Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[Penny]

@The Harbinger of Ferocity I can totally appreciate all of those concerns but I think the world of the genetically tailored individual is inevitable and its up to us to create societies and families that can mitigate the negatives and accentuate the positives.

Common ground with Harbringer? My Kuru is definitely acting up.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[POOHEAD189]

@KratesisWell there's a whole can of worms of there. A lot of people get smarter because they weren't physically attractive to begin with. A lot of people grow character because they weren't physically attractive to begin with. A lot of people find true happiness with someone else because they saw each other as beautiful rather than by going with societies standards. What's physically attractive to you doesn't mean it's attractive to others. What's physically attractive now might not be in 20 years when it will actually matter. What's physically attractive is also someone who is more likely to be used by others for their looks. And let's say you're right though, and it's clear cut black and white.

If I have a child, I want them to have difficulties. Not to say I necessarily want them to be unappealing physically, or that I wouldn't provide for them, but a lack of difficulties is a lack of actual character. I'm the biggest critic of my parents but even when we weren't struggling for money, my mom didn't give us anymore than we needed and it helped me to live by myself as an adult. I can say similar things about looks. Some people find me conventionally attractive now, but growing up they did not. I wouldn't have changed that. Being seen as unappealing helped me be more mature later in life when I became appealing.

@POOHEAD189
Maybe my Kuru is acting up but this seems to make less sense the more you explain it. Let me recapitulate.

Even if it were only for the parents aesthetic benefit, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't tip the scale of random selection one way or the other. They are choosing to create a child, why not choose for it to have dark lustrous hair?

Why would randomness necessarily be better than design? You might end up with a girl anyway, why not put your thumb on the scale. Admittedly its not a great use of what would be amazing tech, but neither is 99% of what people do with tech.

@Penny

I feel like I'd just be regurgitating my points. As with most ethical arguments I feel like it'll go back and forth in a circle. I'll just say I am uncomfortable with it, but I can see why it looks like a nonissue to some as well.

[POOHEAD189]

You can prove how it'd make the world worse. Just point out that the collective editing of multiple generations would lead to more homogenized gene pools. Also, wealthier families which successfully tailor their descendants to manifest certain traits would be more likely to become richer than those that don't. Not only that, wealthier families that end up creating more problems through unsuccessful tailoring would basically be throwing their money and lineage into a giant pit of wasted potential.

@catchamber

Well true, I agree with you and (gasp) mdk on how it'd effect society, yes. But I feel like to prove it we'd need hard evidence. But yeah, I concur.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

Prion diseases are an usual sort, aren't they, @Penny?

I must agree there is no way around the matter, that they are an inevitability provided humanity keeps progressing, even if only at this rate. I also submit that the only way to mitigate these threats - of which I do consider to be tremendous - is to provide a set of doctrine which cannot be deviated from. While this is unlikely to happen, that some will still exploit these boons even if such a ruling came to pass, it is critical to ensuring that people are afforded as much of a fair start as they can be, prior to even their own birth. It concerns me even more when I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I would invest all of my resources into it were it a possibility, if only to better assure my offspring a future. I say this because I know too that my power to do so is not nearly as great as many others.

I do not worry about say, the color of their hair or eyes, but who would not want their child to be physically attractive or outright beautiful? Who would not them to have an intellect that is just five percent higher? Or the potential to have a higher threshold of maximum muscle mass? Or a high metabolism? On and on and on.

So great are these advantages that they are not an option. Worse yet, I would never dare trust the average person with them. I know that if I would have the temptation to exploit them that many would. No less, I would equally be doing a disservice by denying these opportunities to them because of my own bias; I would much rather they decide their own person and who they are above all else. In such a case I cannot, in good conscious, do this.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Kratesis]

The argument of genetic augmentation and alteration is that once you start down that path, where does it end?

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Frankly, it doesn't end. Genetic engineering is a continuation of natural selection by other means. Cognition is an expression of the genome and the aim of that expression is to propagate genetic information. Cognition was and is used to select for optimal genetic combinations in partners by biases toward certain features when choosing reproductive partners, such as high cheekbones, height, secondary sexual characteristics and facial symmetry. But those heuristics will become outdated with the advent of genetic engineering and we will 'skip the middleman' and devise the optimal gene combinations directly. I don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle and to be honest I do not see any reason to try.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

It is too easy to exploit what is generally considered beautiful, @catchamber. It has been narrowed down to a science, one that could be exploited by any industry and already is, with only added incentive in this scenario. Granted it varies some, but certain traits and qualities have always been viewed as preferred to others. I am certain you have seen or at least heard of the idealized human appearance. Granted it might not be to your particular tastes, or anyone else's here, but if we are staying strictly on the path of averages, that is a measurable advantage which will more often than not benefit rather than harm.

