Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/13/08 09:41 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I ain't said that.

He has selective hearing. He only hears what he wants to hear.

The man never does actual debates. He replies on occasion however I've never seen him reply to me. I hope I can press his buttons enough to see his true colors on how he is argumentative, self-righteous, arrogant, insulting and basically self contradicting.

The way I see it is that it can create a caste system in which the upper class hogs the "biomodifications" to themselves and becomes a ruling class that can think faster, live longer, be stronger etc. Tampering too much with what we don't know about could mess up reproduction as well but thats a different field.

I honestly think the offset to the biomodifications might be a mental net, but thats getting into whole kinds of shit. Imagine a computer placed in your head with which you could connect directly to the internet, imagine things and calculate things far beyond the normal capacity of your brain as if it were your brain.

I have a feeling that if both technologies came out around the same time (as they probably will, just illigally), then you're going to see something interesting, and perhaps one will be just cheap enough to offset the other. If it isn't cheap enough you're looking at a guaranteed slavery run techocracy for which the average person of today really has no hope.

The questions posed are ultimately:

Should we evolve in a way which we choose instead of by natural selection?
Is there a moral price to uncostrained chosen evolution?
Are there circumstances when a species becomes useless and should be replaced?
Is the subjugation of an enferior species ok?

Everything seems to point to yes, which spells doom for humanity as it is.

I guess it would be unfair for those people who's parents chose not to use such a technology.
I mean... Face it, the kid would be treated like a freak for not being perfect (all because of his parent's decision). I think in the big picture it is a good idea, but it's very unjust.

I don't believe anyone mentioned the evolutionary dangers of homogenization.

Sure, there's been some discussion about how it's not trendy or whatever, but nothing about what the whole point of genetic variation is all about.

Fact is, there's a reason why random genetic variation is a good thing and why it's been the method of choice for reproducing. Even organisms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually have mechanisms that give precedence to sexual reproduction, only using asexual means when there's no viable partner. The reasoning is that, with more genetic variation, there is a reduced risk that one disease or one traumatic event like a climate shift or what have you isn't going to wipe out the whole species.

When you allow for genetic variation, you encourage adaptations like being resistant to the AIDS virus or smallpox. One of the big concerns is, when you can choose the specific genetic map of your offspring, will this completely shut down that evolutionary process? The way virii and bacterium are evolving and changing, especially since we're introducing natural selection in a big way with more advanced antibiotics which serve to create more potent diseases, is hampering our ability to adapt through random variation going to be affected by this?

It's just one of those things you wouldn't know until it was too late. I don't think it's a concern that should get in the way of science, but it is something that should be heavily on the minds of geneticists who pioneer this technology in order to lower its risk.

At 8/14/08 10:02 AM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't believe anyone mentioned the evolutionary dangers of homogenization.

Wrong, I did.

At 8/13/08 06:34 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Ummm....their the blueprints for our body?

Ohh look at that I found out what they're for.

You know that's not what he meant.

At 8/13/08 10:37 PM, TheSavant wrote:

Otherwise we'd have lizardman cults like in Batman beyond, and it would really creep me out. There are however potential problems I see with genetic manipulation.

I remember that show.
I found that episode.

At 8/14/08 10:30 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 8/13/08 06:34 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Ummm....their the blueprints for our body?

Ohh look at that I found out what they're for.

You know that's not what he meant.

I seem to be taking his posts less and less seriously. I think I should start making wrong claims about Christianity as he does with Science.

Just to put it into perspective.

At 8/14/08 01:41 AM, poxpower wrote: It's mean by every standard of what humans consider mean.

Except that natural selection has no interest or intent.

Ofcourse then... what about a child who 'knows not what he says'? His decision to blurt out something offensive is not mean, but would be mean had he been aware of social boundaries. When we say "that is a mean thing to say" we are committing both a fallacy of self-projection and semantics. The more accurate statement would be, "that would be a mean thing to say". However, this all gets very complicated, little children wouldn't understand it, and neither would most adults.

