DNA is just that, and what I refer to as throwing an extremely wide net AKA reaching.
Sequences change, but the building materials do not. Books are, fundamentally, made of identical materials. It is the information contained inside them that varies. Chemically speaking, DNA is DNA. There is absolutely no difference between fish DNA and human DNA. The only difference is the information encoded with in it. Does that, in itself, change the value of human DNA vis-à-vis fish DNA? Well you’d have to start with the question: what determines the value of genetic information or material?
Before you leap to answer that question, consider the yawning chasm that stands before you. It will be tempting to claim that some DNA has more intrinsic value than others. It will be tempting to say that human DNA is more valuable than fish DNA because of the information contained within the former. Are humans more valuable than fish? That in itself is not an easy question to answer in any universal sense – value is by definition subjective. If they were able to answer, I’m sure fish would tell you that human DNA is less valuable than fish DNA. See what I mean?
But more to the point, if it becomes so easy to claim that the genetic material of one species is more valuable – generally - than that of another species, it takes no giant leap of deductive reasoning to suppose that the genetic material of one human is more valuable – generally – than that of another human. And that, my friend, is a very dark road you start yourself walking down. If some DNA has more intrinsic value than others, then the boundaries of value do not stop at the species level. After all, the only quality of DNA that can be used to determine value is the information contained within, and the type of information varies as much within the species as without.
Consider that well and thoroughly before you jump to a response.
Quote:
I see humans above animals
Good, that helps us hone in on the problem. The next obvious question is: why? And what do you mean by “above”? (See the discussion of value in the preceding section.)
Regarding your 5 points at the end of your post. [EDIT: Ok, even though I abhor excess quotes, since your post was on the last page, I'll quote you here to remind you what you wrote.]
Quote:
1.whether you believe/not believe in god is irrelevant since you don’t represent humanity, majority of people do believe thus making my statement regarding human beings as egocentric ones a valid statement, we atheists believe that humans invented religion, if majority of humanity believes there is a special divine plan and that they are special as opposed to other creatures on this or other planet then humans are egocentric, or do u disagree with that ?
{1} Disagree. I don’t follow this logic at all, and nor do I see where you are going with your conclusion. Painting an entire species with such a broad label as “egocentric” is fallacious in any case, given the diversity of beliefs.
Quote:
2.There is no such thing as atheist philosophy requiring one to believe anything, there is no set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
I don’t believe in god, does that make me an atheist ? sure, if you want to call me that go ahead, I don’t really care about those labels nor will I share your opinions or views on certain topics just because we both are atheists in your book.
{2} What’s your point? I see no relevance to this statement.
Quote:
3.I believe we are superior to animals because of our brains, call it evolution of a specie or whatever you like. I think, I use logic, there is an "I" hence I’m superior to animals who 99% of the time just react according to their instincts.
If you believe that you/me are/is equal with a bug (another life form) I cant tell you that you’re wrong because you’re entitled to that opinion as it is after all your opinion, however I don’t thinks the same way nor do at least 99% of the people around the globe. Agreed ?
{3} Ok, so the value I discussed before is related – according to you – to brainpower? First, I contest your assertion that other animals do not think, or use logic. I’d argue that humans also act according to instinct most of the time, and most human actions are responses to biological needs. Humans do have a higher capacity for deductive reasoning and abstract thinking than most other animals – at least, it appears this is so – but does this means they have more value? Hmm, I for one don’t like the downstream implications of that sort of value system. I mean, if you are going to relate an organism’s value (and, presumably, their disposability) to their brainpower, however that’s defined, then perhaps you see no problem in saying that a man with an IQ of 150 has more value than someone who has a learning disability?* Are smart people more valuable than dumb people? If aliens came to our planet who had abstract reasoning skills that far surpassed our own, would they have more value than us, and thus be entitled to do whatever they pleased with us? (These are rhetorical questions, really – no need to answer them if you don’t want to.)
