humans should make a breed of super humans

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 21
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
especially if we are branching out into space. just let the best and brightest reproduce, say on mars. then remove problematic humans and genes and put them back on earth. even if there is speciation, it's still a decendent of humans and part of our lineage, so it has value. we have the knowledge and technology to do this... so it should be done. 
even if this wasn't done on mars... we can still breed super humans on earth. 
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
The KKK and the nazis tried this. Something about the attitude of discarding people based on their genes seems to cause total war and unfathomable slaughter.

When we understand our biology well enough to know what would cause the improvements we seek we can edit gametes on a voluntary basis. That is safe, breeding humans is not for social and biological reasons.

Are you aware that many specialized breeds of animals have significant health problems and shortened lifespans (on top of being much uglier than the original)?
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,662
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The beauty of life is in variety.

If everyone was smart like me, I wouldnt feel any special, although we would be living in a perfect world.
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
especially if we are branching out into space. just let the best and brightest reproduce, say on mars. then remove problematic humans and genes and put them back on earth. even if there is speciation, it's still a decendent of humans and part of our lineage, so it has value. we have the knowledge and technology to do this... so it should be done. 
even if this wasn't done on mars... we can still breed super humans on earth. 
It wasn't done on Mars, well why not?
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
We already do.

Though we haven't yet streamlined the process.

I'm guessing that it will just naturally streamline itself, in response to evolutionary requirements...Such as escaping Planet Earth.
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm guessing that it will just naturally streamline itself, in response to evolutionary requirements...Such as escaping Planet Earth.
The way it's "streamlining" itself is some people are voluntarily castrating themselves, using contraceptives, demonizing the other gender, aborting, and telling everyone else it's great.

If you believe in genetic determinism, its very clear what kind of people will make up future populations.

#7
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
We already do.

Though we haven't yet streamlined the process.

I'm guessing that it will just naturally streamline itself, in response to evolutionary requirements...Such as escaping Planet Earth.
No way, in fact humanity is getting softer, heck, my generation walked a hundred miles in the snow to get to school, uphill, both ways, and all we had to eat was dirt, and we were grateful...
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
LOL.

You sound like my Dad.


Not that I'm not starting to sound like my Dad.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Future populations on Planet Earth are some what irrelevant in terms of material evolution. (This is a generalisation)

And your concerns seem to focus mainly on human sexual and procreative acts.

Sexual acts simply relieve urges, just as they have always done.

And procreation no longer relies upon male/female copulation...Other methodology has evolved as intellect and knowledge has evolved.


As I often suggest:

Asexuality and selective breeding is perhaps the direction in which humanity is heading.

One might also speculate that this is the way that universal events are meant to go.
#10
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Asexuality and selective breeding is perhaps the direction in which humanity is heading.
Genetic engineering with tons of sexuality is the way it's heading. "selective breeding" implies, well breeding for one but also selecting genes as a whole based on individuals as natural selection does. This is guesswork compared trying to maximize specific biological functions by direct understanding of their chemical pathways and constraints.

but where humanity is at is that the davos futurists are being out bred by the average African/South American/Indonesian family. They don't need your artificial wombs, they're going to produce all the money and energy. Any vision of the future that doesn't either genocide most of humanity or convince normal people will fail.
#11
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,515
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The KKK and the nazis tried this. Something about the attitude of discarding people based on their genes seems to cause total war and unfathomable slaughter. 
I think your comment is a bit exagerated. Nazis and kkk are white supremacists, nothing good can come out of it. 

There is nothing wrong about discarding people to breed based on their health history and skills. I would say this is desirable and altruistic no matter the ethnic group.

In fact, this is actually going on in the developed countries, women becoming single mothers are using selected sperm from highly intelligent and athletic men, they don’t want shitty genes, it's natural, unless you were a liberal with the typical stupid discourse of equality. 
#12
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
There is nothing wrong about discarding people to breed based on their health history and skills.
The people who you would discard have no problem hanging you by the neck until death.


they don’t want shitty genes, it's natural
So is males murdering reproductive rivals.


unless you were a liberal with the typical stupid discourse of equality.
A stupid discourse on equality isn't the only analysis which concludes caution in regards to eugenics.


For example:
women becoming single mothers are using selected sperm from highly intelligent and athletic men
Sounds good to someone with the racist premise, that is the premise that genetic predetermination is such a large factor that no others need to be considered.

The problem is that the racist premise is false. Nurture (parenting, culture, education) produces far greater diversity of outcomes than genetics. It possible and plausible that the lack of a father in a child's life is a detrimental factor that outweighs all genetic advantages by an order of magnitude. Now consider how the child is raised. A single mother needs to work to produce value, stay-at-home mom isn't an option; again disadvantaging the child (on average).

