Also, there is mobility (some poor become rich and vice-versa), which further alleviates the problem.
Also, the rich are a minority, which, in a democratic country, further alleviates their dominance.
But genetic engineering could be practiced by a majority. So it would be a majority of beings who would be strong, intelligent, and, given time, they would be rich too. So the naturals would be _utterly screwed_. In fact, once the upper class ceases to identify itself as "human", they would probably feel little compassion to us humans; just like we don't feel compassion towards chimpanzees.
Anyway, the selfish-begetting-superbabies problem would _add_ to the rich-begetting-rich problem. Our society can barely resist its existing problems, we shouldn't add another big one.
Except for the genetic part, how is this different from now?
Except substitute "strong/intelligent" for "rich/lucky/privileged"?
First, not all rich are selfish and immoral. Second, the rich tends to have less children than the poor, which alleviates the positive-feedback process.
Your morals are not my morals are not my neighbor's morals. The moment you start telling me mine are wrong, is when you should start questioning your own.
Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
You provided evidence that selfish people exists. That does not change my point: genetic engineering would immensely intensify it and would create an upper class of strong, intelligent and selfish beings (who would not even be human). Naturals would be totally screwed.
Just because war does not actually help the economy does not mean that wars have not been waged on the mistaken presumption that they would help the economy. Besides, even when those waging the war claim it is to help the economy, they neglect to mention that they only mean a small subset of the economy consisting of rich people they know.
So they would _start a war_ just to enrich buddies? Wouldn't it be easier and safer to create one government program that indirectly helped their buddies?
Anyway, what evidence do you have that America has started wars for profit?
Hint: "they had an interest for doing so" is not evidence, but pure cynicism. Not everyone who has an interest in doing something will actually do it.
by choosing a mate which we like. Good looks and a compatible character are the biggest factors in choosing a partner with which to reproduce. Consequently, we try to increase these desired traits in our offspring. The question is only when we start to be open about it and try to influence the genetic composition of our kids more directly,
Choosing a spouse is very different from genetically engineering a baby. One of the differences is that genetic engineering is far faster and more radical, not leaving time for society to adjust. It could create a race of intelligent and strong (but not necessarily moral) beings in a few generations. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
Yes, right. And the idea has been demonized since, mainly to justify a war which was waged to bring the US economy out of recession and suppress the two most potent economic competitors. When we outgrow the propaganda from that time, we might get a clearer look on that issue.
Sometimes a "demonized" thing is really evil. Oh, and "war which was waged to bring the US economy out of recession"? Take off the tinfoil hat, please.
And since when does war help the economy? Have you ever learned about the broken window fallacy? War is bad for the economy.
I'm more concerned that the individuals who will be able to afford this genetic engineering will be the last people we want to become supermen. I don't have that much faith in our economic elite.
It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness. See
This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems. And think about the societal consequences.
Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies. However, selfish and immoral parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of selfishness and immorality. Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.
This is a freaking dystopia.
The scary part is that this gentleman is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics! I fear for the future.
Oh please. I held the Shift key by accident, and at the time I didn't want to "waste" an account because of one excessive capitalization I didn't care about. Now it has too long a history for me to ditch it. In the endless sea of spelling Nazis that is Slashdot, you are the _only one_ to complain about it. Congratulations.
Is it? I think it's close enough, because I too know what you meant.
If it was really close enough, you would not feel the need to change what I said to help your rhetoric.
Now there you have a false analogy.
I disagree entirely. I believe it teaches them to easily submit to authority, especially when they're arbitrary taught that certain things are 'poison' because some people don't like them.
So what do you really support? A family should be a democracy? If you think that a man can treat his child as a friend, you are simply denying reality. If my father had treated me like this, I would probably not even be alive today. When I was 13, I was damn-sure I was smarter than adults, I could drive a car very well, etc. It is common knowledge that this was not an exception; young people think they are Superman.
accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables.
How would you force anyone to eat vegetables, anyway?
Oh please. It is freaking obvious. Talk to the child about the importance of eating vegetables, and if they don't, speak sternly to them and punish (TV deprivation, for example). Dot it every day and, in due time, the child will simply realize that eating vegetables is the least painful option.
I would love to see Gallup or Pew study the correlation between people who think like you and people who want to have only 2 children or less.
Because if I thought like you (that a child must be treated as my buddy) I would know that my child would be an insufferable spoiled brat, and I would be terrified at the thought of dealing with them.