An even more pertinent question is the following. Your contention seems to be that because apples and dogs cannot think (or cannot think as well as humans can), then that is why genetic modification of apples and dogs is ethical but genetic modification of humans is not. I.e., there is a correlation between an organism’s “brain power” and its value, and in turn there is a correlation between the organism’s value and whether or not it is ethical to play around with that organism’s genes. Thus, there is a correlation between brain power and ethics of genetic manipulation. Frankly, I don’t see how you justify that at all – what does brain power have to do with the ethics of genetic manipulation? But even if we accept that contention for the sake of argument, why then should we suppose that this correlation stops at the boundaries of species? What I am getting at is – if intellectual capacity determines value, and value determines whether genetic manipulation is ethical, the extrapolated conclusion is that we should be able to perform whatever genetic experiments we want on stupid people but not on smart people. I am not sure I’m comfortable with that.
I am, of course, neglecting the other obvious problem with your philosophy, which is that any “turn-off” point you come up with is completely arbitrary. You seem to have drawn the line between species (that is, between humans and everything else), but I’d be interesting in having you justify that. Does every human have higher brain power than every other organism out there? Is it possible that the smartest dolphin could be smarter than the dumbest human?
It’s possible I’m misrepresenting your point of view here, so if that’s the case I don’t mean to put words in your mouth or construct a strawman. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from. If I’ve made any mistakes, please clarify. That said, my ultimate point is that you seem to be trying (unsuccessfully) to objectify what is fundamentally an emotional, and thus illogical, distinction between humans and other species. You feel that humans are somehow better or more sacrosanct than other creatures. That’s fine – most people feel that way. But like most other emotional judgments, when it comes to actually justifying them with sound logical arguments you see that it is very difficult. Your beliefs, like most beliefs, are grounded more in emotion than in cognitive reasoning. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, by the way – as you can see, if humans structured society strictly by deduction and objective thinking, without any emotion whatsoever, some of the characteristics of that society would be very unsavory indeed.
Quote:
4.If all life forms are equal in value (one cat’s life is no less scared than one man’s life) then the set of values, laws within our society which are meant to preserve us humans would crumble and fall, squashing a bug = killing a human, if we were to believe that society as we know it would cease to exist…. IMO
{4} Hinted at in the last paragraph. Yes, that’s true. Humans DO perceive that other organisms have less value than other humans. My argument is that the algorithm for assessing value is not objective or scientific, despite your admirable attempts to show as much. The algorithm is, at least in part, purely emotional. Which therefore defies any real attempt to apply logic.
Quote:
5. BTW, off topic - I'm new here, can someone explain to me what happened with religion in here that it is such "a big bad wolf" because I have yet to encounter any religious person in here ?
{5} I like talking about religion, and we have had some very good discussions here in the past. (I direct you specifically to the “I gave up believing in god” thread – should be easy to find with some browsing; it’s the one with like 50 red stars behind it.) The problem is that a certain fundamentalist poster here pretty much drags any discussion about religion into the mud – even those which are not explicitly about religion but which may touch on religious themes or involve religious beliefs. Frankly, it’s only a matter of time until this thread is destroyed as well, so say what you want while you can.
@Doomforge
I love your rosy picture of the future, but as I hinted at earlier, I see genetic manipulation of human genomes as leading to greater inequality rather than the opposite. Genetic engineering, if it’s ever allowed by the conservative element, will be commercialized primarily by the private sector, and as such it will be available only to the people with means. The people with means will thus because smarter, prettier, longer-lived and stronger, while the poor, will become (relatively) dumber, uglier, shorter-lived and weaker. This cycle will perpetuate itself and the class gap will widen. That’s just speculation, of course, but I don’t see the companies which pioneer commercialized genetic engineering taking the charity route and giving their services away for free.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You, as well as all of us, indeed are defined by the roll dice, your genetic traits and the environment in which you grew up (being the product of our genetic traits and environment) thats a given fact ! If you think you would be the same person if you had other genetic traits, you are wrong.
Who says I would be a worse person if my mind was different? I'm not a good person anyway.
