PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Rigwyn on September 12, 2014, 11:52:58 am
-
Eugenics:
For those who are unfamiliar with Eugenics, its basically the practice of improving the human gene pool by preventing those with undesirable genetic traits from reproducing. This can be accomplished in a number of ways such as: forced sterilization, discouraging reproduction, social pressure, murder, etc.
I'm not sure if this counts, but when criminals are imprisoned for life - or at least from youth through middle age, they are effectively kept from breeding. One might argue that this is an unintentional form of eugenics as in the long term, if their violent criminal behaviour is indeed tied to their genes, then they are effectively being removed from the gene pool.
Some would argue that this could be a good thing. For example, if you are expecting, you might want to know ahead of time if you are going to have a baby with Downs syndrome so you can terminate the pregnancy and try again. Some folks would consider this murder, or simply immoral, while others would see this as merciful or responsible. My question here is how do you decide if it is right, wrong, wise, foolish, or whatever?
Would it be possible to gently steer the human races towards one that is less prone to inherited genetic disorders and weaknesses, or is mankind generally too corrupt to do this in a fair and responsible way? Is there a fair and responsible way at all?
Lastly, is it possible for people to correctly determine whether or not humanity would be better off or worse off with the elimination of certain genetic traits? If so, does the benefit of doing so outweigh the moral opposition?
Thoughts?
-
All Ynnwn are a corruption of nature and need to be eliminated! ;)
Is the gene-pool too corrupt or not diverse enough? I have known dumb people who've birthed smart children and smart people who have birthed dumb children. Can we even begin to understand the diversity in genetics to be able to do such a thing? What are all the factors that contribute to intelligence? What part does morality play in this?
-
You never know where a random beneficial mutation will occur. All sperms and eggs need to be harvested and be used to create new life. This can be done by our lizard robot overlords in the matrix.
-
It's funny because I'm writing a book that touches on this concept. ;D
-
are you implying that this isn't already happening on a global scale?
-
are you implying that this isn't already happening on a global scale?
How do you see this happening?
Are you talking about intention attempts at manipulating the. Gene pool or cases where this happens unintentionally?
@mari - sounds good :) it sounds there could be some merit to this, but its a very slippery slope.
-
Someone tell Tessra we're talking about genetics. She's got a Master's degree in a related field.
But before she comes in and drops some edjucation on us, I'll just note that eugenics has been practiced for thousands of years already with plants and animals. We kept the seeds from bigger plants and let the smaller ones die out. Genetic modification is something that we've been doing for a long time, and it's the reason that we can produce food in such large quantities as we do today. And technology is nearing the point at which we're able to perform similar modifications on humans.
It sounds like science fiction, but it's not too far from reality. Humans have always wanted to make themselves better.
-
This is a slippery slope.
(http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/khan-noonien-singh.jpg)
-
Khaaaaan! you lack flavor.
-
Oh, Rigwyn, you troll....................................
-
how far down the rabbit hole do you wish to go?
here, i'll give you a red pill (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=250643.0) and a blue pill (http://youtu.be/i_mKY2CQ9Kk)
-
Can it be done, yes. Should it be done by humans now no because I think humans have too far to go on showing enough consideration for each other. Lack of consideration interferes with handling things like eugenics and deciding who lives and who dies in a way that doesn't do more damage than good. Problems would include things like Nazi like genocides, the lack of enough girl babies versus boys, potential preferential selecting for certain non life sustaining and not life harming traits over others thus removing genes that add to human diversity, practically spaying or neutering people for arbitrary reasons and or Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca).
At this point, I can see the benefits of eliminating horrible genetic diseases but lack any faith that Eugenics programs would do anything but replace them with horrible societal diseases.
-
Not fixing a problem because of fear of failure or past failures is not good either.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Holocaust was deplorable and must never be allowed to happen again, but if the medical technology originally proposed could benefit mankind assuming it was deployed in a better way, then perhaps it should not be tossed out the window along with the baby and the bath water.
-
how far down the rabbit hole do you wish to go?
here, i'll give you a red pill (http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=250643.0) and a blue pill (http://youtu.be/i_mKY2CQ9Kk)
I took the red pill after barfing up the blue pill. I don't know... it looked like some crazy person's rant about unsubstantiated and non-specific industry shenanigans, new age authors and their publishers and other fairly insignificant folks and their personal views. There's a bit of guilt by association woven into that article too. I guess I'm not really big on far fetched conspiracy theory stuff as it tends to be based on feelings and loose association and not on fact. Admittedly, I ended up skimming after getting about half way through.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on eugenics, Aramara?
-
At this point, the problem is not theory but application and I am quite sure that humans are nowhere near the point of being able to apply without making a worse mess than the one being "fixed".
Not fixing a problem because of fear of failure or past failures is not good either.
Maybe if you are talking about fixing a car but failure in this field means you are screwing up someone's life. There is no light fail with Eugenics. The moral argument stems, in no small part, from the fact that we are talking about human beings. This is more consequential than switching out widgets until a machine works perfectly.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Holocaust was deplorable and must never be allowed to happen again, but if the medical technology originally proposed could benefit mankind assuming it was deployed in a better way, then perhaps it should not be tossed out the window along with the baby and the bath water.
Again, the theory might work but there might not be a sound or acceptable way of getting from theory to application. The problem becomes "is it right to mess some people up to help others?" There is no way of making advancement in the field without mistakes. Then what? How do you compensate someone when you may have ruined the rest of their life when they might have been able to get by had they simply been left with their original problem? I think you could only get away with trying things like gene therapy on grown people who can give consent and have low probability of survival so that any treatment attempt is better than none.
I think this is likely more problematic than advancing new surgery techniques since gene interaction seems more complicated than making sure nerves align and muscles remesh. This isn't a matter of letting failure stop you but rather realizing when you are getting too far in over your head. A eugenics program is likely putting the cart before the horse. I think way more research into how genes work would be warranted before anyone even tries that level of application.
-
Eugenics is something that has always and will always be practiced. Some people are not capable of letting people live or die on their own. They must choose for the other. Whether it is the warlord who slaughters the neighboring village, the mobster who kills you and all your family members or the doctor who saves the life of baby too deformed to live more than 15 minutes on its own.
Anyway, how did Eugene get such a bad rap? My great-uncle was a perfectly nice man despite tricking the kids into believing that that pine tree was really a peanut tree.
-
A feral cat that lives under our neighbors house had a litter of four kittens a few weeks ago. We've been putting food out for them, but one of the kittens, the runt, isn't getting any of the food because her bigger and stronger siblings take it all for themselves. I'm not the first to say this, but there seems to be a survival of the fittest function written into the laws of nature. To be so ego-entangled to believe that you can judge what is fit or unfit for the the survival of the species, that your judgement is better than nature's, is a sin.
We spoke on this in my abnormal psych class, about how it used to be standard practice in this country and others to sterilize the 'degenerates' (the parlance of the time for handicapable people). Still, today, there's an organization, I believe in California, that pays drug addicted women a stipend to sterilize themselves. The intention there is prevent drug addicted babies being born into a life of impoverishment, but the means are slightly askew in my opinion. There is no effort to help these women overcome their habits and addictions and improve their situations. Instead it's like, "Here's some money, spend it on drugs, we don't care, just don't have babies."
There's a reason why I don't drink tap water, why I don't buy gmo produce or processed and packaged foods. But, I guess whether or not Eugenics is a global political policy or not doesn't really matter, because when the new madrid fault line slips and sets off the yellowstone supervolcano, nature will take care of us in her own way.