In any case, to call natural selection cruel is to personify it. And in your argument it is very clearly to villanize it through personification. This is what I disagree with. Suppose you're overweight, are then all mirror's mean?

well then don't use that technology and leave other people alone.

You won't be the only one using the technology. Therefore, the technology won't solely follow your interests either.

Then in 30 years when my super-babies outperforms yours in every possible way, you can still act smug like it means a damn that you kept your moral pride and flushed your kid's future down the toilet.

Well. What is progress? Is all this technology really forward motion? Or is any and all motion forward? Once you take out even the suggestion of morality, everything eventually becomes neutral - progress doesn't exist, just motion. Eventually, you have to judge one thing as better than another to qualify anything as progress.

My baby runs faster than yours. Ok, so? This only 'means a damn' if you value fast over slow. Now, why push this concept of outperforming if you (or the person you're playing in this thread) don't value it? Therefore, I assume you value it. Therefore, you've made a moral choice as well. Fundamentally, with this little example, being fast is better. Better for what? For being successful - success is good. Good for what? Eventually you hit the abstract, unconditional moral judgement: It's just good, better etc.

The Point: Keeping one's moral pride is not the dividing principle here.

And in 30 years, your super-baby will just be one of many, unable to outperform his peers in every possible way. Rather than doing it to gain an edge, you'd do it to keep up. Such as any architect now is fucked without a computer.

Well there would be laws eventually.
But in the meantime, hell yes.

And how about places where there are no laws, or the laws are fashioned by the whim of a despot?
And in the meantime (or in a place in time where there are no laws), do you think the abuses would only yield results you'd find satisfactory?

How on earth could we make this any worse?

People tend to find that anything that comes of being immoral to be worse. I don't really agree... fully. But that's what the argument would probably boil down to.

At 8/14/08 01:41 AM, poxpower wrote: I really don't see why it's better to have everyone get chosen at random + their parent's genes. That's a completely unfair advantage/disadvantage you get from birth. Saying we shouldn't tamper with it is like saying "well there's people born to rule as the nobles, and you shouldn't change it because it's not natural".
But how bad can it be? Nature already does pretty much the most horrible things we could think of doing. Harlequin babies, babies born with no white cells, babies with a half hearts, autistic kids, siamese twins...

Yeah, but the thing is, there's about 1 in a million chance of of a Harlequin baby being born. If we start fucking around with DNA without fully understanding it there's a great chance we could do worse things.

At 8/13/08 10:37 PM, TheSavant wrote:
The thing about the human geonome is that it is very complex

every mammal genome is complex.

Yes, but the human genome is more complex and we'd be operating on our own kind. If you mess with the genome of a dog and something goes wrong, well oh well, it's not something you want, but at least it's done in the name of science. If you operate on a human and something goes drastically wrong, well then, you just screwed over a living, breathing, human being and it's much more serious.

Why? Because they could potentially permanantly drastically fuck someone up, and no one wants that.

That's a risk you take just being born.
At least I could get a super-penis or something. Heat vision. I dunno.
Flippers? Sweet. That would have made my life so much better.

True. What I'm saying though is that we shouldn't go ahead with human experaments until we're 100% sure we know exactly how everything works.... And a super penis means nothing when you can't get laid anyways. ;P

as long as we aren't splicing human and animal DNA or anything like that.

Why?
That outcome seems inevitable to me. And awesome. Too bad I won't be there to see it.
I see people dreaming about aliens civilizations and having Star Trek wet dreams, but now you're saying it's not cool if we turn ourselves into all these stupid-looking aliens with different flaps on their foreheads?
Man it would rule having a crocodile tail. Or rows of sharp teeth like a shark.

You say that, but look at all the Sonic Furry fans. Do you really want to see that in real life?

Nature's awesome evolutionary gifts are ours to plunder! weee

1. The whole gatica scenario

I doubt it. What probably would happen is the X-Men scenario where all the angry, petty, poor jealous "norms" get all pissed at how awesome rich countries become and they strike back with religious fury saying shit like "it's not moral" while they beat the crap out of their 40 wives and go rape a camel.