Quote:
It's a highly hypothetical thing to say because that "boring couch potato" probably became to be what he is because of his roll dice, as he wasnt born with a certain personality but instead developed it and became the guy/girl with no real personality... that process was infulenced by his genetic traits
Never seen highly intelligent people that just don't have any need to develop themselves or their life? I know a ton of such 
Quote:
Unlike the facial part of being pretty, this is the actual problem, answer this :
1. Would you dream of being a janitor ? Who would ?
There are several solutions to this, one of them being automatization of mundane tasks. If we could design humans, we probably could fully automatize many of modern jobs.
Quote:
2. If everyone in the world looks like a model, what is a model anyways ? Would a model get paid much if every, basically any person off the street looks just as good as her and can do it for less money ?
While people would look good, they would still look different. I'm sure somebody would still enjoy creating clothes & showing them, I don't see a problem here.
Quote:
3. If everybody can play basketball like michael jordan, will there be basketball at all ? think of 10 million of basketball players who share the same talent, will any basketball league exist in the world ? How would you choose players for your team ? According to their witty personality ?
According to how much they like it. Those who practice more would still be better. Keep in mind that "potential" given by equal genes wouldn't make you Michael Jordan. You'd still need to dedicate your life to it.
Quote:
4. Everybody paints like Leonardo de vinci, Mona lisa is worthless.
hard to say if aesthetics are brain or personality driven. Either way, those who would love to paint would paint. Others wouldn't. Why would it be so bad to have 300 great paintings per year instead of one-two?
Quote:
5. Take diamonds for example, Are you aware of the fact that 90%+ of the diamonds in the world are in basements of banks in switzerland and UK ? You know why ? Simple, as long as there arent that many diamonds in the market value of a diamond is high, release dimonds into the market and they become worthless (because of finally not being the rare stones everyone thinks they are), same thing applies to human traits/talents/intelligence
Humans aren't a resource you can use to value up things.
Quote:
what you claim and think is somewhat noble yet naive way of thinking IMO since you dont dig deeper and try to understand the true consequences of "the new world"
People care about inconvenience and are afraid to be less unique, but they don't give a damn that to be great, there must be a thousand inferior people you can be compared with to shine. I'd say it's pretty egoistical.
@Corribus
I agree of course. However, what I am writing about here is the "utopian" vision. Not exactly something realistic, not with humans' mentality, of that I have no doubt.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 05:27 PM |
|
|
@Corribus
Quote:
Ah, so you’re a proponent of the “ignorance is bliss” school of human psychology? Perhaps you think we were better off when we thought Zeus was responsible for lightning, hmmm?
As much as I've enjoyed the cynicism I merely claimed that not everyone is strong enough to deal with the truth, you should know that, it's nothing new
Quote:
You are missing the point.
Quite sure the point was to get her to rethink, explore and make her own informed decisions, if that wasnt the point then indeed I've missed it, if it was the point then you have missed mine, because mine stated - her mind won't be changed on this topic, its a waste of time to try and stimulate her in that way..
Quote:
Sequences change, but the building materials do not. Books are, fundamentally, made of identical materials. It is the information contained inside them that varies. Chemically speaking, DNA is DNA. There is absolutely no difference between fish DNA and human DNA. The only difference is the information encoded with in it. Does that, in itself, change the value of human DNA vis-à-vis fish DNA? Well you’d have to start with the question: what determines the value of genetic information or material?
Us humans and the end product determine the value of things, Content is all the difference - a note that teaches you how to make fire and use it is far more valuable than the note that teaches you nothing but instead has brittney spears song written on it
Quote:
Before you leap to answer that question, consider the yawning chasm that stands before you. It will be tempting to claim that some DNA has more intrinsic value than others. It will be tempting to say that human DNA is more valuable than fish DNA because of the information contained within the former. Are humans more valuable than fish? That in itself is not an easy question to answer in any universal sense – value is by definition subjective. If they were able to answer, I’m sure fish would tell you that human DNA is less valuable than fish DNA. See what I mean?
