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
'twas I.
Tom,
That's a strange response. You've agreed most of my conclusions but described your comments as 'in opposition'. I'm not sure you picked up my main thrust.
From a generally reasonable starting point of warning parents of problem pregnancies and malformations we're now somewhat 'sleepwalking' on many fronts into very dangerous territory without public discussion. Just disagreeing with that view or ducking the issue are the greatest dangers.
You may have noticed I don't tend to duck important issues. The most important is the poor way we employ our brains. Eugenics can't solve that problem. I don't directly 'equate intellect with ethics' as you suggest, but point out that the most intelligent of mankind tend to have the best developed ethical standards. Would you deny that?
Just this evening I watched an excellent discovery channel programme on divergent thinking; 'Redesign our brains'. It showed how our brains are consistently fooled by our assumptions and that imaginations and processing can be far better trained to reach more rational judgements.
If we put just 1% of the focus on that which we currently put in less helpful areas then I think understanding of science and the human condition can advance dramatically.
Judy
"I don't directly 'equate intellect with ethics' as you suggest, but point out that the most intelligent of mankind tend to have the best developed ethical standards. Would you deny that?"
I certainly would. No evidence supports it, and no theory of intelligence predicts it, since no general theory of intelligence even exists.
I would not mourn the death of paternalism or any other form of hierarchical guide to social policy. It's a bad seed.
Tom,
That response again exposes your view that if nothing exists within the realm your own knowledge then it does not exist. That seems to come from the same insular and apparently patronising viewpoint I identified.
It is a central gamut of professional ethics that education and comprehension are essential to achieve adequate levels, ergo intelligence. Of course there's no 'direct' correspondence, there doesn't have to be for validity. But the point of improving thinking methods is also more important than just ethics.
Science cannot advance until our methodology of thinking has advanced. I recently saw a list of great and eminent physicists who've recognised and stated as much including Einstein. I consider it's the less intelligent who fail to recognise that wisdom.
Nobody is proposing paternalism (apart from in your essay) Tom. It's about improving methods of education. If your argument is valid in that sense we'd return to the dark ages.
Judy
Hi Judy,
An interesting and "controversial" read. There are certain topics that no matter how they are approached will start by putting people on their guard. The example you give of Cuckle rejecting the use of the term "eugenics" to prenatal genetic screening shows how delicate this subject is.
And on the surface say one could offer potential parents a baby with top immune system, health, intelligent, strong, etc. won't they surely take this option. BUt as your essay points out (I think this is the point) there should be more open discussion about these issues, since they are slowly coming now, but with often less then open discussion of the issues involved. I would go further and say that with all new technologies (the steam engine, nuclear energy, computers, etc.) it would be good to have some logical discussion before they are implemented or used, but this usually is not the case. In the case of biological sciences this non-discussion / stealth discussion of the issues could have even deeper consequences as compared to similar non-discussions of nuclear energy.
I did have a coupled of questions or comments. First in regard to the Chinese policy on family size you mention "...the policy in China of strict limits the how many children couples can bring up and of what sex." (on page 4). In talking with some colleagues and some grad students from China I understood that there was a limit on the number of children in a family (generally one child per family) but I was not aware there were government restrictions on the sex i.e. you were limited to one child but it could be either male or female. However, due to cultural pressures which preferred male children many female fetuses were aborted at least in the rural areas. Anyway did the government fix both the number and sex of the child or only the number?
Second you mention that autism can be screened for similar to Down's syndrome. Is this true? My (poor) understanding of autism is that is has a very broad range, it is not clear if it is one condition or a host of related conditions. However I do recall a colleague of mine had mentioned that when his second child was on the way some prenatal testing showed signs for concern. But the doctors were not able to quantify the extent of autism his child would have or even if the child would definitely have autism. So maybe there is some screening for this?
Last, my impression was that our ability to predict biological outcomes is a lot more fuzzy/imprecise compared to predicting physics outcomes. For example if you feed and electron through a magnetic field and you know the field strength and speed of the electron you can describe a lot of things very accurately about how this or any other electron will move through this magnetic field. If you look at the genetic make up of an individual and asked "Will this person be intelligent enough to formulate a Unified Field Theory?" or "Will this person be fast enough to run a 3:30 mile when they grow up?" I think it would be almost impossible to say. And I think you mention this in your essay (in terms of intelligence anyway since I think "intelligence" is such a broad based phenomenon it is hard to predict with our present understanding of genetics.
Anyway an enjoyable read. Best of luck.
Doug
I got logged out. The above was me.