Think about it. People already use any nominal heriditary advantage they have to claim superiority over others. Normally these advantages are just stupid, aestetic things like having blond hair and blue eyes or being white. Imagine that the person also had an iq of 180 and super strength along with his good looks and shitloads of money he inherited from his parents. He actually has a legitimate reason to feel superior to others, because genetically he really is. You're looking at one mean prick.

3. The fact that, face it, even if you were a bit smarted or more muscular, you probably wouldn't be much happier than you are now.

Wow really? What a great excuse to never do anything!
Being happy is about appreciating the things you have, and when you have AWESOME THINGS, it's way easier.
For instance: I'm better at drawing than almost everyone I know. That makes me pretty happy.
I'm not a midget: that makes me pretty happy.
I don't have a micro-penis: That rules.

Imagine if I could fly or had an IQ of 300? That would kick ass.

You could fly? Really birdman? That's not a long way off.

4. I, personally, wouldn't want to be any more intelligent.

That's because everyone is stupid. If we were all smart, not only would we get rid of tons of social problems, we'd also advance science by leaps and bounds.
Yeah it's not fun being the ONLY smart person. But it's awesome being with 1000 smart people and being smarter than everyone else.

No, everyone is not completely stupid. The problem is that most don't use their natural intelligence to expoloit their full potential. Very few people like to pretend thay they're smart. Things would basically be the same as they are now, except you, being much more intelligent than everyone else would also be that much more pissed at everyone else's stupidity. The way to end idiocy isn't to increase everyone's IQ by a few points. It is to make it more acceptable to act smart and to learn things. Remeber, IQ is only your ability to learn. Not how intelligent you actually are. ;)

The thing is, I'm not against genetic manipulation. If we could use it to stamp out hereditary diseases or to cure cancer, I'm all for it. But, when you talk about doing some of these things I'm kind of taken back. Sure, making your kid smarter or stronger or more attractive sounds cool. In fact, I'd probably seriously consider it if it were a viable option for my children. But because we are manipulating human DNA, we need to take a hard look at how far we should be able to take things. Genetic manipulation without limits is one hell of a scary thing.

And, on a side note, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're joking when you mention things like x-ray vision and the ability to fly, because if you aren't, you obviously know little about genetic manipulation and what is possible. I don't give a damn how much you screw with DNA. You're not going to become The Great, Levitating, Poxpowerio.

At 8/14/08 01:58 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

Except that natural selection has no interest or intent.

oh stuff it, a hurricane blowing up an orphanage is frickin cruel and so it randomizing your genes and giving you horrible conditions as a prize in life's shit lottery.

You won't be the only one using the technology. Therefore, the technology won't solely follow your interests either.

Sadly, that's true, there's always people who like to impose their morals on others.

Well. What is progress? Is all this technology really forward motion?

Yes.
Spare me the little semantic game.

And in 30 years, your super-baby will just be one of many, unable to outperform his peers in every possible way.

Except he'll beat the shit out of yours, who'll DEFINATELY not be able to keep up with society.

And how about places where there are no laws, or the laws are fashioned by the whim of a despot?

Those places are usually really poor shitholes and they wouldn't ever get that sort of technology.

At 8/14/08 02:38 PM, TheSavant wrote:

Yeah, but the thing is, there's about 1 in a million chance of of a Harlequin baby being born. If we start fucking around with DNA without fully understanding it there's a great chance we could do worse things.

Who says we'll do it without understanding it?
Scientists aren't retards.

Yes, but the human genome is more complex

Not that I know of, no.

And a super penis means nothing when you can't get laid anyways. ;P

I disagree, it's awesome all the time.
AND I SHOULD KNOW.

You say that, but look at all the Sonic Furry fans. Do you really want to see that in real life?

Do you know how many hours of priceless laughter I could enjoy out of that?
Besides if that's the kind of thing that has to be decided at birth, I'm sure there will be laws to prevent parents from doing that to their kids, because it's hella fucked up.