Agreed, even claimed it above before reading this and always claimed we are not objective, that's what makes us humans, once again egocentric ones as well, and we and only we determine value, after all money is just paper unless we decide otherwise
Quote:
But more to the point, if it becomes so easy to claim that the genetic material of one species is more valuable – generally - than that of another species, it takes no giant leap of deductive reasoning to suppose that the genetic material of one human is more valuable – generally – than that of another human. And that, my friend, is a very dark road you start yourself walking down. If some DNA has more intrinsic value than others, then the boundaries of value do not stop at the species level. After all, the only quality of DNA that can be used to determine value is the information contained within, and the type of information varies as much within the species as without.
Oh but I am perfectly aware of this and I walk that road, I truly believe that certain lives have more values than others, (as sad and harsh as it might sound), I see other people believing otherwise as naive people.. examples are countless -
healthy baby > old man
pregnant woman > not pregnant woman
any person alive > serial killer
and the list goes on, that logic is BTW the rational way of thinking as opposed to emotional one you opposed in the beginning
Quote:
Consider that well and thoroughly before you jump to a response.
ohh well to late for that
Quote:
Good, that helps us hone in on the problem. The next obvious question is: why? And what do you mean by “above”? (See the discussion of value in the preceding section.)
I dont view it as a problem, sorry. As to why ? evolved specie, productiveness (even the dumbest of humans can accomplish more than the smartest animal If he chooses to... IMO)
Quote:
{1} Disagree. I don’t follow this logic at all, and nor do I see where you are going with your conclusion. Painting an entire species with such a broad label as “egocentric” is fallacious in any case, given the diversity of beliefs.
Diversity of beliefs is irrelevant, we are human beings, its our nature to be egocentric, dont mistake egocentric as a human being with egocentric persona though, I'm by no means claiming that we are selfish or anything of a kind, but I am claiming that we all see ourselves as teh top of the pyramide, and i really do believe the same applies to you if not on a conscious level at least on a subconscious one...
Quote:
{2} What’s your point? I see no relevance to this statement.
ehmm... I dont remember it, i'll edit it after i see what it says
Quote:
{3} Ok, so the value I discussed before is related – according to you – to brainpower? First, I contest your assertion that other animals do not think, or use logic. I’d argue that humans also act according to instinct most of the time, and most human actions are responses to biological needs. Humans do have a higher capacity for deductive reasoning and abstract thinking than most other animals – at least, it appears this is so – but does this means they have more value? Hmm, I for one don’t like the downstream implications of that sort of value system. I mean, if you are going to relate an organism’s value (and, presumably, their disposability) to their brainpower, however that’s defined, then perhaps you see no problem in saying that a man with an IQ of 150 has more value than someone who has a learning disability?* Are smart people more valuable than dumb people? If aliens came to our planet who had abstract reasoning skills that far surpassed our own, would they have more value than us, and thus be entitled to do whatever they pleased with us? (These are rhetorical questions, really – no need to answer them if you don’t want to.)
I think I have answered that, again, I dont think animals are even close to our level when it comes to brain capabilities, I see them as inferior, I accept that you dont, If u truly believe that I am amazed if it is for the sake of argument I just accept that we dont see eye to eye...
when it comes to IQ of 150 as opposed to 70 on an emotional level i dont see difference between two lives, on a rational level 150 IQ is more superior since it can "produce" more for the society.
If you were asking me to choose which life to spare I can not answer whether I would be emotional about it or rational about it, because it is a tough question...
regarding aliens rationally speaking they would probably be superior however we as humans, view ourselves as superior (egocentric specie) hence we will never accept the fact that aliens are more worthy than us, it is not our nature IMO of course
Quote:
An even more pertinent question is the following. Your contention seems to be that because apples and dogs cannot think (or cannot think as well as humans can), then that is why genetic modification of apples and dogs is ethical but genetic modification of humans is not. I.e., there is a correlation between an organism’s “brain power” and its value, and in turn there is a correlation between the organism’s value and whether or not it is ethical to play around with that organism’s genes. Thus, there is a correlation between brain power and ethics of genetic manipulation. Frankly, I don’t see how you justify that at all – what does brain power have to do with the ethics of genetic manipulation? But even if we accept that contention for the sake of argument, why then should we suppose that this correlation stops at the boundaries of species? What I am getting at is – if intellectual capacity determines value, and value determines whether genetic manipulation is ethical, the extrapolated conclusion is that we should be able to perform whatever genetic experiments we want on stupid people but not on smart people. I am not sure I’m comfortable with that.
