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

      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

        Could you pls if you have questions or remarks post them on my thread ? (topic 1991)

        thans

        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

          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]

          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