-
From all the places, we're discussing eugenics here lol
Anyway, it is happening on a global scale; think about sterilization of people who have Down syndrome for instance. Although concerns in this specific case are understandable, we are still talking about people and this doesn't always happen voluntary.
Either way, it will always be a controversy...
Anyway have fun with the topic, I'm gonna try and stay out of this one ;)
-
Each time we use the "morality" argument first of all it should be good to define what morality is, why we think it's good and what consequences it has.
Speaking about eugenetics, think to diabetes: why people think that curing diabetes with insulin injections is morally better than curing it (supposing for this example that's scientifically possible) with eugenetics? In the long term insulin injections have many side effects and I know about people living an almost normal, but painful (loss of limbs and sort of dementia* induced by liver disease caused by the cure) life.
If our judgement shouldn't be better than the nature's one, why we practice medicine at all?
If we live following nature's rules you can be sure a lot of diseased people will not reach an age suitable for reproduction, Down syndrome included.
Should we put in discussion if our morality is totally fault proof?
Is our morality heavily influenced by religion?
If so, how many lives have been saved by prayers?
What today we think as being morally controversial perhaps in the future will be simple routine.
Think what Demikhov did: it's horrible, but probably without those experiments even transplants could be thought to be impossible today.
* I don't know exactly how to define that, but it's caused by a periodic "poisoning" of their blood because their liver isn't able to purify the blood from ammonia produced by proteins.
-
I think one problem with looking at it so dispassionately is that it makes it harder to see one's self as being in that position while such consequential issues are being decided over your head. I think that the fact that we are talking about people and not chairs requires a less detached view.
While I do view it as an ultimately moral question, I think this eugenics thing is, in it's simplest terms, allowing dramatically important decisions about your life to be made over your head by people who do not have your condition and are making general suppositions to justify taking one position or another. That sounds like a bad idea waiting to happen. Yes, the same argument can probably be made for surgery but genetics is far more complicated than surgery and surgery is plenty complicated.
But to answer the questions:
Each time we use the "morality" argument first of all it should be good to define what morality is, why we think it's good and what consequences it has.
There is no one definition, so you can't necessarily "define" it like it is simply a word. Morality will vary from person to person, and sometimes, from person to person it will be a contradictory term. But, regardless of what label is put on it, we can more or less agree on the fact that there is concern as to the outcome of Eugenics likely on the basis of compassion towards fellow humans.
Speaking about eugenetics, think to diabetes: why people think that curing diabetes with insulin injections is morally better than curing it (supposing for this example that's scientifically possible) with eugenetics? In the long term insulin injections have many side effects and I know about people living an almost normal, but painful (loss of limbs and sort of dementia* induced by liver disease caused by the cure) life.
Producing insulin and injecting poses less of a risk than playing around with genes that are still in the process of being researched. Think of tampering with genes like it is archery. You can stick a bow and arrow into anyone's hands and make an attempt at hitting the target dead in the center; however, it is only the experienced of someone that knows what they're doing that can increase the likelihood that the target will be hit in the center with as few injuries or casualties as possible. This is not to say that it would be impossible to one day safely tamper with the genes, but even using thoughtful and careful medical gene therapies can be risky now.
If our judgement shouldn't be better than the nature's one, why we practice medicine at all?
We practice medicine because of compassion and need. We cannot stand to suffer any more than necessary and we, hopefully, cannot stand to watch others suffer. However, there is a difference between coercing someone into being sterilized and giving someone a medicine that may or may not harm them when all other options have been exhausted and they have full disclosure. While the same arguments against Eugenics can be used against medicine, it is not always an equivalent scenario.
If we live following nature's rules you can be sure a lot of diseased people will not reach an age suitable for reproduction, Down syndrome included.
Without special intervention all people regardless of health can potentially die from a variety of issues even if they are very healthy and strong. Think of a tsunami scraping everyone out to sea and drowning them. But, as soon as you start tampering with your life as it would be without technological and societal advances you are not "following nature's rules". Once you have medicine, start changing the very nature of the food you grow, try to change or resist the weather, so on and so forth you are not living by "nature's rules" and it seems out of place to try to bring nature back into the discussion. Either you want to live in simple dwellings subject to whatever nature throws at you or you want to try to "better" your situation. Then the discussion comes full circle back to morality and definitions of "better".
Should we put in discussion if our morality is totally fault proof?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Is our morality heavily influenced by religion?
If so, how many lives have been saved by prayers?
Even when morality is influenced by religion, there is more to the discussion than "can the illness be prayed away?". If you have a higher power that says you must eliminate the weak and preserve the strong, that can serve as the basis for a morality. The same is true if a higher power says the strong must protect the weak. For any religiously based morality, you must take it, as all the other definitions, on it's own specific merit as religions cannot accurately be lumped together any more than people can.
Yet, for what it is worth there are people who claim to be saved by prayers and always have been since before we developed sophisticated medicines, and despite how harsh the world can be, some people survived long enough for us to get here and to develop medicines. The issues remain, however, "what standard of morality do you use" and "how does it apply to eugenics."
What today we think as being morally controversial perhaps in the future will be simple routine.
Think what Demikhov did: it's horrible, but probably without those experiments even transplants could be thought to be impossible today.
Agreed, it's horrible, but the wiki at least only mentioned him working on animals, not humans. While I don't like the idea of testing on animals, that is a completely different moral argument. Yet, if he were working on humans and not animals, I would rather not have access to the medicine we have now than subject someone to stuff like that. For instance, modern medicine apparently owes much to the Nazi's but given a choice, I would rather do without than have those poor people experimented upon as they were.
-
If morality is subjective - if its something that differs from person to person, then what place does it have in being used in deciding if eugenics should be used? If morality is truly subjective, then it's just an opinion. It has no place here.
If we know for a fact that prohibiting people with certain genetic illnesses would decrease the number of further occurrences of said disease in future populations, then we would at least be doing something logical. We would be making a decision that rooted in fact and not in opinion.
Do I think its likely for such a program to work?
Probably not in a free country like the US, but quite possibly in a country where you have a dictatorship or some authoritative government that has the power ( and the submissive mindset of its people ) to carry out such a program.
Would we necessarily be better off with a healthier population?
Let's say such a program was set up in China. The rule is, to reproduce, you must have a genetic screening and government approved papers confirming your fitness and permitting you to reproduce. Upon child birth, a second round of genetic testing is performed - just to ensure that the offspring's DNA matches that of its registered parents. ( Those who try to cheat the system are swiftly deported )
Given China's population, would a stronger, healthier population overwhelm their country sooner than one of average health and average lifespans? ( By overwhelm, I'm talking about overpopulation )
Would fewer sick people to help in an advanced country slow progress in medical advancement?
-
Just to point out, with eugenics I don't mean sterilization or such practices, that's quite an old eugenics concept. Here I'm thinking more at "switching a couple of genes" into our DNA to prevent those genes from expressing if they are tied with some diseases. I know I'm quite optimistic and it sounds more like science fiction for now, but a day perhaps.... :)
Quote from: Jawir on 13 September 2014, 19:30:37
Should we put in discussion if our morality is totally fault proof?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Here I mean:"how can we be sure that our morality is right?"