I agree with your statement and I see where you're coming from however you have missed one major point - I never claimed I was against genetic modification because of ethics of it 
I was playing devils advocate and said what Selcy claimed is her stance, later on I mentioned I'm neither sideing with you or Selcy on this topic. Im not really pro modifying animals or plants, its better to say i dont really care actually about it, when it comes to humans im more concerned with the end result, people get easily distracted, If you open a certain door are you opening a door that will eventually lead to extinction of our specie ? thats why I fear genetic modification
Quote:
I am, of course, neglecting the other obvious problem with your philosophy, which is that any “turn-off” point you come up with is completely arbitrary. You seem to have drawn the line between species (that is, between humans and everything else), but I’d be interesting in having you justify that. Does every human have higher brain power than every other organism out there? Is it possible that the smartest dolphin could be smarter than the dumbest human?
Depends on what is dumbest person ? is it below IQ 60 or above but really dumb ?
Quote:
It’s possible I’m misrepresenting your point of view here, so if that’s the case I don’t mean to put words in your mouth or construct a strawman. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from. If I’ve made any mistakes, please clarify. That said, my ultimate point is that you seem to be trying (unsuccessfully) to objectify what is fundamentally an emotional, and thus illogical, distinction between humans and other species. You feel that humans are somehow better or more sacrosanct than other creatures. That’s fine – most people feel that way. But like most other emotional judgments, when it comes to actually justifying them with sound logical arguments you see that it is very difficult. Your beliefs, like most beliefs, are grounded more in emotion than in cognitive reasoning. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, by the way – as you can see, if humans structured society strictly by deduction and objective thinking, without any emotion whatsoever, some of the characteristics of that society would be very unsavory indeed.
Maybe we view logic in different manner, IMO emotional approach is its my puppy i love him more hence I'll save him, logical is putting two parts of equation and quantifying them one against the other;
animal vs human is the equation
mine logic checks which of those two entities is more valuable, more productive to me ? that is rational reasoning and logic to me
result of my logical test is simple
things a certain animal can do is much more limited than what a person can do hence human has more value, do you not agree with this logic ?
Quote:
{4} Hinted at in the last paragraph. Yes, that’s true. Humans DO perceive that other organisms have less value than other humans. My argument is that the algorithm for assessing value is not objective or scientific, despite your admirable attempts to show as much. The algorithm is, at least in part, purely emotional. Which therefore defies any real attempt to apply logic
.
I have explained how I view value, I'm interested in hearing about how you do in an objective manner, because I think I am being logical. as explained in the equation above
Quote:
{5} I like talking about religion, and we have had some very good discussions here in the past. (I direct you specifically to the “I gave up believing in god” thread – should be easy to find with some browsing; it’s the one with like 50 red stars behind it.) The problem is that a certain fundamentalist poster here pretty much drags any discussion about religion into the mud – even those which are not explicitly about religion but which may touch on religious themes or involve religious beliefs. Frankly, it’s only a matter of time until this thread is destroyed as well, so say what you want while you can.
Thanks
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 05:46 PM |
|
|
@ Doomforge
Quote:
Who says I would be a worse person if my mind was different? I'm not a good person anyway.
Havent claimed you would be worse/better just that you would be different
Quote:
Never seen highly intelligent people that just don't have any need to develop themselves or their life? I know a ton of such
Never seen a highly intellegent person whos also athletic, hot talented and sits all day on his ass, nope havent seen those
Quote:
There are several solutions to this, one of them being automatization of mundane tasks. If we could design humans, we probably could fully automatize many of modern jobs.
we would probably automize every boring job is your solution ? you do realize there are aprox 7 billions of people, you think there are 7 billion of jobs that are fun and interesting ?
