Eugenics

[Rigwyn]

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.

[Aramara Meibi]

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.

[Illysia]

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.   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.

[CadRipper]

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!

[Aramara Meibi]

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/

[CadRipper]

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.

[Aramara Meibi]

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.

[Illysia]

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.

[Rigwyn]

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

[Illysia]

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.

[CadRipper]

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?

[Illysia]

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.

[Rigwyn]

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.   

[Illysia]

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.   

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.

[Rigwyn]

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 )?