Nietzsche's Overman (Ubermensch)

[Taffer]

I've got no problem with properly conducted genetic engineer.

So sayeth the geneticist.

 

[Taffer]

The fundamental danger of biological engineering is that it assumes that we are smarter than evolution.

That is not true at all. Evolution is blind. It does not produce "perfect" products, only adequate ones. With sufficient scientific knowledge, there is no reason why we could not be able to safely engineer things.

It's also known as the Monday Morning Quarterback Fallacy, The Movie Geek Fallacy, or the Hollywood Producer's Folly. Just because you can spot a mistake in a design doesn't mean you understand that design, nor does it mean that you are as skilled or more skilled than the designer, or that you are fit to fix that design. Very often, a crack in the dam might be the necessary consequence of a hundred other structures being perfectly balanced.

Genetics is not the only scientific field dealing with the inner workings of the cell. By the time we understand genetics, I'm sure most other things will be worked out as well.

 

[Taffer]

No, nitpicking metaphors is silly. "Evolution is smarter than we are" is a handy rule of thumb when investigating why we do what we do. If something doesn't make sense, you can assume that it serves a purpose, and perform thought experiments or reverse-engineer why. Example: Figuring out why girls like "bad boys." Once you assume that there's an evolutionary purpose to it, you're on the track to figuring it out.

But humans have directed evolution for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is just doing a bit faster, that's all.

Oh, really? We'll understand how a brain creates consciousness? Knowing how to build something does not equal knowing how or why it works.

Why not? Do you have a reason to believe that genetics and cellular biology will not solve this riddle?

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't know what I'm saying, so you're in no position to judge.

 

[Lonewulf]

But humans have directed evolution for thousands of years.

Example: dogs, cats, crops.

 

[donnyboybelfast]

Should we consider the Uber-mensch to be superior purely from birth or by genetics, or should we really be thinking about improving people by perfecting a system of education?

A high IQ is not the be all and end all of a good design for a person. Millions of under-achievers with high IQs are wasting their abilities (and perhaps unhappy), and millions of not so intelligent people are successful and/or happy and productive.
I suspect most people really just want to be happy in life, so perhaps engineering happy people should be the goal of genetic engineers, not smart ones. (Has anyone seen the film Idiocracy? )

 

[Beerina]

Like any other human endeavor, he's only as good as the produce of his mind.

A factory worker with an IQ boosted to 140 still ain't gonna cut it vs. top scientists.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Human behaviour affects the human genome whether we intend it or not.
The human environment is primarily other humans.
The environment of human genes is mostly other human genes.
We constrain our behaviour merely by existing and behaviour feeds back into genomes through sexual selection.

Consider:- If 300 million chimpanzees lived in one area, and they had access to H-bombs; how much rain forest do you suppose there would be left? We are NOT the most aggressive of primates.

All things considered, we actually get on together, in incredible numbers, surprisingly well.
I'd be concerned that any attempt to enhance specific characteristics in humans might result in exactly the sort of behavioural problems that similar inbreeding has had in domestic animals- such as aggression in poultry and dogs. Further, look how heated we get now about the argument IQ might have a genetic / racial element. What would we be like if we were 100% certain it had, because we put it there? We're racist enough now and we only have one human race. What will we be like with two?

 

[Lonewulf]

If 300 million chimpanzees all lived in one area, and they had access to H-bombs... uhm... is that a trick question? Chimps don't know how to use H-Bombs.

 

[Puppycow]

Should we consider the Uber-mensch to be superior purely from birth or by genetics, or should we really be thinking about improving people by perfecting a system of education?

A high IQ is not the be all and end all of a good design for a person. Millions of under-achievers with high IQs are wasting their abilities (and perhaps unhappy), and millions of not so intelligent people are successful and/or happy and productive.
I suspect most people really just want to be happy in life, so perhaps engineering happy people should be the goal of genetic engineers, not smart ones. (Has anyone seen the film Idiocracy? )

This is true, but even if many people don't live up to their full potential, if a reasonable fraction do, then think of the benefit to society. One or two more Edisons would be great for humanity.

I think the low-hanging fruit would be things like good teeth and 20-20 eyesight. Think of the lifetime cost of having bad teeth or requiring corrective lenses. Besides direct monetary costs, there's wasted time and pain/suffering. Those would probably come before higher IQ.

 

[wuschel]

Er, I think you've completely got the wrong end of the stick, wuschel.