Little skunkman baby. Gah.

Imagine that the person also had an iq of 180 and super strength along with his good looks and shitloads of money he inherited from his parents. He actually has a legitimate reason to feel superior to others, because genetically he really is. You're looking at one mean prick.

Wow, let's all be jealous of our betters.
Hell yeah he'd have every right to look down upon the rest of us. Plus he'd be smarter and being smart usually correlates with NOT being racist, arrogant and condescending.
Those are stupid people traits.

It is to make it more acceptable to act smart and to learn things.

Oh and that's easier when everyone is 100 IQ points smarter.
As it were.

Genetic manipulation without limits is one hell of a scary thing.

Well what else are we gonna do to not get bored in the future?
How many more things can we discover in science? There's got to be a limit. Then what? That'll suck. Let's make reptilians.

And, on a side note, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're joking when you mention things like x-ray vision and the ability to fly

haha yes, x-ray vision is a joke.
But not the ability to stop time. I know we're about to get that one, I saw it on FOX news.

At 8/14/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Plus he'd be smarter and being smart usually correlates with NOT being racist, arrogant and condescending.
Those are stupid people traits.

Not to mention that we could deliberately install traits that we want to see in our superiors. Like generosity, kindness, calmness, benevolence, honesty, humility, altruism -- I'm sure that all of them can be genetically coded. It doesn't matter if we are going to be ruled by a race of superhumans, as long as they are going to rule us the way we want to be ruled. We could program such traits right into their dna, and it should remain strictly forbidden to genetically enhance or create such traits as manipulativeness and hunger for power.

At 8/14/08 05:12 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 8/14/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Plus he'd be smarter and being smart usually correlates with NOT being racist, arrogant and condescending.
Those are stupid people traits.

Not to mention that we could deliberately install traits that we want to see in our superiors. Like generosity, kindness, calmness, benevolence, honesty, humility, altruism -- I'm sure that all of them can be genetically coded. It doesn't matter if we are going to be ruled by a race of superhumans, as long as they are going to rule us the way we want to be ruled. We could program such traits right into their dna, and it should remain strictly forbidden to genetically enhance or create such traits as manipulativeness and hunger for power.

That would be awesome if it were true, but I'm not so sure it's possible. There have been a lot of studies done that have said that a lot of our behavior has to do with our environment and experiances. I don't think that there is a flat out generousity gene. I suppose you could, however, mess with the genes that would make a person secrete more of the hormones that would make them feel a certain way, but this would be extremely hard to balance.

Not to mention, that it would be kind of immoral to dictate a person's behavioral characteristics from birth.

At 8/14/08 05:28 PM, TheSavant wrote: I don't think that there is a flat out generousity gene.

All I had to do was to type "generosity gene" into Google, and I found this.

Of course it's true that our personalities are largely affected by the social environment where we live, but I'm certain that there are genes for all personality traits that at least affect the tendency to adopt and exhibit them.

At 8/14/08 01:23 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I seem to be taking his posts less and less seriously.

Why? It just makes you look stupid.

I think I should start making wrong claims about Christianity as he does with Science.

That's not what you did, you intentionally misinterpreted what he said, I guess, it's sarcasm. I don't really care.

It's just, why imitate something that you don't find becoming? Why would you even do it to make a point? Just point it out, don't have to fuckin mime everything.

Just to put it into perspective.

It does. Shaggy is a fool to us. I'll be looking at his posts more carefully though just to make sure.

just his new ones. i'm not reading all thaaat

At 8/15/08 12:07 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 8/14/08 01:23 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I seem to be taking his posts less and less seriously.

Why? It just makes you look stupid.

How could you possibly take it seriously? His claims are nothing more than venomfangx, kent hoving, ken ham self contradiction and moronic claims. When I read his posts I wonder why I'm even taking the time to read them. Also, he never replies to me. I'm completely off his radar.

I think I should start making wrong claims about Christianity as he does with Science.

That's not what you did, you intentionally misinterpreted what he said, I guess, it's sarcasm. I don't really care.