While I can assure you that what I find beautiful is not this norm, I would be a liar to say that I am not better predispositioned toward people who are considered conventionally attractive. This is generally true for most people as well.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

I agree there would be not bottling the genie at that point, @Kratesis. Once that door is open, no amount of legislation, intent or operation will ever keep it under wraps, even if need be. I fear the worst in such a case, but do consider me curiously optimistic. I believe people would narrow down what they want to a science as they oft do already.

I do not find that an entirely valid argument, @catchamber. You will see an advent of a subculture and nothing more. Even with something as powerful as genetic engineering, you will see a consistent average and standard arise that most will build within and around, especially as cultural and economic values would alter. This would be little different than the next evolution of counter-culture we have witnessed before and certainly, on a macro level, will not be influential or significant enough to change the outcomes.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Kratesis]

@KratesisWhat's physically attractive to you doesn't mean it's attractive to others. What's physically attractive now might not be in 20 years when it will actually matter.

@POOHEAD189

Just as their are variations between the traits individuals find attractive there is also a general trend. In short, the features humans find attractive are a scatter plot but there is also a trend line and that line correlates strongly with high cheekbones, secondary sexual characteristics and facial symmetry.

A lot of people get smarter because they weren't physically attractive to begin with. A lot of people grow character because they weren't physically attractive to begin with. A lot of people find true happiness with someone else because they saw each other as beautiful rather than by going with societies standards.

What does "a lot" mean Poohead? Are we talking one percent of unattractive people? Two percent? Maybe ten? I'm just spitballing numbers here but-
A: 'Maybe if I make him ugly he'll become a better person and get smarter!' sounds like a low percentage bet.
B: It's also a pretty crappy thing to do to a human being who you care about. This is someone's life we are talking about here.
C: I doubt it's even true.

If I have a child, I want them to have difficulties. Not to say I necessarily want them to be unappealing physically, or that I wouldn't provide for them, but a lack of difficulties is a lack of actual character. I'm the biggest critic of my parents but even when we weren't struggling for money, my mom didn't give us anymore than we needed and it helped me to live by myself as an adult.

While your satisfaction with one element of your parents approach to raising you is a positive I don't really see what that has to do with genetics. (Though I agree with their choice to not spoil their children.)

Some people find me conventionally attractive now, but growing up they did not. I wouldn't have changed that. Being seen as unappealing helped me be more mature later in life when I became appealing.

That maturity is why you named yourself Poohead, I assume? Forgive me if I am not quite persuaded of the validity of your logic here ;-P

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

Until you can show me a social dynamic that favors this, I am going to disagree based on historical evidence, @catchamber. I strongly doubt that the unusual or the extreme will ever overtake the norm, especially in an area people are as sensitive to as say, appearance. Any basic understanding of people will tell you that they will, habitually, favor what is known to them. It will unquestionably influence the norm, but a standard will emerge or persist to some length that has longstanding roots in what is known than unknown or different.

[IceHeart]

Genetics is a tricky business especially since if genes are too similar for too long the defects tend to pop up and weaknesses get magnified. If certain genes are selected for their great effects and are used almost exclusively, the genetic structure will start to degrade and new defects will form, forcing people to change genetics after a certain time before the defects eat away at any of the advantages those genes give someone.

Genes need diversity to effectively combat defects that start to appear in narrow gene pools. If everyone starts to rely on a small set of super genes, soon humans will become too similar to themselves and unless they keep around other 'inferior' genes, genetic problems will soon take hold in future generations. Then people will start to complain that previous generations used up all the good genes too much so now future generations can't use them anymore.

Humans are really good at screwing things up, so I certainly have a lot of fears of what could happen to the human race if genetic manipulation becomes mainstream. There is a good chance some problem will pop up down the road that scientists did not realize would happen after manipulating DNA for so long that will become impossible to fix and potentially lead to the extinction of the human race. There would have to be a heck of a lot of research done on the subject before I would even think about directly manipulating what effectively makes up a person, with human hands or even robotic ones.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

People are still slaves to their own humanity unless they choose to free themselves from it, @catchamber. No amount of tampering with the human being, until you undo what it means to be human, will likely change something that core to people. Just because we are discussing the dangers of a what amounts to an extreme means that the general rules of our understandings go out the window. The majority of people will, by and large, stay true to what it is they know. Even in our age of multimedia and technology, this has only been continuously proven and is the exact reason I say that people will be influenced by rather than divert to.

[POOHEAD189]

Just as their are variations between the traits individuals find attractive there is also a general trend. In short, the features humans find attractive are a scatter plot but there is also a trend line and that line correlates strongly with high cheekbones, secondary sexual characteristics and facial symmetry.

