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

    Margaret,

    Well done for taking the part of a matriarchy in the debate. You argue it well but I think expose it's limitations. There are no absolutes, but I've worked in all female professional environment and found that they fail.

    Decisions and reactions become more emotionally than objectively based. I think even in a balanced group the scientific method is too little applied, men are as guilty as women, but it's a matter of outlook and emotional stability.

    I also suspect that your suggestion could be as bad for society as all male environments. I don't find the resistance to women as strong as many women suggest. In the UK the majority of institutes in my field now have female presidents and equal representation at all upper levels.

    Going a step further as you suggest may cause a back reaction equivalent to militant feminism so I certainly can't agree it's a useful direction to steer humanity. Both men and women need to learn to make better use of the potential of our brains in foreseeing consequences of actions and escaping old beliefs.

    I suggest that setting any section of society against any other is likely to be just another problem not the solution (but here we're judging the essays not the propositions themselves). We do need to escape our current established direction, but I wouldn't choose matriarchy.

    Judy

    Stephen,

    Thank you. I agree with most, and the view shared with Peter Jackson that we still have much intellectual evolution to undergo. That will be a long process if we don't recognise the need and see the opportunities for more rapid leaps.

    Judy

    Ajay,

    Great advancements are being made in understanding how the brain neurons work and which areas are active for what type of decisions, but we're a long way from being able to influence 'intelligence' biologically.

    The best description by far I've seen is Peter Jackson's, considering how Architects are re-taught how to "think" then giving proof of it's success in his essay. The problem seems to be that however correct and logical, no such 'leap' in the right direction is possible while the majority, in the sciences at least, are NOT taught to think properly.

    The brain is still an underutilised tool. Peters rightly refers to it as a 'quantum computer', but I note a typical scientist on his blog asked "can you prove that?"! But we mustn't give up hope. I'll read your essay.

    Judy

    Thank you Robert.

    I hope I point to an important issue. Did you know that if blindfolded and asked to walk in a straight line we'll invariably walk in a circle? It seems true of physics that we're wandering blindfolded in circles, wearing an ever deeper groove, but in eugenics we're wandering aimlessly following paths of least resistance.

    I see the only escape in both cases is a more intelligent and objectively considered approach, which should allow the major advancements in understanding we need. The real leap forward will be from removing the blindfold and seeing that nature is really coherent, unified and beautiful not the hotch potch mess of our current beliefs.

    If we don't quickly improve our understanding we probably won't even survive to transform. I've found very few essays here go beyond semantics to real advancement in understanding of nature and thus ourselves. That shows most have little idea how and where to steer.

    According to the current leading essay it's looking back, and a better library! As Wilhelm's quote above from Hawking says, most present information is garbage.

    I'll try to get to your essay.

    Judy

    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

    Brent,

    It's a good point that ALL decisions on maintaining life beyond natural limits is 'eugenic' in effect, including improved medicines. That's a simple example of the thinking and analysing beyond immediate consequences, which we're short of.

    From what I've read here it's clear few really have any idea how to actually 'steer' anything, or don't even agree mankind does so anyway whether consciously or not! The subject has exposed our inadequate ability to derive consequences from actions.

    Very few give fundamental concrete proposals, i.e. from how to unify physics upwards, and those are little recognised, proving my point on methods of thinking. Some of the partisan dismissive arguments from some parties here also reveal the problem.

    As you say, there are levels of complexity, some great but we're presently a long way from understanding even the basic one needed!

    Thanks for your comments. I'll try to get to your essay.

    Judy

    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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #57

    Hi Judy,

    Your main message, if I have it right, is very interesting - that we are sleep walking into an age of consumer eugenics without a public discussion. I think its hard to argue against people wanting healthy babies, but I sometimes imagine an age of fashion-eugenics where parents select for children based on their perception of what is 'successful' or 'desirable'. For example, genetics related to 'confidence' - I can imagine a horrible genetic force even more powerful than our current wave of socially-driven narcissism. Never mind all the inevitable fraudulent genetic crazes that will no doubt catch on like fad diets. I'm not familiar with the technology, but presumably test-tube babies means that neither abortion nor timescale will be an issue if IVF could include genetic selection for specific traits?

