Is a better future possible from Eugenics? by Judy Nabb

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

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

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.

Dear Judy,

If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting to genetically enhance the intelligence of mentally second-class people like me and the rest of the world who are too blind as to see Peter Jackson's geniality.

My comment is hidden in a more easily understandable story: A ship is suddenly facing an iceberg immediately in front of it. The captain decides: full power ahead and sound our hooter. A miracle happens; the ship stops still in time. All power is consumed for tooting.

Regards,

Eckard

topic/2021

Judy,

Eugenics is a controversial issue, which your well-written essay takes full on. As you point out in your essay, eugenics is something that has been around in one form or another since before recorded history. One might argue that the great change in our current society is a lack of eugenics. Modern eugenics would be a difference in degree from what was practiced in the past, instead of just visual inspection we could detect genetic issues and instead of leaving an infant out on a hillside, we could terminate a pregnancy or even stop conception.

In a long view of human history eugenics is the status quo and has lead to our current state of civilization with all its triumphs and flaws.

To me are great issue is the opposite of eugenics. We look at creatures like sharks and houseflies that to us appear identical, yet on a genetic level have a far greater level of genetic diversity than humans. The problem with humans is that superficially we look very different but genetically we are all close cousins. The truth of the matter is there are no human races. What we need is an increase in diversity and part of that could be allowing humans that are not what we consider genetically ideal to be part of our gene pool. We need to genetically expand the definition of human and that means an increase in alternative genetics and not just what we currently think of as ideal.

All the best,

Jeff

Hi Judy, do you have a blog or email at which you can be contacted? I'd like to ask you some further questions on this topic if you have time... you can contact me by thecitizen at auswww.com