We practice medicine because of compassion
That's the point! In my opinion all the morality discussion regards compassion. Should eugenics a practice to be included in medicine as surgery and so on? Is compassion a universally accepted positive trait? I mean, we developed compassion as an evolutionary trait I think... at least observing the entire animal realm we can say some animals have compassion some others not. It seems, at least to me, that compassion is developed because our succes, as a species, is no more bind to the contribution that each of it's members can bring to the group/society. Some others "more useful" members will provide for themselves and the "unlucky" ones. But this process can't continue forever, because the more "the unlucky" traits are propagated the more the overall "genetics quality" will drop, until a point where you cannot sustain this trend. So, probably, compassion is related to the success/wealth of a group/society and for this reason morality changes over time. So, probably, a day, when it will be necessary, eugenics could be considered morally right.
-
If morality is subjective - if its something that differs from person to person, then what place does it have in being used in deciding if eugenics should be used? If morality is truly subjective, then it's just an opinion. It has no place here.
An opinion is that red is a bad color for women over 45 to wear as lipstick. Not harming your fellow being may be subjective in that harm can be defined in several ways, but it is does not become an irrelevant opinion simply because people place the line in slightly different places. Once you relegate morality to an irrelevant opinion, you relegate humanity to animals. Once you do that, you might as well give up on betterment of all types because someone out there can find an argument that anything is just a matter of someone's opinion. However, in recognition that at times even well meaning ideas can lead to great harm, we try to steer clear of getting in too far over our heads which is why morality and ethics come up with eugenics. It is not simply a matter of "can we?" but also a matter of "should we?", "what will happen if we do?", and "do we have a right?"
If we know for a fact that prohibiting people with certain genetic illnesses would decrease the number of further occurrences of said disease in future populations, then we would at least be doing something logical. We would be making a decision that rooted in fact and not in opinion.
Rooting something in fact is not a talisman against making bad decisions. In fact, the Nazi's experiments were probably quite rigorous in their application of scientific method. Logical, simply means you can work it out. The problem is not "can tampering with certain genes prevent certain problems"; that is theory. The problem is "can it be done without causing unacceptable harm"; that is application. Humans tend to find the most exquisite ways of screwing up their fellow human's lives and and giving someone the power over the very words that make up book of someone's life is simply too tempting for abuse and too easy to mess up. The problem is less theory and more human track record. Ignoring the track record in favor of focusing on the theory does not negate the old wisdom that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Wishful thinking is not enough to counteract the fact that humanity still constantly proves it is not ready for such responsibility let alone such power.
Just to point out, with eugenics I don't mean sterilization or such practices, that's quite an old eugenics concept. Here I'm thinking more at "switching a couple of genes" into our DNA to prevent those genes from expressing if they are tied with some diseases.
That isn't so bad, but the problem remains that there are many who would still rely on sterilization, killing, coercion, and other bad or questionable practices to carry out their plans. This is why people are wary. If you open the gate for one, you could inadvertently open the gate for the others.
Here I mean:"how can we be sure that our morality is right?"
You imply a single universally accepted morality. This is impossible because humans cannot agree on anything even if we all perceive a matter in the same way. The problem there is not the concept of morality but rather humans. We can't even all agree that the sky is blue. ;D
That's the point! In my opinion all the morality discussion regards compassion. Should eugenics a practice to be included in medicine as surgery and so on? Is compassion a universally accepted positive trait?
it is not universally accepted as a positive trait and yet that leads back to my earlier point. The problem is not the concept but the contrary nature of humans. The fact that humans cannot agree on something does not reflect on the concept because we never universally agree on anything not flying not medicine not on how to run a society not even on the worth of a human life or what even constitutes a human life. it simply means there are lot of other areas we could stand to work on before we start tampering with genes.
However, I don't think compassion has anything to do with evolution as there are many people who lack it and it seems they not only succeed and survive but they at times thrive even. Yet, I do think that compassion is not only a necessary human trait it is a defining trait. It's probably one of those traits that at times save us from ourselves. it is civilizing and beautiful in its own way.
So, probably, compassion is related to the success/wealth of a group/society and for this reason morality changes over time. So, probably, a day, when it will be necessary, eugenics could be considered morally right.
Not quite, the fact that morality is, to whatever degree, subjective does not inherently imply that it is fluid. Some people do change their moral standards over time and others do not. I think it depends more on what group holds the most influence and that can always change. Even if prevailing attitudes change, that doesn't mean that it will be considered universally acceptable as the current vaccine debate shows.
-
Opinion is simply one's judgement on something. It does not need to be correct or make any sense and it can be completely wrong. Therefore, making decisions based on opinion alone is a pretty aimless approach if that opinion is not based on fact or sound theory. The whole debate about morality, good and evil and who decides which is which deserves its own separate discussion - but I guess we need to touch on it a bit here.
Rooting something in fact is not a talisman against making bad decisions.
Yes, but making logical, educated decisions is far more effective than making uninformed or arbitrary choices. As an example, if you pit an unskilled, noobie chess player against a master like Fisher or Kasparov, the master is going to win *every* time because he(or she) will be making much more intelligent moves - even though they cannot see ahead to the end of the game and know for a fact if they played perfectly or not. Their knowledge is not perfect, but it is significat enough to give them a tremendous advantage at winning the game. ( Likewise, you would see a similar pattern if you pitted a newbie against a player with intermediate skills )
Humans tend to find the most exquisite ways of screwing up their fellow human's lives and and giving someone the power over the very words that make up book of someone's life is simply too tempting for abuse and too easy to mess up. The problem is less theory and more human track record. Ignoring the track record in favor of focusing on the theory does not negate the old wisdom that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
So we should not pursue the application of eugenics because of what happened in Germany under Hitler's watch? This means that if someone misuses a technology in a terrible way ( like the internet, or psychology ) , we should abandon that technology? I disagree, but I do share your pessimism and agree that the abuse of such power is a serious liability.
Wishful thinking is not enough to counteract the fact that humanity still constantly proves it is not ready for such responsibility let alone such power.
But once the technology is there, so too is the choice on how to use it. There is no shielding mankind from this responsibility. Whether we like it or not, these decisions are going to be made by one person or another.
-
Opinion is simply one's judgement on something. It does not need to be correct or make any sense and it can be completely wrong.
Can be wrong but is not inherently wrong. It is not inherently aimless either. How do you think people got to more structured approaches if not by having an opinion on how to proceed first? But that is another debate.
Yes, but making logical, educated decisions is far more effective than making uninformed or arbitrary choices. As an example, if you pit an unskilled, noobie chess player against a master like Fisher or Kasparov, the master is going to win *every* time because he(or she) will be making much more intelligent moves - even though they cannot see ahead to the end of the game and know for a fact if they played perfectly or not. Their knowledge is not perfect, but it is significat enough to give them a tremendous advantage at winning the game. ( Likewise, you would see a similar pattern if you pitted a newbie against a player with intermediate skills )
But you are equating a level of knowledge and expertise that is not currently held with this field. It is the newbie not Kasparov that is being asked to forward the field. Remember that it was only the 1950's when Watson and Crick actually discovered the structure of DNA. Many discoveries have been made, but the field itself is not only new but very deep. It will take more than 60 or so years to reach mastery. The problem lies not in the theory that more knowledge will benefit people, but that acquiring that knowledge will do far more harm than is acceptable in the path to reach mastery level. Application is where this issue becomes the problem that we are actually grappling with.
So we should not pursue the application of eugenics because of what happened in Germany under Hitler's watch? This means that if someone misuses a technology in a terrible way ( like the internet, or psychology ) , we should abandon that technology? I disagree, but I do share your pessimism and agree that the abuse of such power is a serious liability.
