Hi Judy,

I wonder if your ideas regarding eugenics assume far to much genetic determinism than has proved to be the case. Back in the 1990's and right after the Human Genome was sequenced there was all sort of talk of finding the "gene" for this or that. I can remember articles about twins separated at birth who both ended up becoming firemen and loving pizza as if there were genes for both.

What we have found, for most conditions, is far more complex. Multiple genes interacting with environmental conditions go into the manifestation of any disease or behavior. There are effects beyond our own genes- microbial effects- implicated in diseases such as Crohn's and allergies which we are just beginning to understand. Genes obviously can't be the most important factor in violence given how societal levels of violence can vary within very short periods of time.

The immediate danger of eugenics rhetoric is that it gives parents a false sense of sovereignty over what their children will be like. The FDA is already investigating companies tapping into the competition anxiety of would be parents to peddle bogus genetic tests:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-23andme-fda-warning-idUSBRE9AO0MG20131125

Whatever one's view of abortion there are children already conceived who were not brought into the world because some parents falsely thought they had more control over the future than was actually possible.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #6

    Dear Ms. Nabb,

    Your courageously written assay was truly illuminating, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. May I just make a comment about it?

    As I have pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, everything in the real Universe is unique, once. Whether eugenic practices are adopted or not, each real baby that is born will be born in a unique fashion at a unique moment. Each real baby will have a unique appearance and composition. Each real baby will live a unique life.

    Regards,

    Joe Fisher

      Thank you Georgina. It's a very sensitive and difficult subject for people to face. I tried to focus on the more social than biological issues. Unfortunately I ran out of time to really pull it all together.

      I did briefly mention China and the long history of the practice of abandonment, but the results of China's policies are a big and complex topic themselves. As something not likely to become common practice (due to pre-natal science) it can distract from the bigger picture, but then who knows!

      I enjoyed you essay, but what techniques do you proposes to l keep population constant? Eugenics would be essential, so 'designer babies' the norm!

      I see the evolution of the way we use our brains as far more important, bringing focus on post natal development and teaching. From Peter's work I'm greatly impressed with the way Architects are taught to think. It seems to be a two hemispheric multiplication; never 'assuming', visionary and clinically analytical. We can't generalise that with biology. Can we only do it with a different type of teaching?

      Judy

      John,

      The danger is desensitisation. It's the same human response as convincing ourselves that science is 'self correcting' when the real evidence shows it's far from it. For me the best reason for better pre-natal screening is to reduce the post natal problem.

      The present case of the mother who killed her 3 children who had serious disorders is tragic. Should she be jailed? Committed? Clearly such stress is more than many humans can take. In a way we are to blame for leaving her to it with inadequate support. I genuinely think, not knowing the details, that after 'going through due processes' publicly that her punishment should perhaps only be compulsory therapy.

      The issue is really about not encouraging parents of any other 'imperfect' children to believe they may have some right to take life.

      Judy

      Rick,

      I agree. I'm concerned we're in danger of interfering too much through lack of knowledge.

      ok it may be better for sensibilities to find major deformities and terminate earlier rather than later, and remember many will have another, healthy, child who may not exist had the disabled child been born. However he temptation is to go much further.

      What happens is that we focus on purely physical attributes, easier to 'control' when our real shortcoming is in mental ability, i.e. more sophisticated intellectual capacity, reasoning power, objectivity and maturity. That means training our brains better AFTER birth.

      Preventing war and advancing scientific understanding can only come from that approach. Take physics; It's not about advancement at present so much as maintaining status quo, childish spats and self aggrandisement. Just take a look at the 'Classical sphere's blog I'm discussing on at present. Peter Jackson has a ground breaking advancement in understanding but most are quite blind to it. The problem seems too endemic.

      I believe it's clear that only improving mental abilities, visualisation powers and application of the potential we have will secure the future of mankind. If we better train people how to use their built in quantum computers the rest will follow.

      Thanks for your interesting points. I'll read you essay too.

      Judy

      Joe,

      I agree entirely. Not only no two people but no two cells are absolutely identical near the Planck scale. Even assuming electrons are identical will one day be proved a serious error I'm sure, but currently beyond our resolving power.