I agree in as far as the OP can be understood in several ways and that I might have jumped the gun just a little. So, well if he wasn't introducing ET as a premise and wasn't drawing conclusions therefrom, I shall stand corrected, even though I still kind-a-read it this way.

So let's just stick to issues of "improving mankind" and "for as long as there is no harm to society".

But perhaps you have a superior criterion for determining what 'should be allowed', in which case please step up to the plate.

Yes, Sir, I do think I have a "a superior criterion"! That being doing the best possible to maximize the subjective live experience of every single individual concerned - and, in lieu of being able to do so - abstain from creating any more human life - even if this means for humanity to cease to exist as a species.

Whilst "improving mankind" with some goodwill could be read to mean just that, placing the emphasis on "society" is aking to promoting the social model of an insect colony.

There is no intrinsic moral value in creating new human beings as far as these are concerned - we just keep on doing it for essentially selfish reasons.

Thus, if we absolutely have to procreate, at least we should do the best to make them feel as good about them selfs as humanely possible. If genetic engineering is used for that, and that goal alone, I'm all for it.

 

[EGarrett]

I see what you are saying. I do think that evolution is subtler than it appears so I can agree with that. I also worry about unintended consequences. So, yeah, we have to go slow, be careful and do our homework first. Maybe some change that seems to be good might have an unforseen negative consequence. OTOH, with random mutations, most mutations are changes for the worse. With intelligent changes, there is hope that changes would be more likely to be good than bad.

I bolded the important part. All kinds of weird things can and have happened when we start tinkering with the brain. My pet example...

I placed a coffee cup in front of John and asked him to grab it [with his phantom limb]. Just as he said he was reaching out, I yanked the cup away.
"Ow!" he yelled. "Don't do that!"
"What's the matter?"
"Don't do that", he repeated. "I had just got my fingers around the cup handle when you pulled it. That really hurts!"
Hold on a minute. I wrench a real cup from phantom fingers and the person yells, ouch! The fingers were illusory, but the pain was real - indeed, so intense that I dared not repeat the experiment.

Sure. What's this have to do with mapping the genetic code and eventually being able to use it, though? You're describing the process of obtaining knowledge.

It's just one example of how it's a handy concept.

I'm saying that we should use that knowledge when we've gotten a firm grasp of it.

And I'm saying that we are nowhere near having a firm grasp of it...and assuming that mapping the genome or pointing out what seems like a flaw in evolution does not indicate that we have a grasp of it. It's fallacious thinking that is potentially very dangerous.

I'd also add that not everything in most biological bodies aren't 100% useful at all times. And there are such things as harmful mutations. Evolution can be damn dumb sometimes.

What is your basis for saying "evolution can be dumb?" Hopefully, it's not going to be pointing out something that seems inefficient or incorrect in life as we see it. Because, again, pointing out a seeming flaw in a design does not mean that you understand that design, nor does it mean that you are as skilled as the designer or that you could improve that design.

Is it your contention that we never will?

No, my contention is that you were wrong to say that "when scientists fully crack the genetic code of the human being, we will understand that design." Because knowing how to build something does not equal understanding how or why it works. If we're going to succeed at genetic engineering, we need to *understand* what we're tinkering with, not just have the blueprints of it, and not just see some things we think are flaws and interpret that as meaning that we are fit to improve it.

Example: Sickle-cell anemia seems like a genetic screw-up. But that supposed "mistake" on the part of evolution actually protects its carriers against malaria.

So it's your contention that we'll never find out how evolution or genetics work, and will never be able to use that information?

Otherwise, I really don't get your point here.

My point here is that you're committing a fallacy. And when discussing or considering genetic engineering, many people do. And that fallacy causes you to assume it's safe to tinker with life far before it actually is.

We can potentially map the human genome, and have already begun such a project. We know how genetics works, albeit not all the details. We know about natural selection, and we know about selecting for genes. The only thing you can really say here is that we need to be cautious and wait for enough data to flow in. Eventually, with enough data, we become equal to "Evolution's" intelligence. And then, eventually, smarter than, as we can use that knowledge to better ourselves for alien environments such as space.

We are not "smarter" than evolution until we can build, dissect, modify and fully understand the process of consciousness, at the very least. Because that's what evolution did and continues to do. I'm sure looking at it from that perspective, you'll understand why I say it is much, much smarter than we are.

That is not true at all. Evolution is blind. It does not produce "perfect" products, only adequate ones. With sufficient scientific knowledge, there is no reason why we could not be able to safely engineer things.