When it produces that bad an effect, then you have to seriously consider if it is worth it or responsible to push ahead. As the recipient of the end product, advanced medical care, you may be inclined to simply accept what the Nazi's did to people as unfortunate and evil and can say that at least we could put the information to good use. However, if you were to tell each of the people that lost their lives and/or were tortured to produce that result (http://www.history.com/photos/remembering-the-holocaust/photo6), do you think that they would find the advancement of other people's health a comfort before they died? Would you be willing to state that your health so important that such an atrocity occurring again is an acceptable risk? It is by no means a light risk or nor are the causalities inconsequential in the long run. I admit that the line of what is unacceptable is subjective as well, but clinging to what has proven to lead to much harm on the wish that it will eventually do enough good to balance the scales is pretty much as bad as trying to wish away illness. It is avoiding the realized issues in favor of the hoped for issues.
But once the technology is there, so too is the choice on how to use it. There is no shielding mankind from this responsibility. Whether we like it or not, these decisions are going to be made by one person or another.
The problem is not the choice but the level of maturity needed to make the right choice. A 3 year old will one day inevitably have to be responsible for itself and to make decisions for itself. However, one does not simply expect a 3 year old to raise itself, nor would anyone expect good results if it did. Time and maturity are needed before the 3 year old grows into the maturity, knowledge, wisdom and skill that it will need to be able to successfully accomplish the task. Humanity is no different. Rushing into trying to deal with matters it is not mature enough to handle will end badly and having more people or less people will not negate that underlying fact. Eventuality is not a justification for screwing up badly.
I remember hearing once that the scientists working on the Manhattan project originally tried to bury all the information once they realized just what it was capable of doing. The only reason all of that got reopened and developed was that others were coming to the same conclusion on their own and the information couldn't be stopped. So, not wanting the U.S. to be left behind they pressed on ahead. Since then, nuclear weapons have proliferated to the point of being able to destroy the planet so many times over it's insane. Yes, nuclear energy can be used to good effect but there was a reason those scientists tried to hold back. Had it been up to only them, they weren't ready to be responsible for the potential bad that would come along with any good. And just look, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't nearly as bad as what would happen if too many of those nuclear warheads went off. Once you open that can, you can't go back later and say, "Oops, we went to far. Let's put the lid back on."
Simply put, those arguments aren't adequate enough to justify pressing on when you are essentially proposing to give immature humans the power of God. The level of responsibility and temptation to do horrible things blows it into a completely different category than surgery or drugs.
-
Quite an interesting question!
Just to point out, with eugenics I don't mean sterilization or such practices, that's quite an old eugenics concept. Here I'm thinking more at "switching a couple of genes" into our DNA to prevent those genes from expressing if they are tied with some diseases. I know I'm quite optimistic and it sounds more like science fiction for now, but a day perhaps.... :)
Seen like that it sounds like advanced surgery, and so the scope would be limited to an individual, and maybe their progeny. But of course it doesn't actually work like that, once an individual is born there is little chance to make any change to their genes. At best it would be a local change (as when Bob Melnikov transforms a virus to deliver a DNA change that cures his eye disease, in the excellent Regenesis series (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0429422/?ref_=nv_sr_2)). It would not a global change (as in the improbable Bourne Legacy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/?ref_=nv_sr_1)... arguably not a very serious reference though ;)).
And the scope is one of the key to the answer. As it has been judiciously pointed out here, making decisions on an entire race either by selecting or modifying the genes - since this is really the same in the long run - doing this could have drastic implications on its future because it would reduce the diversity, hence the probability of surviving in time of environmental change. And that's already assuming we would have enough knowledge not to make any big mistake for the short term! But let's allow that even though a living form shouldn't normally be able to grasp its own complexity (there is something awfully recursive about the thought of it).
Let's say such a program was set up in China. The rule is, to reproduce, you must have a genetic screening and government approved papers confirming your fitness and permitting you to reproduce. Upon child birth, a second round of genetic testing is performed - just to ensure that the offspring's DNA matches that of its registered parents. ( Those who try to cheat the system are swiftly deported )
An extrapolation of, and probably the idea behind, the already mentioned Gattaca. Funny to think about China though, who indirectly brought a control of the evolution by favouring males over females for an entirely different reason, and realized decades later what a mistake it was.
Again, if we agree that we got where we are by selected mutations, I think it did a pretty job by itself and I wouldn't mess with the system by adding criteria that will end up as a compromise between too many parties trying to define the best evolution of the human race.
What is cruel though, is the idea that we are already messing with it through medicine. It's certainly coming from compassion and we wouldn't be able to bear the injustice of letting other people suffer from such and such disease, malformation and affliction. But I can't help thinking it goes against what allowed us to survive so far.
Then once we get perfect human beings comes the question "what will we do when we survive too well and deplete the resources". Actually the question already stands for almost one century.
This reminds me of this really interesting talk about how close we are to be immortal - and I'm so sorry because this is in French, I could try and find out whether he made the same talk in English (from the Time magazine appearing on the screen during the talk, it should be the case):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGD-7M7iYzs&feature=player_embedded&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded&gl=FR&app=desktop
Apparently from what Laurent Alexandre is saying, most of the causes of ageing would be close to being identified and countered by science. He ends up his talk with this very bold statement: "my personal conviction is that people in this auditorium will live a thousand years". And isn't ageing the ultimate illness?
-
Then once we get perfect human beings comes the question "what will we do when we survive too well and deplete the resources". Actually the question already stands for almost one century.
Well, that is actually a fairly simply answer with morally less complex applications. What humans need to be able to do by that point is to be capable of essentially terraforming; traveling beyond the confines of earth; and more immediately, better use what resources are available in any given location. The moral implications however can again take up their own thread.
-
Then once we get perfect human beings comes the question "what will we do when we survive too well and deplete the resources". Actually the question already stands for almost one century.
Well, that is actually a fairly simply answer with morally less complex applications. What humans need to be able to do by that point is to be capable of essentially terraforming; traveling beyond the confines of earth; and more immediately, better use what resources are available in any given location. The moral implications however can again take up their own thread.
Probably the answer is even easier: being perfect doesn't mean being immortal nor being for an entire life immune from any kind of disease. Look at nature and at any animal species of your choice: they are already perfect because they are already selected by nature, and the individual who survives is suitable to survive in its environment. And I'm not aware of any animal species capable to put at risk their own survivability by means of depleting resources... except us (as we are currently) though...
An example I like a lot is Limulus Polyphemus: it has an exceptionally good immune system, it is almost unchanged from the prehistory (a good indicator that it's almost perfect if it's still here :)) and... it hasn't overwhelmed the world! :P
-
Well, that is actually a fairly simply answer with morally less complex applications. What humans need to be able to do by that point is to be capable of essentially terraforming; traveling beyond the confines of earth; and more immediately, better use what resources are available in any given location. The moral implications however can again take up their own thread.
That would do it, if that's feasible soon enough - or feasible at all, there are some laws that are hard to work around. The problem I see with expanding is that it isn't a true solution, only postponing the outcome of the initial problem, which is a break in a subtly regulated system.
Admittedly, if we put it off far enough, it's fine ;)
Yet wouldn't people rather turn on one another? It's much easier and we already have all we need for that at our disposal. To avoid it, we could of course turn off another regulator and make sure there is no competition left in us, and boost empathy. But then again, we should be damn sure we know how to take over from that point on.
But am I not going slightly off topic? I suppose one problem at a time is enough... I'm just thinking it's not easy to tinker with a mechanism that has had more than 2 thousand million years of practice.