The first trait is arguable and the other two traits are generalities.

What does "a lot" mean Poohead? Are we talking one percent of unattractive people? Two percent? Maybe ten? I'm just spitballing numbers here but-
A: 'Maybe if I make him ugly he'll become a better person and get smarter!' sounds like a low percentage bet.
B: It's also a pretty crappy thing to do to a human being who you care about. This is someone's life we are talking about here.
C: I doubt it's even true.

A. It's the norm, not a low percentage. But I never said I want them to be ugly.
B. No one said to make them ugly. But even if that were the case, that's my point. This is their life, and do I want them to have a higher percentage chance of being mature and having character or do I want them to have 'facial symmetry.'
C. You...what? You doubt... how. As in you think it's impossible? Do you really hold physical appearance at such a high standard that you cannot fathom someone loving someone else romantically for their personality? I'm not actually assuming this of you but I don't know how else to take that.

While your satisfaction with one element of your parents approach to raising you is a positive I don't really see what that has to do with genetics. (Though I agree with their choice to not spoil their children.)

Simply using it as an example. Difficulties are good. Parents not making things too easy for a child helps them grow. Then again, while difficulties are good, so is healthy choices. Which is just one more reason why I don't want to touch genetics other than halting diseases.

That maturity is why you named yourself Poohead, I assume? Forgive me if I am not quite persuaded of the validity of your logic here ;-P

I lol'd. I'll paraphrase the explanation of the name from my profile.

"To be honest, I have a lot of interests and I take who I am very seriously. So why the poo? Because I could never really find something that I felt could describe me in a way that I would want. I made it up when I was 5, and just like my actual name Ben, I never thought it needed changing. If people want to judge me for that, good. It's them reading a book by its cover."

[POOHEAD189]

@Kratesis Also, apparently unattractive people are given better career opportunities in the scientific community.

[POOHEAD189]

Google is all over the place on whether or not attractive or unattractive people are paid more. This article by Forbe gives the quote

“Physical attractiveness may appear to have an effect on earnings, because more attractive workers are simultaneously healthier, more intelligent and have better (in particular, more conscientious, more extraverted, and less neurotic) personality more conducive to earning more.”

The major wrinkle, however, appears when you look at the same set of data comparisons with very unattractive people. Because contrary to what we’d normally assume, they benefit from the same “bias” as prettier people, perhaps even more.

So beautiful and ugly people are both given opportunities based on looks. It's the generic guy/gal that suffers.

[Kratesis]

@POOHEAD189

The first trait is arguable and the other two traits are generalities.

This statement is so vague I struggle to find your intended meaning.
"The world is round" "That's arguable"
"Humans have four limbs" "That's a generality"

Everything is arguable Poohead. And generalities are a linguistic expression of an average, frequency distribution or rate of change. A trend.

A. It's the norm, not a low percentage. But I never said I want them to be ugly.

So the 'norm' for people who are considered unattractive is to become more intelligent, develop stronger character and find true love more frequently than those who are considered attractive?

B. No one said to make them ugly. But even if that were the case, that's my point. This is their life, and do I want them to have a higher percentage chance of being mature and having character or do I want them to have 'facial symmetry.'

So just to be clear.. unattractiveness = better chance of being 'mature'?

C. You...what? You doubt... how. As in you think it's impossible? Do you really hold physical appearance at such a high standard that you cannot fathom someone loving someone else romantically for their personality? I'm not actually assuming this of you but I don't know how else to take that.

You have completely lost me here. I doubt that the hardships that come with unattractiveness make people into kinder or more intelligent people and I strongly doubt that it does anything positive for their chances of finding true love. I mean have you seen /r/incels?

Simply using it as an example. Difficulties are good. Parents not making things too easy for a child helps them grow. Then again, while difficulties are good, so is healthy choices. Which is just one more reason why I don't want to touch genetics other than halting diseases.

So your premise is that struggle against life's hardships makes one a better person and by increasing the amount of hardships our children face we can make them into better people?

Excellent. We can look at the world and find cases were one group of people is faced with a hardship while another group has it easy and we can see if the people who are faced with these hardships are more mature, more intelligent and more likely to find meaningful love than the people who have it easy. This shouldn't be too challenging; after all today we have entire countries filled with people whose lives are waking nightmares. If your theory holds true they should be saints with intellect and virtue to shame Gandi!

But we don't have to get so extreme. After all there are plenty of places in the world that are not awful, just disadvantaged compared to other people in the same region. And if your theory is correct those disadvantaged people should be more intelligent, more mature and more likely to find happiness with a romantic partner.

Do you think that is what we are going to find when we compare the populations of 'hardshipped' and the so called 'privileged'?