Also, for every good gene there are more bad genes. Choosing the best set requires relative prioritization of traits and that judgement depends on knowing what kind of human is ideal and knowing how traits interact (which we don't).

Here is one of the more likely examples of that: By using sperm banks you're selecting for males from the top of hierarchies which also tend to have a greater concentration of sociopaths. Sociopaths will deceive to achieve their aims and that includes stacking sperm banks. There is no way to identify sociopaths from a picture and some stats, it would (and has been) far more likely through courting rituals to cut out such people. Note this is assuming sociopathy is primarily genetic and that (as almost always) is far from proven.


The evidence that exists right now is that the kind of cultures with a lot of single mothers looking for sperm banks are self-destructing while cultures where that is considered unhealthy are just fine and catching up (in technical culture and productivity) rather quickly.
#13
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,515
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The people who you would discard have no problem hanging you by the neck until death.
You mean in a sort of revolt?

For your information, in Iceland there are no longer down syndrome pregnancies. Do you think people have spoken out? I doubt it.

So is males murdering reproductive rivals.
Well, I'm not sure whether a crime of passion is evil or not, but it's certainly an instinct difficult to control. Maybe we should cast it out by genetic engineering.

A stupid discourse on equality isn't the only analysis which concludes caution in regards to eugenics.
Eugenics is a term that has been demonized by those who believe to have the moral authority to determine whether we can improve our genetics. Eugenics is a very old practice that many ancient civilizations carried out. It's not necessary to apply genetic engineering, suffice to keep the unfit people from reproducing (under their consent, of course). Or at best, doing genetic engineering so to cast out the unwanted genes.

My impression is that you think eugenics is about genetic experimentation, which is not the case. Eugenics is about assuring that the newborn gets the best genes from parents.

Here is one of the more likely examples of that: By using sperm banks you're selecting for males from the top of hierarchies which also tend to have a greater concentration of sociopaths. Sociopaths will deceive to achieve their aims and that includes stacking sperm banks. There is no way to identify sociopaths from a picture and some stats, it would (and has been) far more likely through courting rituals to cut out such people. Note this is assuming sociopathy is primarily genetic and that (as almost always) is far from proven.
You seem to ignore how sperm banks work. The donor goes through an exhaustive analysis, including his family history. So I don't see any risk on it.

I can certainly argue that the selection procedure is a bit racist since women only choose white donors, but you have to consider that white births are in decline, so in the end it's good for the white population.
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
The people who you would discard have no problem hanging you by the neck until death.
You mean in a sort of revolt?

For your information, in Iceland there are no longer down syndrome pregnancies. Do you think people have spoken out? I doubt it.
Were there ever? Recessive traits are quickly eliminated from small gene pools under harsh selection (as in a thousand years ago).

They didn't need to sterilize people at that time, they starved, or froze, or got into a fight they couldn't win.

You identify everyone with a recessive disease and try to sterilize them today or then, then they and all their family get real pissed.


So is males murdering reproductive rivals.
Well, I'm not sure whether a crime of passion is evil or not, but it's certainly an instinct difficult to control. Maybe we should cast it out by genetic engineering.
No, I mean if you have a significant population of males who know 100% they're not going to have genetic offspring it's going to take quite the indoctrination to keep them from just bombing sperm banks.


A stupid discourse on equality isn't the only analysis which concludes caution in regards to eugenics.
Eugenics is a term that has been demonized by those who believe to have the moral authority to determine whether we can improve our genetics.
You don't need to commit moral crimes against liberty (forced sterilization) in order to improve genetics, in 50 years direct editing will render artificial selection of individuals obsolete. How about we skip the the inevitable war and your execution for crimes against humanity and just wait a few generations? I think our genes can hang on that long.


My impression is that you think eugenics is about genetic experimentation, which is not the case.
No I'm advocating for genetic "experimentation" followed by genetic editing regardless of the genes of the parent. This prevents the people who want to be parents from having a motivation to set a nuke off in your face.


Eugenics is about assuring that the newborn gets the best genes from parents.
"discarding people to breed", sounds like it's about preventing people from becoming genetic parents.


I can certainly argue that the selection procedure is a bit racist since women only choose white donors, but you have to consider that white births are in decline, so in the end it's good for the white population.
Not if it produces a bunch of low-functioning gang bangers and school shooters, which is exactly what you'll get with a single mother who works all the time.
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For sure.

For as long as sexuality remains inbred it will remain as a primary instinctive urge.

So genetic modification would be a solution to this.

Not that any of this is going to happen tomorrow.

As I always point out, it's taken approximately 300000 years to get this far.