      The 'difference' is one of the most important parts of our survival. As many people as there are with near fatal allergies to bananas will survive the most devastating event to hit Earth.

      I'll certainly read your essay given the time.

      Judy

      Judy,

      Nice essay, very brave, and important, and agreeing my own conclusions on intellectual evolution. I suggested in my '2020 vision' essay we may have a step change in 10 years, but I'm not yet entirely convinced. The theoretical rut may now be too deep.

      My ears perked up today what I heard a plug for a BBC radio 4 programme tomorrow (tues)at 11.00am discussing that very thing. If you aren't aware or don't catch it I'll try to listen and report back on it. You've now got me very interested.

      Well done and thanks for your support of my own thesis and essay as describing as a significant break through. I'm pretty devastated so few seem to have seen the implications yet. You're one of the few with a head NOT buried somewhere without a view! Thank you for restoring my faith.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Ooops, sorry, I missed it. May be on BBC 'I player', if we can find what it was called!

        Do see Alan Kadin's essay. It's gives a well argued case for for population reduction. Any ideas how without virtual babies? Can we solve the big issue at the same time by only letting highly intelligent people have children? Who decides what intelligent is? I suspect many considered 'intelligent' now actually aren't.

        P

        Peter,

        That's a shame, I missed it too. I'll read the Kadin essay when I get a chance but I'm overloaded with marking and exam work at present.

        I rather shudder at the though of human cloning. It's not eugenics and I think fraught with serious issues. Those doing it shouldn't be left to decide how far they go.

        Judy

        (P.S. You may have missed a post in the spheres blog)

          • [deleted]

          • Post #15

          Hi Judy,

          Don't really want to go there, as we agree it is a very sensitive topic . However these are some ideas that I see might be useful in maintaining the fictitious population.

          1. Many people opting to be child free for the health benefits, freedom and lifestyle that allows.

          2. Societal /peer pressure to be child free rather than the expectation of parenthood.

          3. Planned parenthood with suitability testing i.e. sufficient desire to be a parent, intelligence and health to carry out the demanding full time role.

          4. An attempt to maintain genetic diversity within the gene pool for population health and to prevent genetic drift towards a particular type.

          5. For those who would make good dedicated parents there might be selection of healthy embryos for implantation where there is genetic disease in the family, as occurs now at the request of some families.Or opportunity for adoption.

          6. Gametes of the non reproducing population might be kept for possible future fertilization and implantation, so the actual gene pool is larger than just the reproducing individuals.

          Designer babies, no. I don't see that as inevitable.

          Georgina,

          "Don't really want to go there"

          Precisely the point of my essay. Everybody wants the ideals you list, that's the easy bit, yet few want to face the realities of implementing them, or implementing anything that will he the slightest effect. To analyse;

          1. We have that choice already.

          2. Didn't work in China. Low effectiveness even AFTER effective change.

          3. Totalitarian. Who dictates if we can have children? Doctors!

          4. Non-contributive secondary matter.

          5. Ditto, and over 99% prefer the natural way when they have choice.

          6. Ditto.

          You see the only effective method of reduction is the totalitarian one. Ideas are fine, what I'm saying is that when it comes to planned effective actions we need realism! At present nobody is facing up to that. I hope you can see that your utopia can never exist in the first place without either a) those hard choices, b) war, c) plague or d) genocide. Would we not best 'steer' by making those hard choices to avoid the other options, if reduction is really needed?

          Also none of the choices seem to address the real need, to accelerate evolution of intellect. The need seems clearer to me than the need for ideal 'physical perfection'. But I see as expected that most people still prefer fantasy idealism to the pain of reality. Your essay is doing exceptionally well and mine very poorly.

          Good luck in the results.

          Judy

          Hi Judy,

          my story is a vehicle for raising and giving solutions to a number of problems . cancer, antibiotic resistance, desertification and more, to make it easy to read and enjoyable. It also touches on physics, including subtly on my explanatory framework for physics. I really should have explained that in the abstract, but too late now.