An example I like a lot is Limulus Polyphemus: it has an exceptionally good immune system, it is almost unchanged from the prehistory (a good indicator that it's almost perfect if it's still here :)) and... it hasn't overwhelmed the world! :P
We have one definitive advantage over all other species: our intelligence which allowed us to benefit from technology. To such an extent we could dominate all others, that's a huge difference.
Looked it up, it looks like a pleasant enough fellow btw :D
-
Probably the answer is even easier: being perfect doesn't mean being immortal nor being for an entire life immune from any kind of disease.
True, but, unlike all the other animals, Humans do not like to live the exact same way for very long. Consider how much change humans have gone through in societies and culturally just in the last 200 years alone. Whether we could find a niche and stay in it or not, we simple won't do so because we are just too curious and too restless. Much of the discussion of how to proceed stems from the fact that equating humans to animals is not an entirely accurate correlation. Humans have all sorts of drives that the average animal either lacks or ignores.
That would do it, if that's feasible soon enough - or feasible at all, there are some laws that are hard to work around. The problem I see with expanding is that it isn't a true solution, only postponing the outcome of the initial problem, which is a break in a subtly regulated system.
Actually, it's just a continuation of systems that are already in place. The solution is fine, it's the regulation that proves a test. Consumption is inevitable; the problem is replenishment, and that would just mean that the future would require humans to learn how to put back what they take out. For instance, animals eat grass, they poop, then grass grows again. Humans cut trees down then humans replant the seeds to grow more trees to cut. Consumption is a natural process of life, and all systems of consumption probably have an inverse of some sort that will allow you to replenish what you take. Humans only need to figure out what that inverse is and learn how to sustainably regulate the system in that interval between consumption and replenishment. This ultimately means learning how to delay instant gratification in order to maintain balance.
In a way it goes back to the argument of maturity. Are you mature enough to wait and get more over time or do you have to have everything right now and risk losing the resource entirely in the future?
Yet wouldn't people rather turn on one another? It's much easier and we already have all we need for that at our disposal.
Yes, it's the lack of maturity issue again and it's people that cut corners and take deceptively simple solutions that often interfere with the development and application of far better and longer lasting solutions.
To avoid it, we could of course turn off another regulator and make sure there is no competition left in us, and boost empathy. But then again, we should be damn sure we know how to take over from that point on.
That leads right back to the issues of "moral right" and "what is morality" that we started with the Eugenics discussion. However, I'm of the opinion that a boost in Empathy is exactly the shot in the arm that humanity needs right now. Yet, I don't think that is a purely biological phenomenon and it goes back to a discussion we had in one of Rigwyn's other threads about the nature of thought and the potential presence of metaphysical concepts that may or may not be explained by science at least not as it is known now.
-
Then once we get perfect human beings comes the question "what will we do when we survive too well and deplete the resources". Actually the question already stands for almost one century.
Well, that is actually a fairly simply answer with morally less complex applications. What humans need to be able to do by that point is to be capable of essentially terraforming; traveling beyond the confines of earth; and more immediately, better use what resources are available in any given location. The moral implications however can again take up their own thread.
That and they could be far more selective about reproduction - allowing only one offspring per person per lifetime when the population reaches such a size that growth needs to be stopped, and one offspring per couple per year ( or 1/2 offspring per person per year ) when the population needs to trend downward. As for leaving the planet goes, yeah, that's worth its own thread. xD
( I have not see Gattaca yet... but its now on my list! )
Referring back to my point about pitting a chess master against a noob, you will see the same pattern of success with a noob versus a player who has only a little skill - you just won't see %100 success. I bring this up only to support my claim that the use of skill is superior to guessing randomly or just "letting things happen as they will".
Regarding my choice of using "China" in my example previously, I only selected that country because they have a government that *might* be able to mandate such a rule ( yeah, I know.. that's still not likely ), and they have an enormous population. I admit, there might be other countries that would have been a better choice for this example. I considered North Korea (since its a dictatorship), but I'm not sure if their population vs. space would have been a good match.
Just to point out, with eugenics I don't mean sterilization or such practices, that's quite an old eugenics concept. Here I'm thinking more at "switching a couple of genes" into our DNA to prevent those genes from expressing if they are tied with some diseases.
That isn't so bad, but the problem remains that there are many who would still rely on sterilization, killing, coercion, and other bad or questionable practices to carry out their plans. This is why people are wary. If you open the gate for one, you could inadvertently open the gate for the others.
I don't think there's a gate here so to speak. I think what Jawir suggested was good, period. I want to challenge your idea that opening the gate to one application of eugenics would open the gate to these other unwholesome applications. I don't think the latter is dependent on the former. If a "moral" application of eugenics went into use, and then a "bad" one followed, its easy to blame the first for opening the door, but the second application may have happened even if the first one did not. This argument is similar to the one that "marijuana is a gateway drug". That use of it leads to the use of other drugs (therefore, it should be banned). This argument is flawed because if you wiped out all the pot, people would choose a different drug as their first drug.
-
We have one definitive advantage over all other species: our intelligence which allowed us to benefit from technology.
the actions of all animal lifeforms (including humans) are driven by three primal motivators, namely, eating, mating, and defending. humans are unique in their capacity to imagine up technology, but this activity is still engrossed in materialism and is still driven by those three motivators. the only activity that humans are capable of that falls outside of those motivators and thus truly separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity to contemplate our place and relationship with and within the universe. to ask, "What am I?" and "What is the meaning of my existence?" is to grow beyond the illusory confines of material nature. Is our purpose really just the propagation of life? If so, then to what end? Can't Life do just fine without the human species?
As others have pointed out, we aren't doing so hot maintaining a healthy ecosystem for the propagation of our species. There's going to be a balancing act sooner or later, whether its global thermonuclear war, zombie apocalypse, cataclysmic encounter with a comet, food and water shortages, shifting of the magnetic poles ushering in a new ice age, a spiritual critical mass of enlightenment in which we all turn into beams of light and sail the cosmic web, or the totalitarian homogenization of the human genome catalyzing our predetermined evolution into the little grey telekinetic time travelers who visited us back in 1947 and gave us the technology to do so. The point is, we all read way too much science fiction.
-
That and they could be far more selective about reproduction - allowing only one offspring per person per lifetime when the population reaches such a size that growth needs to be stopped, and one offspring per couple per year ( or 1/2 offspring per person per year ) when the population needs to trend downward. As for leaving the planet goes, yeah, that's worth its own thread. xD
Even if you regulate population growth, you will still require systems to ensure that what is taken is somehow put back into the system to be regenerated.
I don't think there's a gate here so to speak. I think what Jawir suggested was good, period. I want to challenge your idea that opening the gate to one application of eugenics would open the gate to these other unwholesome applications. I don't think the latter is dependent on the former. If a "moral" application of eugenics went into use, and then a "bad" one followed, its easy to blame the first for opening the door, but the second application may have happened even if the first one did not. This argument is similar to the one that "marijuana is a gateway drug". That use of it leads to the use of other drugs (therefore, it should be banned). This argument is flawed because if you wiped out all the pot, people would choose a different drug as their first drug.
I counter your challenge with the ever present issue of maturity. ;D However, whether or not the first application leads to the second is irrelevant as regulating the order in which things happens is not the purpose for saying no to Eugenics. Taking a hard stand against all of it would reduce the likelihood of atrocities simply by cutting down on the amount of times it has the potential to happen. The idea would be to come down hard all around to discourage those only mildly attached or not concerned enough about to going far. The monsters like the Nazis cannot be stopped because no one can police everyone all the time and they are dead set on probing the depths of too far, but they can be counteracted. If you take a hard stance initially there is less confusion and quibbling over where the line begins and ends and you can put an end to the bad stuff sooner as you have a clearer definition of what is too far.