Best,
Doug
Dear Judy,
I don't understand why you shudder at the thought of human cloning, but seem to condone genetic engineering. What is the difference? At least with the cloning of an adult, you have a proven DNA sequence that you knows works. With genetic engineering, it's a brand new experiment every time (on a non-consenting human no less).
I can see that you tried to be even-handed in your arguments, and I commend you for that. There are a few issues that you didn't seem to address in your essay:
1. Designing children tends to turn them into means, not ends. In other words, these children exist for the benefit of the parents, not for the child him or herself. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to show that once we start turning people into objects, it will not end well.
2. You asked a brilliant question: Who is the patient? As I pointed out in my own essay ( Three Crucial Technologies - your critical comments and score are welcome!), Theodore Sturgeon challenged his readers to "Ask the Next Question!" Which in this case is: What objective criteria you use to decide who that patient is? If personhood is determined by who holds the most power... well, that will not end well either.
3. In my essay, I discussed the rapid pace of technology, described by Kurzweil's Law of Accelerated Returns. Some technologies have a doubling time of 18 months (most famously Moore's Law) and some are faster, while others have a significantly slower rate. But few are as slow as human reproduction. So given improvements in nanotechnology and space launch technologies, how is genetic engineering, either in the form of augmented selection or targeted DNA manipulation going to have much impact? Also, do you think Freitas' design for Cell Repair Nanorobots for Chromosome Replacement Therapy will make genetic engineering as we know it obsolete?
Sincerely,
Tee
Hello Judy ~ Who should decide the number & characteristics of each new generation?
Answer : Women should. At least once our women folk have relearnt all of the reproductive wisdom we have lost under patriarchy.
As I say in my essay 'How Should Humanity Steer the Future?' by Margriet O'Regan, evolutionary biology not only maps out our evolutionary journey with crystal clarity, but also details exactly who & how we will achieve whatever end we do achieve.
'Evolutionary viability as critically relies on female centrality as it does on sufficient & suitable subsistence resources'.
The reason we are currently staring omnicidal oblivion square in the face is the direct result of 'patriarchy' - the name we have chosen to give to that state of affairs in which the human male controls everything.
Because they do not possess the organs of primary reproduction, nature has not given men the knowledge (whatever its source) to deploy that equipment.
Sadly women no longer possess this knowledge either, but unless our womenfolk relearn how to reproduce our kind in the manner in which nature intended, & then re-arrange our social structures so that women are afforded everyting they require to bear & raise our children at our optimum reproductive level, we are doomed.
Doug,
The Chinese government found they were 'drawn in' to specify sex because, as is normal, nobody had thought through the likely consequences of the first edict.
That's the point about the inadequate way we use our brains (in government and science etc. generally and not just in China), Unintended outcomes are the norm and will remain so all the time we suppose we can't judge intelligence. Tom's view above epitomises the problem well.
What I argue is that we CAN'T determine intelligence before birth, so eugenics is next to useless and nearing dangerous. What we need then is far better education. Science and particularly theoretical physics seems prone to such intellectual failure. I include our current approach to eugenics.
Talk of the scientific method is ironic in theoretical physics and cosmology, which are so absolutely reliant in beliefs and seem to worship only the false god of mathematics, which brings us back to the Chinese child policy!
I agree completely non fuzziness, which escapes maths at the foundations. Nothing is certain and all is unique. 'Screening' for autism for example is very imprecise. It's a complex subject but there are certain markers which act as indicators. This may be looked upon in some ways as targeting all with dark skin in an anti drug swoop because statistics show there may be a 12% (or whatever)better chance of success. The unacceptability and dangers of such motivation are often ignored.
Thanks for the interesting questions.
