Is a better future possible from Eugenics? by Judy Nabb

"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.

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.

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

Dear Judy,

Thank you for your comment on my thread, it is a pleasure to sent you the text of an article I read in "The Daily Galaxy" wher Stephen Hawking mentions the "The Self Designed Evolution" :

quote:

For billions of years, simple creatures like plankton, bacteria, and algae ruled the earth. Then, suddenly, life got very complicated. Recent discoveries from Canada's Burgess Shale Deposits, Greenland, China, Siberia, and Namibia document clearly that a period of biological creativity known as the Cambrian Explosion occurred in a "geological instant" over 500 million years ago virtually all around the globe -an explosion of life that continues to puzzle evolutionists.

During the Cambrian explosion animals as diverse as arthropods, molluscs, jellyfish, and primitive vertebrates all appear within a time span of only 5-10 million years with no ancestors and no intermediates.

Recent discoveries have narrowed the time frame from over 70 million years to less than 10 million years. The same basic body plans that arose in the Cambrian remain surprisingly constant ever since. Apparently, the most significant biological changes in the history of the earth occurred in less than ten million years, and for 500 million years afterward, this level of change never happened again.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould once said, "Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting."

Fast forward to the present: although It has taken homo sapiens several million years to evolve from the apes, the useful information in our DNA, has probably changed by only a few million bits. So the rate of biological evolution in humans, Stephen Hawking points out in his Life in the Universe lecture, is about a bit a year.

"By contrast," Hawking says, "there are about 50,000 new books published in the English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so, the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not billions, higher than with DNA."

This means Hawking says that we have entered a new phase of evolution. "At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information."

But what distinguishes us from our cave man ancestors is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, Hawking points out, over the last three hundred.

"I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race," Hawking said.

In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. "But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage," Hawking says, "has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes."

The time scale for evolution, in the external transmission period, has collapsed to about 50 years, or less.

Meanwhile, Hawking observes, our human brains "with which we process this information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems. In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about 15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which time, many more books would have been written."

But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. "At first," he continues "these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression."

If the human race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, we will probably reach out to the stars and colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.

The Daily Galaxy via http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131

Image credit: ALMA Observatory/ESO

unquote

So you see that your proposed eugenics are thought of also by others.

Now about this solution in the sight of "consciousness".

My perception is that our (causal)consciousness is a part of a non-caused) consciousness of Total Simultaneity (see my other essay's). In our causal universe , the reality as we are experiencing right now , the "constitution" of matter so also our material bodies are a way to become aware of "time" (we are the prisoners of time) the pre-birth stadium is like the process in a factory to assemble the parts of a computer to make it ready to turn programs (of course this comparison is going bad because computers are only Boolean machines and we have causal consciousness that is part of an infinity). The chance however that you are now indeed reading my post is one in a many billions, when we are referring to ALL the coincidences that made it possible for the egg of your mother and the semen of your father to meet (it goes still further when we go to your grandparents... But ALL these coincidences are "availabilitys" in Total Simultaneity, and the reality that we both are aware of is only one of the infinite realities available (NOT like Many World Interpretation where every universe splits in two at any choice made, this theory is only talking for future time lines wherelse mine is also valid for pasts.

Thank you for a very nice view of our mutual reality.

Wilhelmus

Judy,

Very well written essay on a tough topic, difficult to read, but must be read. Thanks for a many faceted view on eugenics.

I fully subscribe to a future full of "all babies born strong and healthy."

I wish you had elaborated much more on "engineer greater intellect" and "attitudes" and especially "intellectual development seems to be immune from genetic engineering". If I may use a word I am more familiar with it is the word "think". I believe that people can be taught to think, but it all breaks down when "attitudes" and responsibility raise their heads - two factors that make consensus on what to do problematic.

Your point about "improved methods of thinking" requiring broader and broader fields is spot on. Your essay made me think.

I will appreciate your comments on my essay (here). I celebrate difference as a definer of humanity's future, which I'm glad your essay says will always exist.

Fascinating essay, Judy. This is a difficult topic, but one that we very much need to discuss. You raise really important questions, and I learned a great deal from your tour through the eugenics debate.

In my own essay--which I would love for you to look at!--I argue that one way or another we are likely to transform ourselves as a species over the course of the next century. Reading your essay it seems clear to me that the question is not whether we will engage in some form of eugenics, but who should be making these vital life-and-death decisions. Your essay is a great step toward tackling that question.

Best,

Robert de Neufville

Judy,

Financial cost needs to be a factor in deciding how far to take eugenics. I think in the past, in vitro fertilization sometimes led to many low birth weight babies. They needed medical care costing more than the parents would make in their lifetimes. Insurance and the hospital picked up most of the cost and passed it on, making everyone indirect stakeholders. Giving everyone science fiction-type health care would cost more than the GDP, so limits are necessary. Government panels like the USA Independent Payment Advisory Board could decide how much that insurance or government would pay the hospital for each procedure. In 2030, a worldwide economic crisis may boil over resulting in triage. Your essay said eugenics can reduce costs, so eugenics is likely to be used in low risk situations and not in higher risk situations with potential costly complications.

I get the impression that modern medicine has also had an anti-eugenics effect. Keeping babies and children alive that would have died in the past or in less developed countries might partly explain increasing food allergies and other problems.

Eugenics is limited by technical complexity. The video Nova: Cracking Your Genetic Code at 38:00 says height and other characteristics are determined by hundreds of genes that would be very hard to manipulate together.

Regarding intelligence, there are too many factors besides genetics. In sports, sometimes the first player drafted really is the best, sometimes it turns out to be a late round pick, often the whole team matters most. Intelligence is even more difficult to predict and judge.

Thank you for writing your essay!

Brent

Judy,

Thanks for your supportive comments on my blog. I'm check and ensure Doug didn't misunderstand about both spin 1 and spin 1/2 being covered.

While here I do recommend you read Ross Cevenst's interesting essay if you haven't yet.

Best wishes

Peter