          1. It is already happening, more women in developed countries are choosing to be childfree not childless 2.I'm thinking more of public information akin to anti-smoking campaigns to change social attitudes to procreation. Just banning it will make it more desirable for some.Smoking not our future3.I'm thinking more of a team of experts such as doctors, psychologists and social workers who can make a holistic judgement of the person.5.I was making the point that those with serious genetic faults are not necessarily excluded from being parents.4 and 6. Diversity is important in my scenario as it is not known what geneoytypes will be best suited for future Earth or other worlds.

          I say in the story famine, disease and war were left behind as a hint that the sanctuaries are a response to very harsh conditions.

          Though for academics intellect may seem the most important attribute of humans it is the opposeable thumb that has allowed us to develop technology through having the dexterity for engineering. There are many attributes of humans other than intellect that are important, being practical, being sociable, working well as a team member, having creative; artistic, musical or kinaesthetic talents and so on, selecting for intellect may diminish them (just a thought).

          Don't worry about the scores now . I know from previous experience that the ranking changes dramatically especially towards the end of voting when many last minute votes are cast, Georgina : )

          Thank you for reading my essay.

          I think that the technology, and the politics, can help to obtain a best world, if they are used well: I think that the environment change the genetic, the technology, the politics in a similar way, it is only necessary to act not as individuals, but as a democratic society.

          Your essay is interesting.

          I think that there are problem with unethical eugenetic, for example is right to choose the gender of the future child (in India)? Is it right to terminate a future child like Hawking? The phenotype don't give, until now, information on intelligence, ethic, but the human life determine the persistence; I am thinking that a good practice is to require to have not child for person with severe genetic disease, with adoptions or egg donation, rather to use the eugenetic.

          I read of Chinese study for eugenetics of the intelligence, to obtain more intelligent people, but the problem is that there is not a natural selection of the intelligent people, so that it is possible to have intelligent persons without good interaction with the other people (asociality), so that I think that the human life is the better choice for the better individuals (there are some characters that cannot be evaluated, now and forever, with a genetic study).

          I am thinking that a natural eugenetic is obtained helping the best individuals to perpetuate the species, with grants, houses, facilities; this is a usual method that governments apply to choose the best individuals in the best position, and the ethical problems disappears.

            Hi Judy,

            Very nice reminder that we are steering the future eugenically, and perhaps we should be more conscious about it. Thanks for the fine essay.

            Don Limuti

              Dominico,

              I fear the ethical problems may not disappear that easily. Eugenics of the intelligence may be essential to promote advancement. For instance I'm having a conversation with a full professor in the blog on the EPR paradox solution and his shortcomings in applied logic (for a mathematician) are shocking. Yet arrogance means all are convinced they're brilliant!

              That sort of thinking in such positions is probably the greatest barrier to intellectual and scientific advancement we face. I don't think the Chinese, or any study has found any solution. We first have to ask what is intelligence? And are social skills equally important (in the above case those mirror the logic level).

              There are essays here with brilliant new scientific perceptions able to propel us rapidly in the right direction. Peter Jackson's is certainly one. He's correctly termed the real problem as 'intellectual inertia'. My foray from my own field deeper into physics has been shockingly enlightening.

              The entrenchment of flawed doctrine here seems to be a massive block to progress. It's commonly justified as 'rigorous falsification' but is quite the opposite. Eugenics can't yet help. That's where far better education is needed.

              Thank you for your kind comments. I hope your essay does well.

              Judy

              Aaron,

              Your essay sounds interesting. I see you don't mind a little self promotion yourself. That's quit natural, as is the desire for a higher score. I agree your score descriptions, though I'm a little confused why only those between 3 and 4 don't deserve a higher score. I now fear slipping below 4! But I do agree all rating should be higher and the wide dishonest malpractice of 'downvoting' en masse or near neighbours is responsible.

              I have precious little time to do the competition entries justice by reading them. Too many seem purely sociological or idealist with little substance in terms of action and direction, but I have a growing list and yours is on it.