Quote:
While people would look good, they would still look different. I'm sure somebody would still enjoy creating clothes & showing them, I don't see a problem here.
the problem is modeling would be needed anymore because models wouldnt be special
Quote:
According to how much they like it. Those who practice more would still be better. Keep in mind that "potential" given by equal genes wouldn't make you Michael Jordan. You'd still need to dedicate your life to it.
That why I said only 10 million of jordans as opposed to aprox 70 millions of people or more who dont stay dedicated... competition would be above fierce and kill the sports
Quote:
hard to say if aesthetics are brain or personality driven. Either way, those who would love to paint would paint. Others wouldn't. Why would it be so bad to have 300 great paintings per year instead of one-two?
Its a talent, like singing, playing football, making music, its not as simple as claiming we would have 300 more paintings - leonardo, jordan, mozart, tesla all geniuses of one per era, if you have 300 of those per decade it destroys the concept of genious
Quote:
Humans aren't a resource you can use to value up things.
human talent is a resource and indeed is used to value things talnted player as ronaldo gets paid more than a less talented player, if you have 300 ronaldos value goes down dramatically
Quote:
People care about inconvenience and are afraid to be less unique, but they don't give a damn that to be great, there must be a thousand inferior people you can be compared with to shine. I'd say it's pretty egoistical.
Indeed it is but thats how life works, emphasis on LIFE - animals plants, humans... survival of the fittest is the first rule, what happens if all are fittest ?  no survival
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we would probably automize every boring job is your solution ? you do realize there are aprox 7 billions of people, you think there are 7 billion of jobs that are fun and interesting ?
yes
Quote:
the problem is modeling would be needed anymore because models wouldnt be special
And why should they? modelling is imho completly impractical, a pretty girl will look good in rags, an ugly girl will still look bad in good clothes. Models should definitively be more average to avoid the perception twist.
Quote:
That why I said only 10 million of jordans as opposed to aprox 70 millions of people or more who dont stay dedicated... competition would be above fierce and kill the sports
Who cares, people would do it for fun, the team of better players would still win (better = trained better, using better tactics, knowing to cooperate) instead of getting a "star" player who just got a high dice roll and everyone else can pretty much bow in awe before him.
Quote:
Its a talent, like singing, playing football, making music, its not as simple as claiming we would have 300 more paintings - leonardo, jordan, mozart, tesla all geniuses of one per era, if you have 300 of those per decade it destroys the concept of genious
no. It reduces the difference between the "genius" and the "average talentless person". Because of this gap, you actually consider him that great, because you compare him to nobodies and are mesmerized by the difference. But guess what, just because 99 people are as good as him doesn't make him any worse.
Quote:
human talent is a resource and indeed is used to value things talnted player as ronaldo gets paid more than a less talented player, if you have 300 ronaldos value goes down dramatically
Which would be a blessing, Cristiano Ronaldo must be really bored from stacking Ferraris in his garage.
Quote:
Indeed it is but thats how life works, emphasis on LIFE - animals plants, humans... survival of the fittest is the first rule, what happens if all are fittest ? no survival
Then dump medicine in the toilet, it destroys the survival of the fittest. really lame point, so to say 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:17 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:18, 04 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
healthy baby > old man
pregnant woman > not pregnant woman
any person alive > serial killer
what has it to do with DNA? do you think there is a gene responsible for serial killing?
Quote:
even the dumbest of humans can accomplish more than the smartest animal If he chooses to... IMO
I'm not sure about that, but I'm quite sure on the contrary that the smartest human can destroy much more than the dumbest animal.
I was thinking about something else, isn't it somewhat silly to think about genetic engineering to cure diseases when very few people are actually given the chance to live the healthiest way?
I'm not only talking about obviously poor countries, but also the crazy way we live in modern societies which is responsible for more and more psychological diseases.
to me, it kinda sounds like burning all crops and then searching some complicated and expensive ways to feed people. it seems to makes no sense, but the reason why some people would do that is to create and maintain inequalities.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we would probably automize every boring job is your solution ? you do realize there are aprox 7 billions of people, you think there are 7 billion of jobs that are fun and interesting ?