However, with regards to the marijuana example, that is a completely different application that what I have been talking about. It's too small in scope. A better equivalent would be to make it so that people cannot self medicate with any drug on their own, not so much as cough drops, to prevent the bad side effects of drug abuse. While it would be extreme, it would have an impact on the frequency of disaster by simply cutting down on chances for more causal abusers to get access to drugs. However, I admit it isn't a cure all.
Taking broad steps like banning all self medication or banning all Eugenics can reduce certain problems and cause others; however, all solutions are plagued by that fact. The question then turns to, "should we do nothing because we only have imperfect solutions?" or "Should we just keep pushing full steam ahead because bad things always happen?" I don't think enabling is ever the right solution. Perhaps it's the only solution, at times, but indulging because you can't stop the bad effects will not cut back on the initial problem or inherently cause fewer problems.
The point is, we all read way too much science fiction.
Science fiction is simply the condensing of ideas and questions that humans have been contemplating since before the genre existed. :) And whether we think about it or not whether we are forcefully balanced or not, we will be faced with these speculative issues as immediate, practical issues one day.
-
Actually, it's just a continuation of systems that are already in place. The solution is fine, it's the regulation that proves a test. Consumption is inevitable; the problem is replenishment, and that would just mean that the future would require humans to learn how to put back what they take out.
That's true, and it's an important problem to solve; but I meant you also have to take the growth into account as Rigwyn just said. This was regulated - quite harshly - with diseases, if you remove that from the equation you can't simply compensate it with equally growing resources. Human need to refrain from expanding exponentially, and that is another important problem (with deep moral implications, whereas the disease isn't pleasant to consider but has the apparence of being random, if not fair).
In a way it goes back to the argument of maturity. Are you mature enough to wait and get more over time or do you have to have everything right now and risk losing the resource entirely in the future?
Yes, it's the lack of maturity issue again and it's people that cut corners and take deceptively simple solutions that often interfere with the development and application of far better and longer lasting solutions.
Exactly ... *sighs* and with all kind of pressure coming from the expectations of many people with different priorities and personal agendas, it's not a walk in the park.
Hence this seem a necessary condition:
However, I'm of the opinion that a boost in Empathy is exactly the shot in the arm that humanity needs right now.
Regarding my choice of using "China" in my example previously, I only selected that country because they have a government that *might* be able to mandate such a rule ( yeah, I know.. that's still not likely ), and they have an enormous population. I admit, there might be other countries that would have been a better choice for this example. I considered North Korea (since its a dictatorship), but I'm not sure if their population vs. space would have been a good match.
Hum, I didn't mean to imply it was a bad choice, I just found it to be an opportunistic parallel with the topic. This choice is probably very judicious! :)
-
However, with regards to the marijuana example, that is a completely different application that what I have been talking about. It's too small in scope. A better equivalent would be to make it so that people cannot self medicate with any drug on their own, not so much as cough drops, to prevent the bad side effects of drug abuse. While it would be extreme, it would have an impact on the frequency of disaster by simply cutting down on chances for more causal abusers to get access to drugs. However, I admit it isn't a cure all.
You haven't been reading the news lately...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/elder-statesmen-finally-see-the-folly-of-the-drug-war/379921/
-
the only activity that humans are capable of that falls outside of those motivators and thus truly separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity to contemplate our place and relationship with and within the universe. to ask, "What am I?" and "What is the meaning of my existence?" is to grow beyond the illusory confines of material nature. Is our purpose really just the propagation of life? If so, then to what end? Can't Life do just fine without the human species?
And maybe, hopefully, that will save us in the end. The immediate problem though, is despite our ability to meta-think, we lack the selflessness to apply the conclusions. (or are those thoughts only useful to regulate ourselves and not our species? I must admit I know too little about that).
What I meant is we are simply too powerful. Using technology isn't an exclusivity of the human race, agreed: crows (birds!) have been seen using tools to reach food. It's just that we developed it so much further.
-
self regulation is paramount. i've seen too often the misery caused by the belief that one person can and should regulate another. it rarely, if ever, ends well.
although there is a growing interest in the idea of a globally shared consciousness, and thus the 'spiritual critical mass' i snarked about.
-
That's true, and it's an important problem to solve; but I meant you also have to take the growth into account as Rigwyn just said. This was regulated - quite harshly - with diseases, if you remove that from the equation you can't simply compensate it with equally growing resources. Human need to refrain from expanding exponentially, and that is another important problem (with deep moral implications, whereas the disease isn't pleasant to consider but has the apparence of being random, if not fair).
Well, why? If humans can expand further out, can spread renewable resources to those new places and can better utilize the resources they get, expansion would be theoretically infinitely. As for getting farther out, there are things we can't work around... yet. Physics beyond Newtonian physics is still a relatively new field and look how much advancement a German patent clerk was able to spur on starting with a single equation, E=mc2. The problem is not really "can we". I strongly suspect there is nothing in the physical universe that we can't do if given enough drive to do it. But rather, the questions are "should we" and "how should" go about doing so.
You haven't been reading the news lately...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/elder-statesmen-finally-see-the-folly-of-the-drug-war/379921/
I have, does legalizing the problem fix it either? Did ending prohibition stop people from drinking toxic levels of alcohol or from killing others while drunk. Neither solution is perfect. However, the problem with the drug war is partially human folly in saying one thing while secretly feeding into the problem. For instance, the law maker that bans drugs but buys them on the side undermines the very bans they put in place. The lobbyist that pushes for loopholes in regulations for certain drugs and ends up getting loopholes that allow others also contributes. If people trusted institutions more they would be less likely to self medicate. Even saying that prohibitions don't work is a more complicated issue than saying simply don't work. The issue is much more complex than presenting it as "saying no to people makes them do it more." As the article you posted says: " It is time to try a different solution. It is time to try a policy that hasn't already failed." Enabling has been failing for a long time as well.
However, self regulation, while indeed paramount, once again leads back to maturity. It's the great underminer for all the efforts proposed.
-
My point with the pot argument is that its fallacious to blame the first event in a sequence of events for being the cause if the other events in the series could have happened without the first.
The argument that pot is a gateway drug is complete nonsense. Not everyone who uses drugs started with pot, and not everyone that uses pot will use other drugs. Likewise, with Eugenics, if you have a number of groups who wish to apply this in various ways, blocking the first attempt will only block the first. It will not block every subsequent attempt. There is no gateway to dam up here. I will admit though that with the legal system in the US, if you legalize one thing, you may inadvertently legalize a number of other related things.
As for leaving the planet, we don't have enough resources on earth to to just launch everyone into space. We may be able to *seed* another planet one day by launching a vessel with a small number of people, but that's not the same as leaving the planet en masse to save the living.
If our species becomes super robust, disease proof etc..., and the planet becomes so over populated that we start dying from resource depletion, then some people are going to need to die. We may then be stuck with the question of how to decide who should die and who should live.
How Many People Can Earth Support?
http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
-
The issue is not sequential. The issue is not blocking only the first attempt or chasing after a second, it's trying to block the field. You aren't trying to close a door but quarantine an entire region. Admittedly the scope of that task often leads to it not being implemented very well but letting everyone stomp through doesn't work well either. The issue is not actually stopping people from ever trying, since that is impossible, but rather to frustrate their attempts as a last ditch deterrent.
