|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
 Posted - 11/23/2005 : 09:43:47 [Permalink]
|
| Sounds like H.G. Wells' 'The Time Machine'... |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 10:41:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Let us not forget that "harmfull" mutations are those that prevent a member of a species from reproducing.
Longevity is not a survival trait unless you are incapable of reproduction until you are much older.
In your scenario H.H. the mutation obviously doesn't prevent the passing on of genetic material. So it isn't really a harmfull mutation.
I'm going to have to dispute the above.
Reproductive success is about having more kids (who go on to have kids themselves) than competing species. If the SBLLG also doubled the number of fertile years for women (pushing menopause back to, say, 80), longevity would surely contribute to reproductive success. If it didn't, and also reduced humanity's overall fecundity, it could easily be seen as harmful.
In fact, if people became stupid enough, they'd have to have more kids to make up for an increased infant mortality (due to the stupidity of the parents, not necessarily disease). Our big brains have allowed humanity to avoid having to have litters of children in order to avoid extinction. Take away that advantage, and something else will need to make up for it.
And the lower reproductive rate of humans (as compared to other mammals of human size) was true long before modern medicine or even civilization. Sure, rates are dropping even lower in developed countries, but even women in the most undeveloped countries don't often drop more than one kid at a time (without help). Compare to, say, jaguars, which regularly have more than one kitten per delivery. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 12:40:08 [Permalink]
|
Is not our lifespan dependent upon our intelligence?
A person with an iq of 50 would be considered, as Dave said, trainably retarded. Now if the gene were able to take over the entire population, there is no one to train anyone.
Now it's important to note that we are talking about people who don't have a fully functioning brain. We aren't just talking about someone with the knowledge of a man in the Dark Ages. Even they were geniuses in their own time. So I don't think you can say that it would be like going back X centuries, as all of them had fully functioning brains.
Would someone who is trainably retarded be able to teach himself how to hunt? I would imagine not. Hell, I'm not even sure I could do it. Especially without a gun. How would a society of trainably retarded people manage themselves? You guys talk about them not being able to use computers or machines, but I would imagine they wouldn't even be able to read/write since there is no one to teach them.
Now we assume that they are immune to any viruses or bacteria, or to go a bit further, poisons. So these people can live off of plants without getting sick in any way. You still run into problems. There are natural disasters: tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, just to name a few. There are cold winters, hot summers, droughts, and floods.
What would the survival rate be if the entire human population had an iq of 50? My guess is not high. So lifespan wouldn't even factor into it, since it would be rare for any human to ever live that long.
So in the end, it would lead to the demise of the human race. But then again, maybe that's exactly what this planet needs... |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 14:16:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is there any way to ethical justify preserving high intelligence in our species at the expense of the lives of these new half-wit cousins? Would it be ethical to sterilize them?
You can always toy around with your definition of ethical. Otherwise my answer would be no - it is not ethical. Maybe you could do it for financial reasons - they cost too much to maintain in society. I doubt you would get a great financial gain, though, since the cost of testing for the mutation + costs of sterilisation + whatever else, would leave you with very little surplus (this, of course, depends on what tasks these mutants are able to perform in the first place). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 14:24:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Is there any way to ethical justify preserving high intelligence in our species at the expense of the lives of these new half-wit cousins? Would it be ethical to sterilize them?
You can always toy around with your definition of ethical. Otherwise my answer would be no - it is not ethical. Maybe you could do it for financial reasons - they cost too much to maintain in society. I doubt you would get a great financial gain, though, since the cost of testing for the mutation + costs of sterilisation + whatever else, would leave you with very little surplus (this, of course, depends on what tasks these mutants are able to perform in the first place).
So you wouldn't sterilize them even if it meant that in a few hundred years there wouldn't be a person left alive without the mutation?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 14:53:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Now, what if it were a "stealth" gene? One which allows a person to grow up normally, but at age 23 (say), turns you stupid. That would allow for plenty of unintentional gene spreading around the world, and brings the ethical question to the forefront: once a test is developed which can detect the stealth SBLLG in infancy (or the womb, even), what's to be done with that knowledge?
Ok, this might be a more interesting scenario. A lot of responses seem to be on the order of "well, that could never happen." Right. That's why it's a hypothetical. I'm interested in people's responses to this assuming it could happen.
What is your opinion of what should be done in the case you outlined above?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/23/2005 14:54:46 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 15:58:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you wouldn't sterilize them even if it meant that in a few hundred years there wouldn't be a person left alive without the mutation?