If you don't care why are you bringing it up?

It's just, why imitate something that you don't find becoming? Why would you even do it to make a point? Just point it out, don't have to fuckin mime everything.

Because....it's....fun?

Just to put it into perspective.

It does. Shaggy is a fool to us. I'll be looking at his posts more carefully though just to make sure.

You do that.

just his new ones. i'm not reading all thaaat

I wouldn't mind if people used it, but I would mind a lot if people abused it.

Solutions to one thing often create more problems for other things. The solution to replacing coal was petroleum, and look where we are now, fighting, killing, and dying for "black gold".

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that things that are too good to be true, like petroleum, often cause problems that we can't fathom today. I'm pretty sure that when petroleum was discovered during the 19th century (or was it early 20th?), no one thought that we would be at where we are now. Altering DNA might be the next generation's "black gold"; we don't know how bad- or good, things are going to be. Speculating seems wrong; I think we should wait and see.

At 8/14/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/14/08 01:58 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

Except that natural selection has no interest or intent.

oh stuff it, a hurricane blowing up an orphanage is frickin cruel and so it randomizing your genes and giving you horrible conditions as a prize in life's shit lottery.

I honestly, genuinely, do not believe that either of those things are cruel. I think sentience is a requirement for and implication of cruelty. My belief aside...

So it's cruel. What does it accomplish to call natural selection cruel?

You won't be the only one using the technology. Therefore, the technology won't solely follow your interests either.

Sadly, that's true, there's always people who like to impose their morals on others.

I don't think I was clear here. It's not just about people overriding your decisions, but people simply making decisions independent of you. And just because people make decisions independent of you, does not mean those decisions won't effect your interests.

On the broader topic, there's always people who like to impose their morals on others, because that is all people do (to varying degrees). Only when it's actually in the person's power do they technically impose their morals, but that's just another semantic argument.

Well. What is progress? Is all this technology really forward motion?

Yes.
Spare me the little semantic game.

Sorry. I gave the wrong impression with that question. My point was that valuing progress through intelligence, athletics, or whatever it is you plan on boosting with DNA alteration is a moral issue. The more specific point being: we are both sticking to our values.

And in 30 years, your super-baby will just be one of many, unable to outperform his peers in every possible way.

Except he'll beat the shit out of yours, who'll DEFINATELY not be able to keep up with society.

When you initially told me something to this effect, I figured, "Ok, he's competative". So with that, I figured I would outline how your competative edge may not be as great as you appear making it out to be. In all fairness, you haven't really discussed what this would do for other people relative to yourself, so I went by the general tone of things.

At which point you came back to me with the same argument. So why is it so important to you that my baby be beaten and surpassed (in a manner of ways)?

And then... Should it be important to me too? Why? To which the answer ofcourse is something along the lines of something being better. This conversation isn't about who is right and who is wrong, not to me atleast. Infact... most conversations shouldn't be about that and can't be about that unless everyone involved holds the same fundamental beliefs. You just end up going in circles.

Instead, I'm trying to find where the fundamental split is, and from there iron out fallacies or misconceptions within the beliefs that a single party holds. This is why, when you displayed a competative interest, I brought up a point that might shed new light on the nature of that competition.

If your baby is fast, and my baby is not...
If you value speed, where as I do not...
Then no matter how many times you say "but my baby is faster" it just doesn't matter. And then when you see it doesn't matter to me, you'd say something to the effect of, "you can still act smug like it means a damn that you kept your moral pride and flushed your kid's future down the toilet." essentially saying that holding a value different to your own is in itself a bad value.

And how about places where there are no laws, or the laws are fashioned by the whim of a despot?

Those places are usually really poor shitholes and they wouldn't ever get that sort of technology.

But those in power of those places very well could. I'm sure China would have tons of fun genetically engineering, and they certainly have the money.

Hey look I made a big mistake!

I've been going about this as though the quality of success (in what ways your baby is better than mine) and the matter of choice in genetics were one values.

I'll be back when my head is clearer.