As for launching everyone into space, you don't need to launch everyone, only the excess amount. Earth is perfectly capable of maintaining life well into the future if managed responsibly. Then what is needed is sending people out to repeat responsible stewardship, if you will, on other planets. with the universe as large as it is, the problem becomes spanning the distance more so than containing the excess. There is more than enough room to "seed" other planets as you suggested.
-
Well, why?
Exponentials are hard to contain ;)
On top of what Rigwyn already pointed out, even if we could afford a massive departure from Earth thanks to a possible breakthrough, this would still lead to necessary periodic migrations later, from here and every other place human settle. An exponential growth spreading from one central point will make it very difficult for those later migrations to reach a potential settlement where the resources are not yet allocated to anyone else (or depleted).
In short, the system would be unstable, and from a simple thermodynamics point of view, doomed to a certain failure.
It would be quite interesting though, from a political and economical point of view for example. Would we stay in touch? How would all that be organized, legalized? How would evolve the economy once it is not a closed system anymore?
-
True, but I doubt that humans will always be in overpopulation mode even if there are no diseases and such to thin out the herd. Goodness knows, now, the fact that people simply don't want to have children threatens some populations and makes room for others. Imagine, if everyone has the basics covered and can spend more time pursuing other activities than those in the bedroom, it might reach an equilibrium on its own. Especially if humans shift away from cultural and national divides and think more as humans on a larger inclusive scale.
While I can see the potential for problems, it seems to fall back more on maturely handing issues rather than the physical barriers that may be in place at any give time.
-
As for launching everyone into space, you don't need to launch everyone, only the excess amount. Earth is perfectly capable of maintaining life well into the future if managed responsibly. Then what is needed is sending people out to repeat responsible stewardship, if you will, on other planets. with the universe as large as it is, the problem becomes spanning the distance more so than containing the excess. There is more than enough room to "seed" other planets as you suggested.
How many folks might that excess amount consist of assuming were talking about a world population in the order of about 7 - 15 billion people? And how often would this need to be done as CadRipper pointed out?
Keep in mind, assuming a person weighs 175 lbs on average, we're talking about hoisting 175,000,000,000 pounds in body weight alone for each billion people moved. Add on to that the space that each vessel needs for expansion. These folks are going to reproduce unless you sterilize them. The free space will need to be a multiple of the starting population. They will also need a shit load of food, water, fuel, and things. People love their things. Add onto that the weight of the vessel, and the enormous amount of fuel needed to break away from the earth's gravity. At on to all of this, the weight of materials needed to build a strong enough vessel and the environmental impact that the launch might have.
It would be more practical to resort to cannibalism in this case.
Back on topic: Perhaps it would be wise to look into using eugenics to breed a more tasty and nutritious human. ::| \\o//
-
Well if we are going to start nitpicking in an arbitrary place, firstly, no one know how to get matter to move past the speed of light and that's one of the larger requisites for getting people where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time.
But, the amount of people who need to leave would be relative to the expected population growth and the amount in excess of or approaching the the population limit not to the flat rate of how many people exist at the time. Number of times exoduses would occur would be the same. However, it has never been my impression that people interested in space travel would be skittish about pushing to make it more accessible to make regular space runs, so I think there would be a drive to make it easier. Hoisting people into space need not necessarily rely on rockets if they ever get the space elevator idea or something like it to work. Or, finding more efficient ways of fueling the liftoff might be a future option.
Now here's where we really dip off into science fiction. If you aren't using generation ships, then expansion space is not necessary as long as people are either suspended or transported to their new home quickly. If there is some way of suspending or slowing bodily function for the trip then food, water and other vital resources become less necessary. As to material things, I'm with Elon Musk, if you make space travel affordable enough, you can convince people to sell everything and move to the next place, especially when the alternative is death by lack of resources. There will always be people adventurous enough to risk thriving or not somewhere new when death is on the line.
Actually, this problem can be solved in a variety of creative ways. The one you are proposing is definitely one of the more cumbersome alternatives but it is not the only one. The matter need not be quite that hard. But if we are going to start picking arbitrary practical solutions, the most practical is to avoid all of it all together and go find a corner to sit in until you expire. It lets you keep some dignity while minimizing your impact on others and keeping you from having to find another solution. Yet, I would never say cutting corners is the solution.
Back on topic: Perhaps it would be wise to look into using eugenics to breed a more tasty and nutritious human. ::| \\o//
Umm, no... just not. However a more tasty and nutritious human is probably called an American on a healthy diet, as a side note. One thing we concern ourselves with is what tastes good when we eat things. X-/
-
Well if we are going to start nitpicking in an arbitrary place, firstly, no one know how to get matter to move past the speed of light and that's one of the larger requisites for getting people where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time.
Moving a billion passenger ship with room for expansion faster than the speed of light is not a feasible goal. Even if you could, it would take just as much energy to slow down as you hit the half way point. You would need enough fuel to move the fuel itself, the ship and its passengers and an equal amount of fuel for stopping. After that, you would be out of gas. ( oh, you need fuel to enter the new planet's atmosphere and land )
You don't need to go that fast if you can sustain life for as many generations as it takes to get to point B. If your goal is to seed another planet, then trimming the population along the way would be a consideration since overpopulation would kill the project.
But, the amount of people who need to leave would be relative to the expected population growth and the amount in excess of or approaching the the population limit not to the flat rate of how many people exist at the time. Number of times exoduses would occur would be the same. However, it has never been my impression that people interested in space travel would be skittish about pushing to make it more accessible to make regular space runs, so I think there would be a drive to make it easier. Hoisting people into space need not necessarily rely on rockets if they ever get the space elevator idea or something like it to work. Or, finding more efficient ways of fueling the liftoff might be a future option.
It would take technology that we currently do not have. If we were looking at overpopulation in the next 200 to 300 years, then its not likely that we would have a viable solution. If we needed to shed a billion folks each century, then after a thousand years, we would have shed enough people to overpopulate an earth sized planet.
Now here's where we really dip off into science fiction. If you aren't using generation ships, then expansion space is not necessary as long as people are either suspended or transported to their new home quickly. If there is some way of suspending or slowing bodily function for the trip then food, water and other vital resources become less necessary. As to material things, I'm with Elon Musk, if you make space travel affordable enough, you can convince people to sell everything and move to the next place, especially when the alternative is death by lack of resources. There will always be people adventurous enough to risk thriving or not somewhere new when death is on the line.
I like the idea of freezing people. If they are frozen, then you don't need to worry too much about speed. They get there when they get there... if they get there. Wouldn't it suck if the de-thaw kicked in and the people on board realized when they came too that they got knocked off course a tiny bit along the way ( effectively leaving them lost in space and without gas )?
-
Maybe portals will open up on Earth to take us into the other realms. \\o//
-
It would take technology that we currently do not have.
Every part of this thread involves technology we don't have. The whole point is that we are handwaving that part to consider what would happen if we did have different technologies and understanding. ;)
I don't like the idea of generation ships though. Seems to much like sending a fishbowl into space and hoping it works. Reminds me of slightly more disturbing visions of space travel where everything is so tightly regulated that one misstep can get you killed.
-
On the other hand, maybe a far more advanced disease would evolve and do it's thing. With people dying of starvation, immune systems run down from malnutrition, loads of people and swift transportation, the evolution of the right virus might be akin to throwing a match in a hay stack.
-
Possibly. I just don't like the idea of traveling through space in a fragile air bubble for long periods of time.
-
In conclusion it seems that, however we consider this to evolve, we need those messy humans to get more reasonable and empathic.