Though to secure the long term future of humanity, it would only be necessary to breed a limited colony of super-intellectual, asexual humans.

Somewhere else perhaps.
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
So genetic modification would be a solution to this.
For some. The 'problem' is that humans choose their own values and they very often do it based on their instinctive payload more than anything else.

How many people do you know who would voluntarily (and permanently) give up their sexuality?

Now you can say "well you won't miss it if you've never known it" but you could say the same thing about eye sight or hearing. Most people enjoy being sexual creatures and they're going to want their offspring to have the same chance.

If anything any requests for asexuality will be greatly eclipsed by request for healthier and more rewarding sexual traits.


As I always point out, it's taken approximately 300000 years to get this far.
and 10,000 years is a blink in the evolutionary eye, but at the rate we can now collect and analyze information we're going to be able to anything we want (within the bounds of what biology has already demonstrated) in 5000 years (assuming no collapse of technical culture).

We don't need to wait till then to know what people would want to do though. They don't want "a limited colony of super-intellectual, asexual humans." Specifically the asexuality or anything else that is a denial of what the Greek philosophers might call "the good things in life". ("super intellectual" has nothing to do with asexuality.)

Humanity at large probably won't use force to stop it, but there is no way they'll all choose that path or tolerate any attempt to force them in that direction.

I am one of those people BTW, we could eliminate sexuality and then next taste, but the only possible motivation I see is a deeply irrational notion that the farther away from evolution's inheritance we get the more perfect we are. It's more like the more robots we are.

Perfection would be completing the pattern. Taking the good evolution has made, enhance it, mitigate the bad as far as possible.
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yep, I cannot refute any of that.


I tend to speculate about the long term.

And how long is a piece of string.

Though it cannot be argued that intelligence and sexuality are not evolving factors of the human species.

Similarly genetic engineering, although in it's infancy, will also inevitably evolve.

As will the colonisation of elsewhere.


Why colonise space with numpties?

Wouldn't that be a backward step?
#18
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Why colonise space with numpties?

Wouldn't that be a backward step?
We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now we're centuries out from terraforming Mars (optimistically). Our theory morality and civilization is clearly less than perfect.

The existence of idiots seems to be universally agreed upon. The problem is that there is nothing like a consensus amongst the intelligent, even about what intelligence is.

To blame idiocy on genetics seems to me a lazy scape goat. Read the history of racism and you'll get the idea that people have a bad habit of attributing things to genetics without eliminating other factors.

So before we try to colonize Mars and before we even begin to consider curing 'numptiatus' by genetic engineering we should get a handle on culture and education.

How much of the worlds problems are caused by bad social theory and how much by bad genes? This is important to answer before you ship people out of the system. If you send them with what you think are better genes and a flawed cultural heritage you'll have just created another flawed human civilization. The inverse is also true, but given that on an individual level nurture is so much greater a factor I would be very surprised if you could fix human civilization by genetic engineering exclusively (or primarily).

In case it's not already clear: The (common) genetically doomed idiot is a theory that I am high skeptical of.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yep, I cannot refute that either.

Material evolution has been slow.

Though seemingly, material manipulation and development at the hands of humans is somewhat exponential.

In this context, intelligence is all about the ability to acquire, store and utilise information.

So in terms of colonising elsewhere, relative to 300000years of evolution, I would suggest that we will be getting there sooner rather than later.

100 years or 500, unfortunately we won't be around to find out.


Answer me this though.

Billions of people have learned how to utilise smartphones, but how many of those billions know how the technology works?

And how many out of 8billion and counting, will ever understand genetic engineering?
#20
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Billions of people have learned how to utilise smartphones, but how many of those billions know how the technology works?

And how many out of 8billion and counting, will ever understand genetic engineering?
Increasing specialization explains decreased specialist knowledge better than decreased intelligence. It's easy for everyone to be an expert when knapping flint and hidework are the only major technologies (that's an oversimplification and there were certainly specialists in the neolithic).

How many of the 8 billion could have learned genetic engineering or microprocessors to an acceptable competence level given the right education and motivation?

I don't know, I suspect the number is high. Why? I've met idiots, but I think they're made idiots not born idiots. I've met many ignorant, same story.
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For sure, out of the number of appropriate brains that are available at any given time, it would perhaps be possible to programme most if not all with the relevant data.

But I do have my doubts about this... I'm not sure that all normally functioning brains do possess the same capability or desire.


Though teaching the masses how to utilise techno-innovations is not really what I'm driving at.

How many will have the ability to expand upon old data and create new...You cannot teach/programme a brain if the relevant data does not yet exist.

I would suggest that the ratio of innovator capability to user ability is very low.

One in thousands maybe, or even one in millions?