Dear Judy,
I appreciate your delightful comments about my work in Theoretical Physics. You are right that my work is not warmly accepted in the poor state of modern science (if you could call it that). It isn't that my equations are incorrect, it is that they are too revolutionary. I have advanced the Unified Field Equation probably as far as I can at this time because of the difficulty in determining the Apsidal Precession of the electron to calculate the absolute orbital trajectory within atoms and molecules. If I were given the necessary resources and support then I might attempt such an improbable task. However, I believe the the level of hierarchy given by my current equations could do incredible things if applied more like Maxwell applied his equations in terms of fluid dynamics. I have been meaning to post on your thread but I got distracted with my work. I can offer a great insight into Eugenics. Personally, I come from a great genetic lineage. My surname Tuck originated from Viking Royalty. I always knew of my superior intellectual gift but I never knew of its origins until I did some research. I discovered that I shared genetic traits with Einstein when I read a Times Magazine article about him stating that the back of his head was misshapen. I thought perhaps this was an anatomical trait because I had a bump on the back of my head (which is called an occipital protuberance). It is a Neanderthal trait which is linked to a difference in neurobiology (probably most apparent in the cerebellum). Psychologists diagnose those like me as having Asperger's Syndrome, which has been considered an Autism Spectrum Disorder. It is like a blessing and a curse because I excel at logical reasoning and problem solving tasks but have great difficulty with social tasks involving Emotional Intelligence. Neanderthals did not go extinct, they simply disappeared into the gene pool. I believe that they are most strong when kept pure because they are Recessive Gene Traits that skip generations and become increasingly rare within the population. This is true of hybrid species of plants and animals. Many sources believe that the Vikings descended from the ancient Israelite Tribe of Benjamin (in which I also hold that opinion). I feel a kinship with Jews because I see them as a genetic cousin. However, I was surprised to learn that Hitler tried to eradicate them in favor of the Nordics (which is another name for my ancestry). I also believe that I have some Irish or Celtic within me as Vikings took Irish women as brides. I have been separated from my wife for many years now, but she is the polar opposite of me and our two sons each favor a genetic side. My oldest son Cayden has the same analytical thought process that I possess and the same stalky body frame. However, my youngest son JD has a slender, less-muscular frame and high emotional IQ. Cayden is very detail-oriented and takes longer to read, memorize facts, or take tests whereas JD is very quick to learn something new and is doing exceedingly well in school in comparison. This is where IQ tests fail because Cayden is slower to learn but has much greater analytical problem-solving skills. However, JD is quick to learn and apply knowledge and emotional skills. One son was born a natural Theoretic Physicist and the other a natural Engineer. I am much better at figuring out things unknown to mankind than applying what is already known because someone else could calculate an answer faster than me or learn a fact quicker, but I can be much more innovative and original than someone that is more of the practical engineering-type. It is the same with Mathematicians, they see equations and I peer through the equations to the heart of their meaning. Intellectually, I have scored merely above-average and yet I have derived and integrated the Equation of Everything (the Unified Field Equation) that unites Gravitation and the Electromagnetic Force on the Quantum-Level in only 3-years, whereas Einstein sought such an equation for over 30-years of his life. Yet Einstein supposedly had an IQ of 160. Obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with mankind's assessment of a person's intellectual ability. Therefore I think that mankind would fair very poorly at deciding what traits are superior to others. I love both my sons equally because Cayden and JD both have traits of Natalie and myself that I love and I see them both gifted in different ways. The Nordic people seem to have very low-corruption because the group-dynamics seems more geared to the common good, yet they have the propensity to be the fierce warriors and marauders of their ancient brethren. In fact, it was from stubbornness of their wicked perversions that nearly wiped-out the Tribe of Benjamin in biblical days for standing up against all the other tribes simultaneously. I have been critical of societies propensities of peer-pressure and being followers and of selfishness, but I have also seen people with incredible Emotional-IQ display some of the greatest passion, love, and caring for others. While I see that pure logical rationality might overcome the emotional-evils of corruption, a world devoid of great emotion loses the fiery passion and intensity of emotional-based logic. It is liken to taking the vibrancy of colors out of the world and replacing it with shades of grey. I have learned a whole skill-set that I never knew existed before my wife introduced me to how people perceive others and feel inside themselves. I doubt that I would have even tended to look people in the eye and peered into the inner workings of their soul or even cared to do so without her guidance. Therefore, I cannot fault Neanderthals for loving Crow Magnon women because they were likely drawn to the intense passion and beauty of emotional-based women. Anyways, I am a major advocate of utilizing technology to the fullest, but we must realize that our judgement of what traits are superior is quite inadequate to the task of deciding the fate of human evolution. Nature has a greater ability to determine our genetic destiny. I have great pride for my Neanderthal genetic roots, but I see great beauty in diversity. While I might be part of a genetic subspecies that is dying-out through the dominance of Crow Magnon traits, there is the reflection of my ancestors beneath the waves that will always be there. Einstein once said, "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." I know that I would love the ability to create and modify biological life, but I am afraid that we are too ignorant of the unintended consequences that we shall impose when we decide to play God with the master blueprint of the human species. I have said that technology is simply a tool, but I think that humanity must greatly mature as a species before we make irrevocable changes to our genetic future!
Sincerely,
Stephen Tuck
Judy,
I fully support eugenics in pre-screening out DNA's negative effects to humans health and wellness. but the ' fine line ' of execution on any eugenics action due to skin colour, body built, etc. has to be utmost respected and never crossed. But I am sure that at the rate of technological advancement that in the not too distant future, eugenics' technology could be implemented for the good of all human beings without trespassing that ' fine line ' .
Keep up your good workings !
Raymond Law