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)
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
Aaron,
Thank you. It's nice to know there are gentlemen in physics as well as a residue of high professional standards which must be nurtured. I've found from blog conversations outside the competition that poor standards are not unique to physics (i.e. R.Gill from statistics). Some of the work here is inspiring, honest and original, including your own which I've now scored.
Judy
Thank you Don. Much of humanity and certainly theoretical physics seems to be blundering around blindfolded. My broader field also shows the symptoms which is why I felt the need to write my essay. To steer we must first know where we are, and are heading.
Judy
Congratulations Judy you have written an eminently readable essay on an important and sensitive subject. Biology and medicine have advanced so much in the past decades that the science, social implications and ethics of interfering with human reproduction need to be discussed frankly and openly. The possibility of making mistakes, let alone making intentional 'evil' decisions - as did the Nazis - using such advances makes it the more important to educate and instruct at every level. As you imply there is already a creeping acceptance of many cases of interference with the natural progress of conception and childbirth.
As with many things in our modern world the implications are mind-boggling, and making hard decisions almost impossible because so much is changing so fast. For example, genetic manipulation after birth might one day cure some of the diseases and disabilities that eugenics may want to minimize - should not that curb some possible eugenic scenarios?
Wisely you did not mention the terrible overpopulation the world is experiencing today and in the next decades. A policy like China's to limit population growth would seem to be necessary, but almost impossible to implement globally. It is an enormous problem and needs to be faced courageously by us all.
Is a puzzlement!
Vladimir
Hi Judy. I enjoyed reading your essay. You certainly raise a number of challenging bio-ethical questions that people are going to have to confront, and soon. I think my only complaint was that I arrived at the end of the paper without yet having a very good sense of how you would answer the questions posed. Do you have specific answers to recommend, regarding what should be permitted, who should get to decide, etc.? Or is your point more just that, to steer the future for the better, we need to face up to the existence of these looming and difficult questions, and start thinking and talking about them?
Travis
Judy,
A brave subject to broach. I wonder if the most important question you pose is who decides in you abstract: the criteria, the goals, and termination, for example. Eugenics, I see as only one consideration in steering the future. The big considerations, I see, are how we determine who steerers, what the goal is and how we get there.
My essay has solutions but not necessarily how to get there.
Jim
Vladimir,
I agree overpopulation is a problem in some places and may become a major one if our intelligence and understanding of nature don't keep up. I highlight the hard choices we face if we wish to limit it.
Humanity is very inadequate at facing hard choices or challenges to complacent beliefs, as you seem to agree.
Judy
Travis,
I don't presume to 'take' the decisions facing mankind because none are obvious and all have different complex implications which need thinking about. First we need to recognise where we are going. 'Steering' to a goal is useless if we don't know our start point.
I do identify what I conclude is the most essential change we have to make; Improve the way we use our brains, to improve our understanding of nature. The way we think is not far from primeval. Not only are we belief based but we're poor at identifying key steps forward and implementing them. For me most essays here are semantic, stating the 'B' obvious, or pie in the sky.
Perhaps only one hits all the matters I identify, which is Peter Jackson's, promoting a better way to think and showing a stunning result which will effect real advancement. The problem is that science thinking is so far behind in that 'rut' that it probably won't even be recognised. So the solution is in our heads.
Thanks for your comments. I'll try to read your essay.
Judy
James,
That's the problem. Nobody is really steering and few have any idea how to implement the endless 'solutions' identified. How do we know which solution we need before we know which is the greatest problem.
I believe it's clear we no need to improve intellect in science and take major steps in fundamental understanding, such as that in the Jackson essay and a few others discussing education. Only such real and wide advancements can guarantee success.
I'll try to look at your solutions.
Judy
Judy,
I was just going to leave this subject alone, because sight unseen I would have answered your essay question, "Hell, no." You kindly commented in my forum, however, so I will return the favor and deal with the content objectively, though in opposition:
Eugenics programs are simply not rational. That is, they are based not on a scientific correspondence of theory to experiment; rather, they belong to the class of scientific tinkering. One should know this, even from Galton statistics. The principle of mediocrity, or statistical regression to the mean, tells us that we cannot cross the threshold of efficiency without sacrificing system effectiveness. Georgina is absolutely correct that diversity is our measure of fitness. If we would cultivate fitness, we would allow a diverse variety of forms to grow stochastically, because we already know that biological life is self-limiting to adaptability within the fitness landscape.
I can't really comprehend why you seem to equate intellect with ethics. Nazi researchers were certainly convinced they were doing good for the greater humankind. Well intentioned, indeed.
Your essay does help me understand how those who favor empirical data over science (vice using empirical data to support the science) are misled into the belief that nature should be efficient. Nature is demonstrably not efficient; it is creative and effective. If we would be natural human beings, we would maximize our own individual roles as co-creators in the cosmic dance -- not by eliminating possibilities but by increasing them. No free person is enslaved to their genes.
I won't vote you down, though I would always vote against the proposition that genetic perfection is to be found in eugenic tinkering.
Best,
Tom