When you refer to creationism-believing people as "idiots", "bible-thumping" "hillbillies", you reinforce their view that evolution is an elitist, atheist plot to undermine Christianity. If you _really_ want to spread the belief in evolution, you should follow these principles: 1) Respect the people. 2) Don't present evolution as a "Christianity x Atheism" battle. It is not. There is a huge number of Christians who believe in evolution. 3) Don't call everyone who believes in miracles a "creationist". There is a difference between believing the Earth is 6000 years old and that scientists conspire against Christianity, and believing that scientists are basically right but God created the souls of the first humans.
Not even an analogy; the Internet is not poison. The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone.
Straw man. I did not say that the whole internet is poison. I said that pornography and perverts are poisons.
Oh, well. People are already used to being spied on, seeing censorship, and being molested at airports. What's the harm in teaching them that it's okay from the very beginning?
Now there you have a false analogy. There is a difference between a father-child relationship and a citizen-government relationship. For example, every sane person accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables. Yet we wouldn't want the government forcing us to eat vegetables.
No amount of filtering in the world will prevent girls (or boys for that matter) from uploading nude videos of themselves to YouTube, or nude photos uploaded publicly (accidentally or intentionally) on Twitter, Facebook, or TinyPic, or from taking clothes off for strangers on video chat sites such as ChatRoulette, Stickam, BlogTV, or TinyChat.
And that's just a few real examples. Yes, I've seen all of them happen. No, nudity doesn't usually last long on any of those sites... but long enough for dozens or hundreds of people to download or screencap it.
We must combine filtering, surveillance, and education.
Education alone does not cut it.
No one leaves poison at the reach of children; we know that teaching them is not enough, we also have to keep the poison away, and also we need to watch the kid.
For the same reasons, teaching children about pornography or perverts is not enough; we also need to filter the computer at home, to put the computer where the parents can see it, to ask the school to do the same, and still we have to watch the kids.
If something becomes truly necessary, any rational person would support it, wouldn't you say? But it isn't necessary, and I see little value in going off on such contrafactual flights of fantasy.
By "necessary" I meant "necessary to set reasonable standards for science education". IMAO, even if it _was_ necessary, we would be better to simply let the children learn false science (as horrible as it is) than surrendering national sovereignty to the UN.
I don't really see geography as a politicized subject; is there really a political issue about the height of Everest or the area of Antarctica?
Regarding the Civil War, at least Lincoln had the motive of ending anti-black cruelty. Historians tell us that black slavery was degrading and cruel. It was a gross violation of human rights, and no government has the right to do such a thing.
But nowadays, the central government forces its opinions about drugs and alcohol (such as the 21-year drinking age) on the states, which is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
How can the parent post be described as "flamebait"?
Moderators are suppose to follow the Slashdot moderation guidelines!
Don't mod something as "flamebait" simply because you disagree. Instead, reply and post your own idea!
Also, there is mobility (some poor become rich and vice-versa), which further alleviates the problem.
Also, the rich are a minority, which, in a democratic country, further alleviates their dominance.
But genetic engineering could be practiced by a majority. So it would be a majority of beings who would be strong, intelligent, and, given time, they would be rich too. So the naturals would be _utterly screwed_. In fact, once the upper class ceases to identify itself as "human", they would probably feel little compassion to us humans; just like we don't feel compassion towards chimpanzees.
Anyway, the selfish-begetting-superbabies problem would _add_ to the rich-begetting-rich problem. Our society can barely resist its existing problems, we shouldn't add another big one.
First, not all rich are selfish and immoral. Second, the rich tends to have less children than the poor, which alleviates the positive-feedback process.
Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
You provided evidence that selfish people exists.
That does not change my point: genetic engineering would immensely intensify it and would create an upper class of strong, intelligent and selfish beings (who would not even be human). Naturals would be totally screwed.
So they would _start a war_ just to enrich buddies? Wouldn't it be easier and safer to create one government program that indirectly helped their buddies?
Anyway, what evidence do you have that America has started wars for profit?
Hint: "they had an interest for doing so" is not evidence, but pure cynicism. Not everyone who has an interest in doing something will actually do it.
Me. Human rights (including the right to life) are unalienable.
Choosing a spouse is very different from genetically engineering a baby. One of the differences is that genetic engineering is far faster and more radical, not leaving time for society to adjust. It could create a race of intelligent and strong (but not necessarily moral) beings in a few generations. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
Sometimes a "demonized" thing is really evil.
Oh, and "war which was waged to bring the US economy out of recession"? Take off the tinfoil hat, please.
