Nietzsche's Overman (Ubermensch)

[Puppycow]

Was Nietzsche on to something good when wrote this?:

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.

"Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become ghosts or plants?

"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go!"

From an evolutionary perspective, there is no reason to place our current condition at the pinnacle, is there? So, should we be striving to improve mankind through genetics, or just let nature take its course? Should government encourage genetic engineering or discourage it, or merely take a laissez-faire stance?

I think it should basically be laissez-faire. As long as there is no clear demonstrable harm to society, it should be allowed.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'd rather us crack the human genome first. Last I checked, we haven't quite deciphered the whole thing yet.

 

[Puppycow]

I'd rather us crack the human genome first. Last I checked, we haven't quite deciphered the whole thing yet.

This would be part of the necessary scientific groundwork. Assuming scientists first do the basic science and the science becomes sufficiently advanced to allow "designer babies."

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm skeptical about making it laissez-faire, though. If we understand enough genetics, there should be at least some regulation. Intentionally breeding people that run a high risk of dying shortly really isn't my idea of a good thing...

 

[Puppycow]

I'm skeptical about making it laissez-faire, though. If we understand enough genetics, there should be at least some regulation. Intentionally breeding people that run a high risk of dying shortly really isn't my idea of a good thing...

OK, some regulation I agree with.

I think it should basically be laissez-faire. As long as there is no clear demonstrable harm to society, it should be allowed.

I'll add: there should also be no clear demonstrable harm to designer babies either. Improvements are OK, but not changes for the worse.
I also don't mean that people shouldn't use their common sense about this. Those involved shouldn't throw ethics out the window.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, okay, that's fair enough, but what about potential risks? Those will probably always exist, and there will be no guarantee of perfection. I'm just saying that there will have to be a fine line divided between, "Chances of risk are too high" and "chances of risk are low enough"... otherwise, I guess I pretty much agree with you.

I feel that genetic engineering is a long-term necessity, if we ever plan on living in outer space or on other environments without our bodies degrading, such as what happens in 0 G.

One other thing that we'll have to be careful of, though: The more genetics we actually control, the less that is available for random selection. Essentially, this could mean that it could end more variety amongst different groups, which could contain problems. However, if people are gengineered in different ways, that may not be too much a problem. The problem is when the entire Human Race becomes monolithic, which I don't think will happen.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

From an evolutionary perspective, there is no reason to place our current condition at the pinnacle, is there? So, should we be striving to improve mankind through genetics, or just let nature take its course? Should government encourage genetic engineering or discourage it, or merely take a laissez-faire stance?

There's no pinnacle of Evolution, because Evolution doesn't seek goals. As long as we continue reproducing, we'll continue to evolve in fits and starts, and into dead ends and cul de sacs. If we want to become "better" in an ubermensch sense, we need to be transhumanists, and we have to take our further development into our own hands, which we do.

Everything from government to glasses is an attempt to make ourselves better in our own estimation. We're reaching the point where we are guiding our development. We're past the point of deciding whether or not we should make ourselves more than nature has made us, we're busy doing it.

 

[latent aaaack]

It's a national security issue. If E Asian nations, without the aversion to genetic engineering that the US has shown recently, succeeded in raising the cumulative average IQ of all educated workers to 140 and we stayed at 100, we might as well hand them over our military.

 

[xenBuddha]

genetic engineering should be allowed to grow unmolested by state involvement until they reach the pinnacle. as we all know, the pinnacle of genetic engineering is when they can give me a naturally vibrating wang.

 

[fuelair]

I'm skeptical about making it laissez-faire, though. If we understand enough genetics, there should be at least some regulation. Intentionally breeding people that run a high risk of dying shortly really isn't my idea of a good thing...

