Conversation with #hplusroadmap at Fri 04 Apr 2008 06:29:24 AM CDT on kanzure@irc.freenode.net (irc)
(2008-04-04 06:29:24) The topic for #hplusroadmap is: happy bunny day - day of the replicator || http://heybryan.org/ http://fennetic.net/
(2008-04-04 06:38:21) fenn: good morning
(2008-04-04 06:40:15) kanzure: g'morning
(2008-04-04 06:44:02) kanzure: I still have eugenicists debating with me, and it is annoying
(2008-04-04 06:44:14) fenn: can you read channel logs?
(2008-04-04 06:44:18) kanzure: "screw you, I refuse to demand all humans receive my 'genetic upgrade v1.2"
(2008-04-04 06:44:23) kanzure: fenn: what do you mean?e
(2008-04-04 06:44:35) fenn: epi and i were just arguing about eugenics
(2008-04-04 06:44:37) kanzure: I log the channels I sit in
(2008-04-04 06:44:39) kanzure: nope
(2008-04-04 06:44:42) kanzure: I don't have that
(2008-04-04 06:48:48) fenn: summary: epi: "eugenics is dangerous" me: "error null statement. eugenics != fascism" epi: "we'll ruin our biodiversity" me: "wah. so what you going to do about it?" epi: "you ass, i'm leaving" me: "anti-eugenicists are fascist"
(2008-04-04 06:51:04) kanzure: heh
(2008-04-04 06:51:06) kanzure: okay, so
(2008-04-04 06:51:12) kanzure: (1) we can change human genomes, yes
(2008-04-04 06:51:23) kanzure: (2) we can, if we had to, do all out eugenics and prevent certain breeding processes
(2008-04-04 06:51:24) fenn: that hasnt been demonstrated has it?
(2008-04-04 06:51:38) kanzure: however, no matter what measures you take to make people sterile, I *will* find a way to get their DNA
(2008-04-04 06:51:55) kanzure: fenn: a friend and I have designed a sterility virus
(2008-04-04 06:51:59) kanzure: it happens to be an STD
(2008-04-04 06:52:09) fenn: uh, why did you do that?
(2008-04-04 06:52:29) kanzure: more of a design experiment
(2008-04-04 06:52:32) kanzure: it was a five-minute thought experiment
(2008-04-04 06:52:34) kanzure: nothing much
(2008-04-04 06:53:05) kanzure: what happens if somebody else does it?
(2008-04-04 06:53:31) fenn: then we see selection for people who are resistant to the virus
(2008-04-04 06:53:48) fenn: and probably a lot of new in-vitro reproductive technology
(2008-04-04 06:54:36) kanzure: yep
(2008-04-04 06:54:46) kanzure: you sound like you're for eugenics
(2008-04-04 06:54:50) kanzure: but I don't know why
(2008-04-04 06:54:51) fenn: this would tend to select for people who could afford the virus
(2008-04-04 06:55:18) fenn: kanzure: i'm generally against laws of any sort, and meddling in other peoples' affairs
(2008-04-04 06:55:26) kanzure: were you just picking on epi?
(2008-04-04 06:55:53) fenn: i'm just cranky, and epi happened to barge in with a holy cause
(2008-04-04 06:56:11) kanzure: unless you mean "personal eugenics" --> which just means "not fucking everything with a slit between her legs"
(2008-04-04 06:56:48) kanzure: hey, speaking of eugenics and invitro fertilization tech
(2008-04-04 06:56:57) kanzure: I announced a challenge to my fellow transhumanists the other day
(2008-04-04 06:57:08) kanzure: and I told them to come up with a way to seriously stop any of us from having a child
(2008-04-04 06:57:11) fenn: maybe i misunderstand the term eugenics. does mild gen-engineering of babies count? removing zygotes that have genetic diseases and such
(2008-04-04 06:57:14) kanzure: and one of the astrophysicist researchers that I admire on the list
(2008-04-04 06:57:21) kanzure: came back and said "Well, us women past 40 can't do shit."