I didn't say evolution is perfect. I said it's smarter than we are. A lot smarter. It's out of our league. When it comes to designing life, evolution is Albert Einstein and we're a bunch of chimpanzees scratching and sniffing at his notebook pages. Think about it...we don't even have language capable of describing it, let alone even the most introductory aspects of how it's doing what it's doing.

Genetics is not the only scientific field dealing with the inner workings of the cell. By the time we understand genetics, I'm sure most other things will be worked out as well.

I doubt it.

But humans have directed evolution for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is just doing a bit faster, that's all.

What we've done for thousands of years is try to influence evolution on its own terms, changing environment so the mutations can do what they're designed to do, hopefully in a way that helps us. That's a helluva lot different than going into the genetic code itself, circumventing the program and the process and trying to make new designs. It's as different as clicking "windows help" is from cracking open the hard drive with a screwdriver and a soldering iron.

Why not? Do you have a reason to believe that genetics and cellular biology will not solve this riddle?

When did I say that? I'm not saying we'll never understand evolution, I'm saying that there's a fallacy going on that is misleading people about what we can do and when it's okay to do it.

Like any other human endeavor, he's only as good as the produce of his mind.

A factory worker with an IQ boosted to 140 still ain't gonna cut it vs. top scientists.

Yup, just like a couch potato boosted to 6'10" isn't gonna cut it against an NBA guard.

 

[Lonewulf]

When did I say that? I'm not saying we'll never understand evolution, I'm saying that there's a fallacy going on that is misleading people about what we can do and when it's okay to do it.

I think now is the time to quote you.

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't know what I'm saying, so you're in no position to judge.

That fits here.

 

[EGarrett]

I think now is the time to quote you.

That fits here.

Except that you demonstrated the fallacy quite clearly when you stated...

Except that, when scientists fully crack the genetic code of the human being, we will understand that design.

Which is of course, the exact thing I'm criticizing. Do you still believe that we'll understand how human beings work when we crack the genetic code? Do you recognize why that is fallacious? I went to the trouble of answering your points and questions. If you can't do the same, then acknowledge that what I'm telling you is correct. Don't sidestep or attempt to ignore what's been said to you.

 

[Taffer]

I didn't say evolution is perfect. I said it's smarter than we are. A lot smarter. It's out of our league. When it comes to designing life, evolution is Albert Einstein and we're a bunch of chimpanzees scratching and sniffing at his notebook pages. Think about it...we don't even have language capable of describing it, let alone even the most introductory aspects of how it's doing what it's doing.

Excuse me? Language capable of describing it?

Evolutionary biologists would surely disagree with you.

Also, you are arguing from personal incredulity.

I doubt it.

I'll leave that up to the scientists in the field.

What we've done for thousands of years is try to influence evolution on its own terms, changing environment so the mutations can do what they're designed to do, hopefully in a way that helps us. That's a helluva lot different than going into the genetic code itself, circumventing the program and the process and trying to make new designs. It's as different as clicking "windows help" is from cracking open the hard drive with a screwdriver and a soldering iron.

False argument from analogy. Also, an appeal to emotion and an argument from personal incredulity.

When did I say that? I'm not saying we'll never understand evolution, I'm saying that there's a fallacy going on that is misleading people about what we can do and when it's okay to do it.

And you're both wrong, and arguing from personal incredulity. As an evolutionary geneticist, I can say we understand a fair bit.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you can't do the same, then acknowledge that what I'm telling you is correct.

I'd rather let Taffer, who has actual experience in a related field, demonstrate just how you're wrong.

 

[EGarrett]

Excuse me? Language capable of describing it?

Evolutionary biologists would surely disagree with you.

Also, you are arguing from personal incredulity.

I'm referring to consciousness, not all evolutionary processes.

I'll leave that up to the scientists in the field.

Which area of research is further along, understanding genetics or understanding the phenomenon of subjective experience?

False argument from analogy.

This is an unsupported assertion. You claim the analogy is wrong but don't give reasons why. And actually, the argument fits quite well...there's a big difference between making changes in the manner that something is already 'designed' to change (i.e. influencing the environment or which animals reproduce to nudge natural selection) and making changes outside of that (cracking open the genetic code and manually messing with it).

Also, an appeal to emotion and an argument from personal incredulity.

Actually, that has nothing to do with personal incredulity...you're getting lax with your use of fallacies. It's not an "I don't understand how x works, therefore it doesn't argument." It's stating that there's a difference between two things, which there is.

