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

        • [deleted]

        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

          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

          • [deleted]

          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

            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