              Best of luck,

              Judy

              With regards to designer babies we are probably entering an age of designer biology. This means designer crops, animals, diseases and so forth. I suspect it will not be too long that subtle forms of bio-warfare will be conducted. For example company A has a product that they intend to release in six weeks, but company B has a competing product that might take more of the market. Company A then crafts up a sickness that targets company B employees, this delays company B from making their release and ... . Don't worry about computer viruses, designer bio-viruses are coming. Indeed for a few thousand dollars and a bit of knowledge anyone can clone genes into organisms. I suspect new designer crops are coming, in particular in the light of global warming. I expect in a couple of decades that there may be biological teddy bears; animals that remain in an immature form, that have features similar to teddy bears and that are genetically designed. I expect to see bio-implants of new neurons into the brain, neuro-cybernet links are coming, eg BCI technology, cloned bodies and so forth. I would not be too surprised if within 50 years people can replace their aging bodies with newly cloned bodies their brain is transferred into.

              I would not be surprised to see golem type of bio-engineering as well. This may involve cloning up human bodies with computers running the body. This might prove interesting for various types of work, and it could also provide sexual pleasures without the messy problem of trying to maintain a relationship. Marriage is a dying institution and I think relationships are probably going to just be short term affairs. As our world becomes more complex it appears that holding down relationships is increasingly difficult. Cyborg sex buddies might become more of the norm as relationships become too difficult for most people to uphold.

              The rearing of children will probably become more institutional, where I would not be too surprised to see corporations devoted to designing and rearing children. Women already earn money by carrying such babies to term, and I would not be surprised if this becomes wider and more prevalent. I have even heard that with a bit of bio-engineering men might be able to do the same. This will then transition into the completely cloned uterus cyborg that is dedicated to justating babies. This will be a uterus that is cloned up and maintained with other bio-supports and computerized controls. As I suspect the 21st century will see corporations emerge as the primary power in the world, such babies will be produced, packaged and marketed for a profit.

              The future world is then going to be a sort of shock-punk reality that removes more and more barriers and limits to freedom of power. It will not be a utopian world of course, and I suspect it will have a bit of a dystopian dissonance to it. However, it may not be all that bad, well except for the constant concern over designer diseases and the like. It will also probably see humanity project itself into a virtual world or matrix through neural-cybernetic links, where each of us increasingly escapes the physical world. The question is really how many decades will it be before brains are the main nodes of the internet.

              This is some general sense is how I see the future world, and I actually thought about writing on this. However, this involves prognostications that are probably at best coarse grained and could be wrong in some instances. Where the future goes or is steered is not going to be based on any grand scheme, plan, dream and so forth. The future will entirely emerge on the basis of money and what gives the highest shareholder return to investors. From that I suspect bio-technology, computer generated reality, cybernet-neural links and such will probably become a prevalent aspect of our future. It will also mean that everything we think of now as normal will dissolve into a witch's brew of cyberpunk shock wave bewilderment.

              LC

                Hi Judy,

                I like your wit and charm. Your essay is now on my spreadsheet too.

                Yes, you're right that I should have included those between 3 and 4. (Good observation, Judy.) What can I say? It was late and the past cannot be undone--even with a time machine (as you will see in my article).

                Best of luck to you too!

                Aaron

                P.S., When you read my paper, please also read my conversations with Michael Allan, Tommy Anderberg, and Robert de Neufville on my page. A great deal of clarification is available in them. I am very happy that their questions and attempted objections gave me an opportunity to provide it.

                That's a horrifying picture you paint Lawrence but one which could well be possible, which is why I had to write the essay. These things are creeping in by stealth with no forethought or 'steering'.

                Frankly that now surprises me less than it did a few months ago. My world is clinical, intelligent, precise and normally with excellent ethics. I had no idea that physics had fallen so far from acceptable standards in all those areas, with the rot seemingly led from the heart, the centre and upper middle.

                Doctrine clearly needs updating, yet the whole subject is based on NOT being inclusive and assessing potentially far better hypotheses.

                Is it fear? That's certainly what it looks like, sheer terror at the idea of finding cherished beliefs and learning will prove to be false. There also seems to be inherent dishonesty. It seems that the horrific behaviour and abuse of editorial power at arXiv and many journals is only acceptable as the background ethics level is so low. It seems those leading fqxi are far from immune. Eugenics of the intellect is now the one important area we desperately need and the only one we can't effect.

                I've seen much honesty and intelligence overwhelmed by the majority. Is it now too late to steer physics back out of the shocking behavioural cesspool it's sunk into? I fear medical science being dragged under too.

                Is the state not recognised from within? Is there a viable escape route?

                Judy