Let's put this as a safety requirement! \\o//
On the other hand, maybe a far more advanced disease would evolve and do it's thing. With people dying of starvation, immune systems run down from malnutrition, loads of people and swift transportation, the evolution of the right virus might be akin to throwing a match in a hay stack.
If ageing is also "cured" - not necessarily what was first suggested in this thread:
Or who knows, people might get so bored, so emboldened, so weakened ... so impacted by their accumulated experience that they would end up doing silly things. It would be interesting to see how a human mind can sustain a lifetime of several centuries.
-
In my opinion, even with a "perfect" dna, we will never be able to live for centuries and this for a reason: each time a chromosome replicates the telomeres get shortened, so the replication process doesn't produce a perfect copy of the starting chromosome. With years of chromosome replication you'll end with telomeres so short that replication is no more possible and that is... well... the end! :P
Even not keeping into account this process you should think that our immune system is more related to environmental factors than genetics: the more you are exposed to viruses the stronger your immune system will be. So a perfect dna doesn't imply automatically no diseases.
But again, even not keeping into account this other issue, and thinking that a perfect dna leads to a strong immune system you have to think that all these "human improvements" don't happen instantly. Moreover you live in a world where everything point toward an equilibrium so the more evolved humans will be and the more the surrounding nature will evolve. This imply that human evolution means viruses evolution: yes, mother nature doesn't watch us while remaining idle! :P
It's like an eternal arm wrestling with viruses: at some point you believe to be winning and all of a sudden the situation seems in favor to viruses.
And another thought:will eugenics be available to all people equally? Or some (rich) category will benefits and some other not? Will this lead to wars? If so, you have another factor to prevent overpopulation.
-
I'll just slip this in here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging?language=en
This video is about addressing the issue of ageing as if it was curable. I thought it was rather interesting.
-
In my opinion, even with a "perfect" dna, we will never be able to live for centuries and this for a reason: each time a chromosome replicates the telomeres get shortened, so the replication process doesn't produce a perfect copy of the starting chromosome. With years of chromosome replication you'll end with telomeres so short that replication is no more possible and that is... well... the end! :P
Some species don't have this problem, I'm pretty sure it can be re-engineered at some point. There are quite a few other issues as well, it's apparently addressed in Rigwyn's video (I'll watch it tomorrow, looks interesting). That should be the "easy" part. It's the starting point of this thread, really, extrapolated beyond genetic disorders - ageing as a genetic disorder is probably far stretched ;)
Even not keeping into account this process you should think that our immune system is more related to environmental factors than genetics: the more you are exposed to viruses the stronger your immune system will be. So a perfect dna doesn't imply automatically no diseases.
It can be taught with vaccines.
But again, even not keeping into account this other issue, and thinking that a perfect dna leads to a strong immune system you have to think that all these "human improvements" don't happen instantly. Moreover you live in a world where everything point toward an equilibrium so the more evolved humans will be and the more the surrounding nature will evolve. This imply that human evolution means viruses evolution: yes, mother nature doesn't watch us while remaining idle! :P
It's like an eternal arm wrestling with viruses: at some point you believe to be winning and all of a sudden the situation seems in favor to viruses.
Viruses, bacteria, fungi, and free mutations for everyone, and a lot of people everywhere for them to feed, that's probably a tricky part indeed...
And another thought:will eugenics be available to all people equally? Or some (rich) category will benefits and some other not? Will this lead to wars? If so, you have another factor to prevent overpopulation.
Well, we went through that earlier, there's a moral problem attached for sure!
... and I'm surprised nobody mentioned this (http://www.darwinawards.com/) as another possible way to enhance the gene pool :innocent:
-
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/new-study-reveals-that-you-can-upgrade-your-genes/
-
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/new-study-reveals-that-you-can-upgrade-your-genes/
Not sure what to make of this. To each their own beliefs until proven otherwise I suppose?
Jon Kabat-Zinn had already mentioned during the seminar he gave at Google a few years ago, that after several weeks of meditation, "people could show" alterations in the brain from MRI's, mainly a change in "density". I'm don't have the necessary background to interpret this and decide whether it's marketing, personal belief from people practicing full awareness or actual scientific evidence.
In the text of this link, aren't statements like "New Study Reveals How You Can Upgrade Your Genes!" and "After eight hours of mindfulness practice, the meditators showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including altered levels of gene-regulating machinery and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes" revealing that the author wasn't too sure what they were talking about and just wanted to get a shocking title? ;)
It seems to be a common gene expression regulation, nothing as fancy as a genetic mutation, but I could be wrong.
-
of course the headline was sensationalized. it's on the internet.
-
Ah but the Internet also allows us to find the paper behind the sensational headlines (http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org/pdfs/KalimanRapidPNEC.pdf) :)
Hum, it looks more serious *gawks at the tables and beautiful graphs*
"articipants completed the Trier Social Stress Test (Kirschbaum et al., 1993) to induce acute psychological stress. Briefly, this standardized laboratory stressor consisted of a 5 min impromptu speech on a given topic followed by 5 min of mental arithmetic, performed standing in front of a microphone before a panel of two (one male, one female) judges and a video camera."
That ought to do it :D
More seriously, it is quite interesting and, well, tempting. That should be the "soft" version of the gene switching, surely offering less possibilities but yet a safer practice we should acquire to reduce the common problems.
-
this might be of some interest to this conversation:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/improving_humanperformance.pdf
-
I think eugenics is a stupid idea. As a species, non favorable genetic mutations are a dead end anyway. Let us suppose we could objectively quantify a gene as good or bad and select only for the good genes by whatever means are employed. In that case, we'd not do anything else as nature does anyway without our doing, so eugenics from a biological point of view is pretty moot.
Another, far more concrete problem with eugenics is that genetic traits are (most of the time) neither good nor bad. Any genetic trait with significant prevalence in the population is there for some reason, and removing that trait drains a much needed genetic diversity. A famous example for such a trait would be sickle cell anemia, which actually infers resistance to malaria. Where is the gene most prevalent? In tropical Africa. Bad traits are always self limiting, and only traits that offer some advantage get selected. Nature does that without our interference, and we can only cause harm by trying to meddling with diversity.
Most species that had their genetic diversity reduced too strongly are now extinct or are having serious disease problems.
Now, one needs to differ. Yes, there are traits that cause an undue burden on families, such as Down's. Disease burden is a quantifiable parameter, and I think that every family should be able to decide whether or not to endure such an undue burden.
The governments however also need to regulate genetic screenings in order to prevent selective abortions based on hair colour/sex etc. Only traits that cause a certain threshold of burden should be screened for.
Another point that can be raised is the healthcare costs associated to genetic diseases such as Down's. Yes, they cause costs. And in comparison to obesity/smoking related costs, they are wholly insignificant. The loss of perceived freedom and associated mental problem costs (long term stress is a real killer) with a regulation of such traits would probably topple the cost of healthcare for the traits themselves.
And besides, ultimately any non violent death could be prevented with the right trait. But then again, sometimes traits are sometimes exclusive, interfering with each other or whatnot. We could probably engineer, after sufficient deliberation, a genetic code for the human being that serves as a background for a healthy and long life. Selecting for that model would however be contrary to natural selection, as our genetic diversity would crumble and destroy our species.
Also, we got an entirely different approach in dealing with diseases. It's called medicine. In a way, drugs are an extension of our genetic code and offer a far more elegant and easy way in dealing with faulty genetic traits. I believe that medical and scientific progress will, as it has done in the last centuries, offer a far bigger advantage to human health (as a species as well) than any eugenics program ever could.