Intentionally breeding people capable of destroying us is not a good thing either - and I would not trust the biochemical controls designed by man could not be overcome by overman.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

genetic engineering should be allowed to grow unmolested by state involvement until they reach the pinnacle. as we all know, the pinnacle of genetic engineering is when they can give me a naturally vibrating wang.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" - Shakespeare

You never know what tomorrow will bring, so what is "best" at one time in one environment may be maladaptive in another. Variation is itself often a "good" thing.

 

[wuschel]

From an evolutionary perspective, there is no reason to place our current condition at the pinnacle, is there?

The theory of evolution tells us how stuff is. One cannot draw any conclusions from ET, regarding how stuff ought to be. If in doubt, read your Hume once again.

So, should we be striving to improve mankind through genetics, or just let nature take its course?

There is no answer to any "should we" in natural science. Natural science strives to tell us how supposedly stuff is, whether we like the results or we don't.

Since this is the Religion and Philosophy Forum, I would strongly recommend revisiting David Hume's point of view regarding the matter. It comes down to deriving "should be"'s this way can frequently be labeled "non sequitur".

As long as there is no clear demonstrable harm to society, it should be allowed.

Joseph Stalin would agree with this one for certain.

 

[Puppycow]

Well, okay, that's fair enough, but what about potential risks? Those will probably always exist, and there will be no guarantee of perfection. I'm just saying that there will have to be a fine line divided between, "Chances of risk are too high" and "chances of risk are low enough"... otherwise, I guess I pretty much agree with you.

I would say that the risks should be evaluated before anyone attempts any specific procedure, and if they are comparable to or better than the natural risk inherant in natural reproduction (such as the natural risk of harmful mutation), it should be considered an acceptable risk. So I would be against risky premature attempts on humans. First make sure it works with rats, in the same way we test drugs.

One other thing that we'll have to be careful of, though: The more genetics we actually control, the less that is available for random selection. Essentially, this could mean that it could end more variety amongst different groups, which could contain problems. However, if people are gengineered in different ways, that may not be too much a problem. The problem is when the entire Human Race becomes monolithic, which I don't think will happen.

I expect with a human population in the billions that there will always be a large pool of people who continue to reproduce the old-fashioned way. There will probably be some religions that forbid genetic engineering, for example. So the natural evolutionary track
will continue alongside the new one. The result I think would be more diversity, not less.

 

[Puppycow]

If in doubt, read your Hume once again.

I'm embarrased to admit I haven't read Hume yet, but I fully intend to.

 

[Nancarrow]

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

The theory of evolution tells us how stuff is. One cannot draw any conclusions from ET, regarding how stuff ought to be.

Quite. Nor was Puppycow attempting to do so.

There is no answer to any "should we" in natural science. Natural science strives to tell us how supposedly stuff is, whether we like the results or we don't.

Of course. But the OP is not asking what science has to say about what we 'should do'.

Joseph Stalin would agree with this one for certain.

How so? Joseph Stalin enacted policies that caused demonstrable harm to society. Not to mention that saying 'Evil person X would agree with you' is a poor way to refute a proposition.

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

 

[EGarrett]

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

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.

 

[Lonewulf]

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

We are smarter than evolution. Evolution isn't "smart" at all. It's unintelligent and has no real conscious direction. Anthropomorphizing evolution into an intelligent being is silly.

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.

Except that, when scientists fully crack the genetic code of the human being, we will understand that design. Just because we're currently ignorant doesn't mean we always are. While you're busy saying that we don't understand it, science is busy actually trying to understand it. Sorry, bub.

 

[EGarrett]

We are smarter than evolution. Evolution isn't "smart" at all. It's unintelligent and has no real conscious direction. Anthropomorphizing evolution into an intelligent being is silly.

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.

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

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

Just because we're currently ignorant doesn't mean we always are. While you're busy saying that we don't understand it, science is busy actually trying to understand it. Sorry, bub.

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

 

[Puppycow]

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

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.

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.

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

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

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.

Oh, really? We'll understand how a brain creates consciousness?

Is it your contention that we never will?

Knowing how to build something does not equal knowing how or why it works.

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. 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.