And you're both wrong, and arguing from personal incredulity. As an evolutionary geneticist, I can say we understand a fair bit.

Unsupported assertions..."you're wrong" is not an argument...and neither is "I'm an evolutionary geneticist and I say we understand it." If you want to bring up fallacies you have to hold yourself to the same standard, and make sure you understand that they don't free you from having to support certain statements.

What I'm telling you is that there is a specific folly of thought that makes genetic modification potentially dangerous. Lonewulf actually demonstrated it quite clearly. Recognizing flaws or mapping the genome do not equal understanding how or why something functions...and understanding the how and why is what is necessary. You may claim that you know MORE about how and why then you're being given credit for...and that's fine...but what I'm pointing out is that that mistaken path of thinking exists, people fall victim to it, and it is dangerous. You haven't actually challenged that yet.

I'd rather let Taffer, who has actual experience in a related field, demonstrate just how you're wrong.

If you are unable or unwilling to support your points, don't engage other people in discussion.

 

[Taffer]

I'm referring to consciousness, not all evolutionary processes.

My bad. In that case, I submit we do have language to describe it. "Consciousness" for one.

Which area of research is further along, understanding genetics or understanding the phenomenon of subjective experience?

I have little knowledge of psychology, but I suspect genetics.

This is an unsupported assertion. You claim the analogy is wrong but don't give reasons why. And actually, the argument fits quite well...there's a big difference between making changes in the manner that something is already 'designed' to change (i.e. influencing the environment or which animals reproduce to nudge natural selection) and making changes outside of that (cracking open the genetic code and manually messing with it).

It certainly is a false analogy. Modern breeding practices in agriculture actively use genetics to direct breeding efforts. Your analogy is wrong because we are already "cracking open the genetic code and manually messing with it". Plus, the assertion is yours. Show that it is "a hellova lot different".

Actually, that has nothing to do with personal incredulity...you're getting lax with your use of fallacies. It's not an "I don't understand how x works, therefore it doesn't argument."

I am both well aware of the nature of that particular fallacy, and respectively point out that is exactly how your argument comes across.

It's stating that there's a difference between two things, which there is.

The difference is not the issue here. Your claim that we will never be able to understand genetics is.

Unsupported assertions..."you're wrong" is not an argument...and neither is "I'm an evolutionary geneticist and I say we understand it." If you want to bring up fallacies you have to hold yourself to the same standard, and make sure you understand that they don't free you from having to support certain statements.

Fair call.

What I'm telling you is that there is a specific folly of thought that makes genetic modification potentially dangerous. Lonewulf actually demonstrated it quite clearly. Recognizing flaws or mapping the genome do not equal understanding how or why something functions...and understanding the how and why is what is necessary. You may claim that you know MORE about how and why then you're being given credit for...and that's fine...but what I'm pointing out is that that mistaken path of thinking exists, people fall victim to it, and it is dangerous. You haven't actually challenged that yet.

Because it's silly. You are either saying that we don't have sufficient knowledge know, when may not be true in specific cases but is probably true overall, or you are saying we will never have sufficient knowledge, which is obviously rediculous.

If you are unable or unwilling to support your points, don't engage other people in discussion.

There seems to be a lot of these unsupported points coming from you as well.

For example, show that modern breeding practices is significantly different from genetic engineering. Show that we will never be able to understand genetics fully. I'd also like to add "please demonstrate the level of understanding you currently thing we have", but it isn't really an issue in this thread.

 

[rocketdodger]

There is no doubt we will reach this stage. As I see it there are three stages of human evolution. The first is a primate level awareness of the world, that lacks self awareness. The second, which we are in, is a stage where we are self aware but not self-modifiable. The third stage, which we will enter very soon, is where we are able to modify ourselves for the better.

As soon as we reach this third stage there should be an exponential increase in our abilities, and I can easily see us leaving behind what we are now very quickly (even if only on a mental level).

 

[EGarrett]

My bad. In that case, I submit we do have language to describe it. "Consciousness" for one.

That's the word we associate with it, but what does that actually describe about it? Our language fails in many ways when it comes to describing what's going on in our heads. Example:

Q: "What's is 'green?'"
A: "A color that you see when you look at things like grass, or light with wavelength blahblah."
Q: "Okay. What do you see when you look at grass?" or "What do you see when you look at light with wavelength blahblah?"
A: "Um...green."