If possible, genetic mutation would be a fundamentally good thing. It could be used to end mental retardation, autism, and other genetic disablities. I can also understand changing, say, gender or some other trait. And I think it would be good to allow people to select favorable traits. This would end a lot of intolerance towards people who have lower intellect or strength. However, the area would get murky when we start to go farther, into things that arn't clearly "right" or "wrong". For instance, I hardly think many people would argue against making a fetus smarter or stronger, but what about if parents wish to change the babies race or sexuality? Consider, a black couple may want to make their baby white so he/she wouldn't have to deal with racism and perhaps have a better future, but some might interpret that as saying being white is "right" and being black is "wrong". For another example, a couple might want their baby to be straight instead of homosexual. That might not make many homosexuals very happy, seeing as this would seem to be saying homosexuality is an inferior trait. The real question, I think, is where do we draw the line?

At 8/17/08 06:05 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

So it's cruel. What does it accomplish to call natural selection cruel?

It's a dumb argument to say that when a bad thing happens, it's only REALLY bad when it was someone's fault. Whatever, it's not important.

Sorry. I gave the wrong impression with that question. My point was that valuing progress through intelligence, athletics, or whatever it is you plan on boosting with DNA alteration is a moral issue.

99.999999% of people would want it.
Don't know who that other guy is, but I'm pretty sure he's mentally retarded.

At which point you came back to me with the same argument. So why is it so important to you that my baby be beaten and surpassed (in a manner of ways)?

It's not important to me, I'm just telling you that resisting that kind of change is like going Amish and eventually you'll have no choice but to get used to it because everyone will be better than you and you'll be left behind.

If your baby is fast, and my baby is not...
If you value speed, where as I do not...

How about if he's smarter? Doesn't need glasses? Has more muscle mass? Is healthier? More resistant to diseases?

Plus, why wouldn't you give a clear extra advantage like running fast?
If you're the same person but you can run 5 mph faster, then that's just strictly better.

But those in power of those places very well could. I'm sure China would have tons of fun genetically engineering, and they certainly have the money.

China sucks at science for the moment and I don't give a crap what they do even in the hypothetical scenario that they do get that kind of technology and use it like morons.

Tough shit, people already do it with weapons.

People might end being able to get rid of peopler getting drunk or High.

At 8/17/08 07:21 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: People might end being able to get rid of peopler getting drunk or High.

I kind of doubt it, but I don't really see why we'd exactly totally want that, either, personally...

Nothing's wrong with the concept. The real questions are who's in charge of this project and does s/he care about the average citizen? Maybe s/he wants everyone to acquire retard genetics so that the world can be more easily controlled.

it's only faster evolution, that's all

At 8/18/08 01:41 AM, satanbrain wrote: it's only faster evolution, that's all

no evolution has sped up but not for the better because of health care systmes people who are born with diabilities then can pass them on to the gene pool which is not benifacial its no longer the survial of the fitist.

At 8/18/08 01:41 AM, satanbrain wrote: it's only faster evolution, that's all

It's not the same thing at all, really.

At 8/18/08 11:32 AM, Elfer wrote:
It's not the same thing at all, really.

well we're still in the system, we're making the decision to alter ourselves in this situation, so it would still be a choice, which is how natural selection starts, right?

At 8/18/08 11:49 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 8/18/08 11:32 AM, Elfer wrote:
It's not the same thing at all, really.

well we're still in the system, we're making the decision to alter ourselves in this situation, so it would still be a choice, which is how natural selection starts, right?

Um, no? Natural selection doesn't really start with choices. If a rabbit in a snowy environment has a black coat, it's getting eaten whether it wants to or not.

At 8/18/08 11:57 AM, Elfer wrote:
Um, no? Natural selection doesn't really start with choices. If a rabbit in a snowy environment has a black coat, it's getting eaten whether it wants to or not.

But if that rabbit were a person it would make a white coat. See? I guess that's still different. We're not like other animals (as far as we know) in that we make conscious decisions that effect us. So these decisions, I'd think, would effect our evolution.

Am I wrong?