That is a definite no - but not for any ethical reasons. If the mutation was so common that it would become fixed in a few hundred years, it would mean that there would be too many mutants around already (they would be more common than people without the mutation.... making the "normal" people the mutants incidentally) for this to be feasible. You might get away with starting an outright war with them at that stage - sterilization would be impossible. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 16:01:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
You might get away with starting an outright war with them at that stage - sterilization would be impossible.
Sterilization was just something I threw out there, but really I'm asking for your ideas. So you would support full blown extermination? If not, then tell me what you would support.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 16:09:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Now, what if it were a "stealth" gene? One which allows a person to grow up normally, but at age 23 (say), turns you stupid. That would allow for plenty of unintentional gene spreading around the world, and brings the ethical question to the forefront: once a test is developed which can detect the stealth SBLLG in infancy (or the womb, even), what's to be done with that knowledge?
Ok, this might be a more interesting scenario. A lot of responses seem to be on the order of "well, that could never happen." Right. That's why it's a hypothetical. I'm interested in people's responses to this assuming it could happen.
What is your opinion of what should be done in the case you outlined above?
Naively I'd say that if we have the capability to screen every newborn for the mutation (and we are talking of a mutation to one gene here), we are also probably at the techological/financial position of being able to perform some sort of gene therapy. We probably wouldn't even have to force people to undergo it. Imagine if you were 22. You have two options. 1. Undergo gene therapy and retain your intellect (with the small chance of side-effects potentially). 2. Let nature run it's course and become an imbecile, ranting on about illogical things and not being able to perform simple mental tasks. The choice is obvious I think - to most people posting here, anyway. (Saying that, some people already seem to fit category 2. Some of them post right here on this board. They seem happy about their mental state. Let's get them!!!!) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 19:13:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
What is your opinion of what should be done in the case you outlined above?
Well, the case I outlined above was a trick question, more or less.
See, that situation already exists with regard to Down's Syndrome. While that disease doesn't represent a threat of dumbing-down the entire population over the course of a few hundred generations, the ethical question, it seems to me, is fairly similar (though rather more personal).
When my wife was pregnant, her doctor told us they'd be doing a Down's screening on her. If there were ever an appropriate time for the word "mindfuck," that's it. It's gotta be a tremendous mindfuck to be told that your unborn child is the victim of a genetic disease for which nothing can be done.
Thinking about it, the cold, pragmatic side of me would have (had testing come back positive) urged abortion, since that selfish part of me would only be interested in "investing" in a healthy baby. On the other hand, I thought, having a kid is a tremendous crap-shoot anyway, and you're pretty-much forced to make do with whatever hand you're dealt (if I can mix gambling metaphors), some much worse than Down's Syndrome.
In the end, I never did figure out an answer. Thinking about it made my brain rattle so much I decided to stop considering it until testing came back positive, which it didn't. Since my wife and I are stopping at the one kid, I can defer the question until such a time as my boy knocks someone up.
The SBLLG question, with prenatal diagnosis, is pretty much the same, except that it includes the "threat" that allowing the birth equates to edging the whole of civilization one iota backwards towards the stone age. So, on top of the "my foetus is broken" issue, there's the whole "saving the world" thing to consider.
Personally, I think that if I were faced with that decision, the fate of humanity would be the furthest thing from my mind. And so, given my deferment of the much more personal Down's issue which I actually have spent time thinking about, I can say that my answer is that I don't have a freakin' clue what people should do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 19:49:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Mutations that occur in the population that aid our survival are preserved, and those that do not are selected out. We are an intelligent species because intelligence conferred a benefit to survival
I am a new guy so I'm not trying to nitpick but sometimes the frequency of a mutation may increase in the population by random chance. If in you scenario the cost and benefit of the mutation are close then luck rears its ugly head. |
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 20:01:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since my wife and I are stopping at the one kid, I can defer the question until such a time as my boy knocks someone up.
Why stop at one? Watching all three of my kids fight for the same toy while screaming “no it's mine!” has done more to make me believe in natural selection than anything else!
Unfortunately, it has also given me gray hair and a nervous tick. |
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 20:18:36 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the SFN, UncleJ!
When my kid was about a year old, my wife was going through the supermarket and noticed that everyone with more than one child in tow looked absolutely miserable. That was the moment she changed her mind about having another baby. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
UncleJ
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 20:31:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Welcome to the SFN, UncleJ!
When my kid was about a year old, my wife was going through the supermarket and noticed that everyone with more than one child in tow looked absolutely miserable. That was the moment she changed her mind about having another baby.
Wise move Dave!
Thanks for the welcome. I started reading the skepticality forums recently and noticed a link to SFN. It's nice to know there are more people out there who try to use their intellect to solve problems instead of falling back on superstition. |
"The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." - F. Magellan
"I can't be a missionary! I don't even believe in Jebus!" - H. Simpson |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