    While I always strive to place great value on intelligence, I do have a small philosophical objection to your closing comments about intelligence genetics. Essentially my reasoning is (1) Humans, including the great variety of genetic variants, are inherently valuable (2) Intelligence is valuable because of its evolved utility in preserving humans (3) Improving intelligence through aggressive eugenics appears to be a means harming its own ends. Of course, I agree there is a strong case to oppose intelligence *dysgenics* and encourage our finest minds to have many children!

    Like others have commented, I have to take my hat off to your brave effort to bring these issues into the light of public debate. Its hard to see the policy mechanisms that would effectively help us manage this new phenomenon, but one thing is certain - consumer eugenics appears to have already begun, so we'd better have a really thorough public debate about it while we can. Thanks for starting that debate.

    MY PAPER is very different in its form (it conveys my ideas in a semi-fictional format), but I hope it also raises difficult issues and I'd be very keen to hear your thoughts on the ideas expressed within. I'd love for you to rate it too. Good luck for your entry!

      Ross,

      Many thanks. Your assessment is excellent except you didn't seem to extract what I meant from the section on intelligence. I point out that eugenics is probably worse than useless in that regard yet there lies the greatest need so we need to vastly improve the way we think, so teach.

      Thanks for the comments. I've now read and a scored your own very interesting and valuable offering.

      Judy

      Ah yes I see now, thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps in regards to intelligence there is a greater role for social science and psychology to play. As we know at least half of an person's intelligence is non-genetic (if you'll excuse the gross simplification), that leaves us a lot of potential room for improvement. At this point in history, education certainly seems to be focused around cramming knowledge into the brain rather than making it more intelligent, so perhaps there is hope. Still I'm not overly optimistic in the short-term.

      Thanks for your comments on my own essay! People seem to either love or hate my entry when they read it, so I'm really happy to see you in the former category. Thanks again!

      Judy,

      I enjoyed reading your essay. The sections on intelligent and designer babies are most interesting.

      I invite you to read my essay. Also with your background in biology I think that you will find my paper in the following link entitled "The origin of life as interpreted by Model Mechanics" to be interesting.

      http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf

      Regards,

      Ken

        • [deleted]

        • Post #62

        Hi Judy,

        Nice essay. I'd love to see more work on how various selection pressures, including deliberate decisions by prospective parents and their societies, will affect humanity's long-term genetics. It's not an area I know much about, but it seems like it could be interesting.

        Best,

        Daniel

          Thank you Ken.

          I see it's not a live link but I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance.

          Judy

          Daniel

          Do identify yourself.

          That type of research is very difficult and long term.

          Judy

          Thanks for your comment on my essay.

          Your suggestion by publishing in FQXi that physics and science philosophy should have input on eugenics is intriguing. The advance of technology is mostly responsible for the question being raised. I think you are correct. I wonder how?

          Hodge

          Hi Judy,

          Your essay takes on an important and difficult subject. I am glad you discussed the related but further concept of human augmentation in your "Designer Babies" section. If we could engineer organ and limb regeneration into our offspring, massively increase their intelligence, or double their life-span, why wouldn't we? At some point, we would produce beings that might look much like us, but would be largely unrecognizable to current humans. Would that be a bad thing? These kinds of modifications will be possible within a generation, but it is anyone's guess as to if or when they might be utilized.

          Your essay addresses an important topic and is thought provoking. I have rated it highly and thank you for your contribution.

          Warmly,

          Aaron

          Dear Judy,

          As I told you in my FQXi page, I have read your beautiful and topical Essay. Here are my comments:

          1) Eugenics give me both of enthusiasm and a bit of fear. Thus, I completely agree with your statement that continuance and intensification (of eugenics) are inevitable with recognised benefits but equal dangers.

          2) I am an endorser of anthropic principle. Than, I find it is a good thing that you cite it.

          3) Your statement that "we will soon be able to map a child's full genetic code at or prior to birth"and the following discussion gave me a shiver running down my spine because my wife is pregnant at the present time.

          4) It should be "Stephen Hawking condition" rather than "Steven Hawkins condition".

          5) I completely agree with you that 'normality' is a subjective and relative, not an objective and absolute concept.

          6) You are correct in claiming that we are all different and nobody can, in turn, really judge who else is intelligent or sane.

          7) I agree that bare mathematics cannot be the 'only' language of physics. On the other hand, I think that new ideas must be must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals.

          In general, you discussed a very topical (not only for the FQXi Contest, but for the whole human society) and controversial issue in an excellent way. I am going to give you an high rate accordingly.

          I wish you best luck in the Contest.

          Cheers,

          Ch.