And since when does war help the economy? Have you ever learned about the broken window fallacy? War is bad for the economy.
Making kids mentally and physically healthy was the very goal of Nazism. "Looking German" was one accidental detail.
So yes, this proposal is eugenicist and utterly evil. Also it would select for selfishness and immorality. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness. See
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
This would be an unprecedented dystopia.
This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems. And think about the societal consequences.
Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.
However, selfish and immoral parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of selfishness and immorality.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.
This is a freaking dystopia.
The scary part is that this gentleman is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics! I fear for the future.
It looks like you apply labels to ideas and ditch them based on that.
Also, you have to take into account that the rich are actually paying much more in absolute numbers, and getting the same or less public service.
I am not actually defending a flat tax, but simply asking people to acknowledge the facts.
Oh please. I held the Shift key by accident, and at the time I didn't want to "waste" an account because of one excessive capitalization I didn't care about. Now it has too long a history for me to ditch it.
In the endless sea of spelling Nazis that is Slashdot, you are the _only one_ to complain about it. Congratulations.
And why are you my freak anyway?
If it was really close enough, you would not feel the need to change what I said to help your rhetoric.
So what do you really support? A family should be a democracy?
If you think that a man can treat his child as a friend, you are simply denying reality.
If my father had treated me like this, I would probably not even be alive today.
When I was 13, I was damn-sure I was smarter than adults, I could drive a car
very well, etc.
It is common knowledge that this was not an exception; young people think they are Superman.
Oh please. It is freaking obvious. Talk to the child about the importance of eating vegetables, and if they don't, speak sternly to them and punish (TV deprivation, for example). Dot it every day and, in due time, the child will simply realize that eating vegetables is the least painful option.
I would love to see Gallup or Pew study the correlation between people who think like you and people who want to have only 2 children or less.
Because if I thought like you (that a child must be treated as my buddy) I would know that my child would be an insufferable spoiled brat, and I would be terrified at the thought of dealing with them.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
See number 312. "What are indulgences?"
More details in http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM
And indulgences are not sold. Indulgences are granted to people who help the poor, accept suffering with dignity, etc.
When you refer to creationism-believing people as "idiots", "bible-thumping" "hillbillies", you reinforce their view that evolution is an elitist, atheist plot to undermine Christianity. If you _really_ want to spread the belief in evolution, you should follow these principles:
1) Respect the people.
2) Don't present evolution as a "Christianity x Atheism" battle. It is not. There is a huge number of Christians who believe in evolution.
3) Don't call everyone who believes in miracles a "creationist". There is a difference between believing the Earth is 6000 years old and that scientists conspire against Christianity, and believing that scientists are basically right but God created the souls of the first humans.
Straw man. I did not say that the whole internet is poison. I said that pornography and perverts are poisons.
Now there you have a false analogy. There is a difference between a father-child relationship and a citizen-government relationship. For example, every sane person accepts a parent right to force his child to eat his vegetables. Yet we wouldn't want the government forcing us to eat vegetables.
We must combine filtering, surveillance, and education.
Education alone does not cut it.
No one leaves poison at the reach of children; we know that teaching them is not enough, we also have to keep the poison away, and also we need to watch the kid.
For the same reasons, teaching children about pornography or perverts is not enough; we also need to filter the computer at home, to put the computer where the parents can see it, to ask the school to do the same, and still we have to watch the kids.
By "necessary" I meant "necessary to set reasonable standards for science education". IMAO, even if it _was_ necessary, we would be better to simply let the children learn false science (as horrible as it is) than surrendering national sovereignty to the UN.
I meant "human geography".
I am talking about this:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=federalism
S: (n) federalism (the idea of a federal organization of more or less self-governing units)
Notice the "self-governing units" part.
Regarding the Civil War, at least Lincoln had the motive of ending anti-black cruelty. Historians tell us that black slavery was degrading and cruel. It was a gross violation of human rights, and no government has the right to do such a thing.
But nowadays, the central government forces its opinions about drugs and alcohol (such as the 21-year drinking age) on the states, which is absurd.
I am a strong advocate of power decentralization.
I believe in evolution myself, but I like the parent's idea because it respects everyone involved and reaches a compromise.
And the children who are well taught about evolution will probably figure out it is in fact real.
But speaking of "Christian creationism" makes it seem that young-Earth creationism is overwhelmingly believed by Christians. It is not.
The press loves "man bites dog" stories.
If you live by the press, you think that the world is horrible.
The world is better than what the press says.
Except that religion is voluntary.