Obviously, it falls apart as circular reasoning. This is why I say we're so far behind the "technological level" of whatever evolution put into our head...like chimpanzees looking at a physics notebook...we don't even have the language yet.

I have little knowledge of psychology, but I suspect genetics.

I agree. That's why I said "I doubt it" in response to you saying "by the time we understand genetics, I'm sure most other things will be worked out as well."

It certainly is a false analogy. Modern breeding practices in agriculture actively use genetics to direct breeding efforts. Your analogy is wrong because we are already "cracking open the genetic code and manually messing with it". Plus, the assertion is yours. Show that it is "a hellova lot different".

You said yourself...we're using *breeding* practices. Direct *breeding* efforts. That's changing genetics in the way they're supposed to change. Just like clicking "windows help" is the way you're supposed to fix your computer.

Going outside of breeding...screwing with the hard drive...are things like the "glow-in-the-dark pig." That's where we get into messing with life outside of its normal parameters, are where we have to be far more careful. There's no 'safety net' there...and we have to be more aware of fallacious thinking.

I am both well aware of the nature of that particular fallacy, and respectively point out that is exactly how your argument comes across.

Again, I'm not arguing that geneticists cannot or will not ever figure out the genome. I'm arguing that a specific flaw in our reasoning can make us think we're more capable of making changes then we are.

The difference is not the issue here. Your claim that we will never be able to understand genetics is.

Where did I say that? I said we're a long way off from it, not that it'll never happen.

Because it's silly. You are either saying that we don't have sufficient knowledge know, when may not be true in specific cases but is probably true overall, or you are saying we will never have sufficient knowledge, which is obviously rediculous.

I'm saying the first one, that we don't have sufficient knowledge right now, and there is a specific mistake in thinking that people may make that can cause us to further then we should.

There seems to be a lot of these unsupported points coming from you as well.

For example, show that modern breeding practices is significantly different from genetic engineering. Show that we will never be able to understand genetics fully. I'd also like to add "please demonstrate the level of understanding you currently thing we have", but it isn't really an issue in this thread.

For the first one, I think the "glowing pigs" would show you what I mean when I refer to genetic engineering that is outside of breeding. The second requirement is not something I've claimed.

 

[Taffer]

That's the word we associate with it, but what does that actually describe about it? Our language fails in many ways when it comes to describing what's going on in our heads. Example:

Q: "What's is 'green?'"
A: "A color that you see when you look at things like grass, or light with wavelength blahblah."
Q: "Okay. What do you see when you look at grass?" or "What do you see when you look at light with wavelength blahblah?"
A: "Um...green."

Fair point.

However, we can accurately describe gravity even if we do not understand it.

Obviously, it falls apart as circular reasoning. This is why I say we're so far behind the "technological level" of whatever evolution put into our head...like chimpanzees looking at a physics notebook...we don't even have the language yet.

I disagree. You are arguing by hyperbole.

I agree. That's why I said "I doubt it" in response to you saying "by the time we understand genetics, I'm sure most other things will be worked out as well."

I still think that. There is no reason to think we won't have.

You said yourself...we're using *breeding* practices. Direct *breeding* efforts. That's changing genetics in the way they're supposed to change. Just like clicking "windows help" is the way you're supposed to fix your computer.

So you're saying that adding genes by breeding is different from adding genes using genetic engineering because...one is "natural"?

Going outside of breeding...screwing with the hard drive...are things like the "glow-in-the-dark pig." That's where we get into messing with life outside of its normal parameters, are where we have to be far more careful. There's no 'safety net' there...and we have to be more aware of fallacious thinking.

There are no "normal parameters".

Again, I'm not arguing that geneticists cannot or will not ever figure out the genome. I'm arguing that a specific flaw in our reasoning can make us think we're more capable of making changes then we are.

So you're saying "me might not be able to"?

If that's the case, then sure, we might not be able to. We also might be able to. We have to wait and see how the science works out, don't you think?

Where did I say that? I said we're a long way off from it, not that it'll never happen.

I'm saying the first one, that we don't have sufficient knowledge right now, and there is a specific mistake in thinking that people may make that can cause us to further then we should.

I don't understand. How do you know we will not be able to successfully genetically engineer organisms?

Please remember that we already have.

For the first one, I think the "glowing pigs" would show you what I mean when I refer to genetic engineering that is outside of breeding.

You will have to show why "glowing pigs" is "unnatural", or for that matter, any different from a long period of time breeding to make glowing pigs.

The second requirement is not something I've claimed.

Ok, apologies.