Quote:
yes
LOL, you have a way of creating 7 billion fun and interesting jobs.. that kind of sums everything up so I'm gone
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:21 PM |
|
|
Don't underestimate human ingenuity. Especially if IQ is increased to what would now be 150.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:23 PM |
|
|
Could anyone please make an overview of the recent pages for those of us who'd prefer not to read through every one on one talk?
What are each of the opinions and the problems each side have with these?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
healthy baby > old man
pregnant woman > not pregnant woman
any person alive > serial killer
what has it to do with DNA? do you think there is a gene responsible for serial killing?
Has nothing to do with DNA, he claimed that valuing human DNA >> non-human DNA is a slippery slope which will lead to also valuing one humans DNA over other humans DNA, I merely said that In a same manner I value humans above animals, I also value certain humans as more valuable than other humans... thats all I meant
Quote:
I'm not sure about that, but I'm quite sure on the contrary that the smartest human can destroy much more than the dumbest animal.
Agreed on that note no animal can destroy as much as human, human productivity is higher regardless of destruction or creation, thats all I claimed, humans are cancer and we have many flaws but that doesnt change the fact that we're a superior specie
Quote:
I was thinking about something else, isn't it somewhat silly to think about genetic engineering to cure diseases when very few people are actually given the chance to live the healthiest way?
I'm not only talking about obviously poor countries, but also the crazy way we live in modern societies which is responsible for more and more psychological diseases.
to me, it kinda sounds like burning all crops and then searching some complicated and expensive ways to feed people. it seems to makes no sense, but the reason why some people would do that is to create and maintain inequalities.
Sounds reasonable however if I'm trying to cure cancer, Im not thinking of feeding the world or of world peace... I'm thinking just of curing the cancer, people are passionate about their own field of expertise not on the bigger picture..
Is it the right way of thinking or the exact reason for why the world is "not such a great place" thats a whole different question
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 06:52 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:56, 04 Apr 2011.
|
the problem isn't exactly about trying to cure cancer for example, but the fact that we seem to have to search the most overly complicated solutions and we simply reject the easiest ones.
for example, I read that the EU is thinking about forbidding the usage of plants in medicine.
or in that documentary I saw, where they were trying to find solutions about bees being decimed. they were like : "we are trying to conceive nanobots that will act like bees." seriously? was it really the easiest solution you could come with? 
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
or in that documentary I saw, where they were trying to find solutions about bees being decimed. they were like : "we are trying to conceive nanobots that will act like bees." seriously? was it really the easiest solution you could come with?
LOL and a few more minutes of LOL... that was just brilliant btw
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 07:14 PM |
|
|
Hey people I have a question for you!
Should anything that can be altered be allowed to be changed?
Here let me explain what I trying to ask...
Genetic altering raises many problems, and in this thread there have been discussion about changing things like length, eye color and so on. However I think most people can agree that that those thing are pretty harmless, but then of course I must ask, what happens when we want to alter things like personality and mindset, but also other more “controversial” things like adding more limbs and other “sci-fi” material if you know what I mean.
This is one of the problem that I want to highlight, because if gonna allow changing a persons eye color and beauty, should we also be allowed to alteration of a persons mind?
Let me take some examples, let say that some parents are would like to have more obedient children. Should they then be allows to “customize” their own children in such a way that the kids will be likely to do and preform any task that their parents wish?
There is also a likelihood that parent would like to decide what kind of preferences their children should have, or if they should have any preferences at all. Many parents would surely find it convenient if their kids could be able to eat anything that are presented for them no matter how disgusting it might be. Other things that the parents could deciding for their children could be anything from what kind of books they should be enjoying and to what kind of sexual interest they should have...
So I'm trying to pinpoint a problem here and that is, what should be allowed? Should anything be allowed? And if so, who is to decide what's to be altered?
As I have stated before in this thread, I'm all for genetic enhancements, but really, should parent be given unlimited power on how their children should look and most importantly on how they should behave?
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 07:56 PM |
|
|
Well.