(2008-04-04 06:57:27) kanzure: and I replied with "DNA sequencing."
(2008-04-04 06:57:33) kanzure: "Please be realistic and keep your feet grounded, OK?"
(2008-04-04 06:57:43) kanzure: I think it's completely realistic. You can get DNA sequencers on ebay for under $1k USD.
(2008-04-04 06:57:52) fenn: hard drive -> genome is the hard part
(2008-04-04 06:57:57) kanzure: fenn: not sure if that counts as eugenics. Eugenics is an old sociodarwinist movement.
(2008-04-04 06:58:08) kanzure: gengineering is closely related
(2008-04-04 06:58:12) kanzure: and frankly all of these terms are confabulated
(2008-04-04 06:58:21) kanzure: most people are careless when talking about this stuff
(2008-04-04 06:58:24) fenn: sure, because nobody wants to talk about it
(2008-04-04 06:58:29) kanzure: they make easy mistakes that make them sound like fascists
(2008-04-04 06:58:36) kanzure: for example
(2008-04-04 06:58:49) kanzure: "I'm talking especially about the medical technologies and about the genetic
(2008-04-04 06:58:49) kanzure: improvement of the human species."
(2008-04-04 06:58:51) kanzure: fascist or not?
(2008-04-04 06:59:01) fenn: mu
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: Zahray's argument -> The problem with medicine is that it ALREADY strongly influenced our
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: evolutionary path. With medicine evolving, the quality of genes that are
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: responsible for our well-being is deteriorating. Look at following scenario:
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: the people with minor mutations which decrease the overall health level with
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: modern medicine are more likely to reproduce and to pass this mutation to
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: the descendants . This way the genetic pool of human species is already
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: deteriorating. The process won't stop today. It will continue even if the
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: overall technology level remains the same, leaving human species open to
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: mass suffering (as mutations accumulate). On the other side, as the size of
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: human population increases, the probability of new human diseases emerging
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: also increases. We have to find better ways to quickly develop ways to
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: combat those hazards. The only sustainable way to combat the 1st threat,
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: which is not a crime against humanity, is the genetic improvement of humans
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: (genetic medicine we have now cannot be considered a permanent solution,
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: because it does not remove the source of the problem - and it actually
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: becomes a part of the genetic deterioration problem itself). We have to
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: develop an ability to fix our own bugs - which is the direct consequence of
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: genetic improvement. To combat the second threat we have to develop a good
(2008-04-04 06:59:07) kanzure: understanding of dna-based machines.
(2008-04-04 06:59:18) kanzure: my response
(2008-04-04 06:59:46) kanzure: actually, my response to another similiar argument re: dysgenics or whatever
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: On Thursday 03 April 2008, Pieter Bonte wrote:
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: > There is often talk of 'dysgenics' and the negative consequences in
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: > the long run of compensating for genetic defects through medical
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: > technology (popular examples are poor eye-sight & glasses, narrow
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: > female hips and Ceserian operations, etc.), namely that by doing so
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: > we proliferate these defects, at such a speed and to such an extent
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: > that in the long run we actually increase suffering and strain.
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: The reason why this is commonly associated with eugenics is because you
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: are calling these 'defects'. In what sense are they defects? Are you
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: suggesting that because the nucleotide sequences did not exist before,
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: they are therefore defective? Are you suggesting that we should all be
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: given a common baseline to start with, to have the same running start
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: at life, in whatever varieties of approaches we might individually
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: choose to take to it, and that anything that allows for variation due
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: to historical lifestyle choices like over many generations, or fewer in
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: today's high-buzz high-cultural-crossover culture, is to be considered
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: ultimately bad? I do not see how that could be true at all. Because I
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: use a semiconductor computer to do my reading and to explore
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: cyberspace, and because I do not fabricate my own computer as a natural
(2008-04-04 06:59:47) kanzure: biological function of my genome, this would also be a 'defect' under
(2008-04-04 06:59:48) kanzure: the same sense that you seem to be using, and I must assert that this
(2008-04-04 06:59:48) kanzure: does not make sense. This is why it seems so very close to eugenics.