If the technology IS available - which I doubt, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of arguments to forbid parents to use it.
However, I believe that genetic CORRECTION (that is, correcting errors and omissions in a given genetic code) will be WAY easier than ALTERING or ENHANCING - changing - the code to something new.
Changing it, will of course be much more dangerous, and all changes from regular codes would have to be tested very carefully, before they could be made available for general use - the consequences might become obvious only after generations.
Second, altering the DNS may lead to ever more incompatibilities between potential "parents"...
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 08:02 PM |
|
|
An illustration I once heard is that altering and replacing genes is like twisting a rubix cube; you can match up colors on one side only to screw up another side, and the human genome is obscenely more intricate than a rubix cube. There are a few "easy" genes that can be changed and are fairly isolated, but there is no individual "smart gene" as such that you can just swap some codes and then you have the woman poop out a paragon infant.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 08:15 PM |
|
|
A hammer solves that restriction quite easily, though.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:56 AM |
|
|
@Smithey
The problem is that any sort of value scheme is by definition subjective. I think it's going to be difficult to argue any sort of logical point when you're using a subjective value system, because for someone to accept your argument, they're going to have to accept your value system as a premise. And there's always going to be someone who rejects your value system.
Your logic may be internally consistent using your value system (although I'm not convinced it is), but you can't extend that to any sort of universal truth.
Anyway, this is dragging the discussion far afield. Getting back to the issue, you still haven't really explained what makes humans "special". When I say your judgement is emotional, I don't necessarily mean something like "love" or "anger". I mean emotional in the sense that it's not a cognitive deduction. It's a feeling, an affective heuristic. It's going to be hard to demonstrate, using logic or scientific reasoning, that humans are special (in some specific, well defined way) and therefore genetic engineering should be ok for animals but not for humans. That's an emotional judgment, or so goes my contention.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:04 AM |
|
|
Sorry for popping in here randomly, and not really contributing to the discussion (Which is very interesting, btw) But I just have to remind Elodin of something...
@ Elodin: Remember on page 5 where Angelito said that religious posts that attempted to derail the thread would be purged? It will be no matter how much you object to it, because you are:
A) Basically breaking a pre-set law of this area. and B) This is not a democracy. This is a republic where those elected to lead never step down. The mod's word is law.
So shush.
Back to the topic:
@ DF: I'd love it if everyone had the potential to be equal, but I don't think that I would like it if one day everyone was... Just blame it on me getting stuck in a mindset where people compete for everything and only the best rise to the top, but I think that most people would agree that the idea of everyone being absolutely the same and equal is... Unnatural.
@ JJ: I have to basically agree with you. If anything, I think that genetic engineering should be bent towards the goal of alternative food sources and eliminations of diseases, viruses, the effects of aging and detrimental genetic defects. (Yes, some can actually be positive... researching things.)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:44 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:46, 05 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
The problem is that any sort of value scheme is by definition subjective.
That is really not true.
How you view an action has no bearing on if the action is moral or immoral. If under your personal moal code killing everyone who has a last name beginning with "M" is ok it does not in fact follow that such an action is ok or that your belief that it is is as valid as someone else who says such actions are immoral.
By the same token, if you deny that universal truth exists you have not changed the fact of its existence or non-existence one bit.
Your argument was circular reasoning. You assume subjective morality and then state that becasue morality is subjective morality is subjective.
Quote:
It's going to be hard to demonstrate, using logic or scientific reasoning, that humans are special (in some specific, well defined way)
No, it is hard to argue that humans are not special, and indeed almost everyone who has ever lived would say humans are special.
Although Angelito seems to be forbidding anyone from making arguments from anything but the atheistic religion perspective so arguments are somewhat hamstringed. Certain philosphies simply can't stand on their own and desparately need moderatator support in my opinion.
Quote:
@ Elodin: Remember on page 7 where Pan said that religious posts that attempted to derail the thread would be purged?
Actually, I did not advance religious arguments, although atheists did. What I objected to was slurs against me, which are a violation of the COC, but which will not be penalized, based on previous biased moderation experiences.
|
| |
|
|
