But I really only care about what other people think insofar as it helps me achieve some goal I have in mind.
If you are simply stating a fact and not being merely being defensive ... I find this very disturbing.
I pretty much stopped getting butthurt about things a while ago
The actions of other people against me from childhood onwards have taken their toll
So yes I am stating a fact
The clear implication is that your personal goals are more important to you than social norms
A lot of social norms are really, really dumb
or possibly even the people around you except insofar as you can use them to achieve your ends.
Well, I like a few people
But not many
I really did not expect that kind of answer. You claim it doesn't bother you that nobody is taking your side.
Of course not ... why should I entertain an argumentum ad populum
You say that what others think doesn't matter except in helping you get what you want.
How is this different from anyone else? I just have unusual goals
I suppose sometimes you do find out what people are really like, even on the Internet.
I hope I never meet you in person.
Well what do you fear
from me? Unlike many other people I come across, I'm really not willing to take a dump on people without real cause. I see no reason to engage in thievery (copyright infringement doesn't count btw), commit acts of gratuitous violence against other sentient animals, or abuse the environment. In fact I mean to work on becoming a vegetarian in the next few years, and join the Peace Corps as soon as I graduate. I am also opposed to the "corrections" system as it is implemented in the US and would probably not call the cops for all but the most dangerous offenses
So, if we met, there is like no chance you would come to harm from me unless you tried to kill me or something. You could probably even get away with ripping off my possessions. How many people do you know where you could say that of them? Imagine, furthermore, we lived in a place and time when, for example, burning witches and other heretics was considered acceptable. Which side of this issue do you think I'd be on?
Incidentally, I do find it valuable that my affect deeply disturbs a lot of people. I'm not going to do anything bad to them, so it flummoxes me, but it is
useful. If I just give off the impression
that I am an inexorable Terminator-esque psychopath (probably only half
true), people give me a wide berth and keep their dumb ideas to themselves so that I can get a move on, and have a few cheap lulz to boot. And no one is really worse off because I wouldn't actually bring them to harm
So what you are saying, essentially, is that I'm some kind of sick **** because I don't care whether I hurt someone's feelings when accommodating them would get in the way of doing something useful
I see your accusation and raise you a BAWWWWW bunny
Look at what Newton did to Robert Hooke. He was an utter asswipe as a person, but he managed to invent the calculus and a lot of modern physics and serve as an official competently
Well at least in your world we could have wiped out Newton before he was even born because he is carrying the 'asswipe' gene.
Well how awful would it be to forgo Newton for ten ethically superior Newtonesque people
I can't believe you can't see the downside.
I can. But the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs IMO
I'm beginning to think you form an emotionally attachment to your ideas and can not remain impartial and subjective.
Maybe. I think you meant "objective." But because I'm talking ethics, subjectivity is unavoidable
You will not find a scientist anywhere that will state that any human behavior is 100% hereditary. Most agree that at best heredity plays a 50% probability in determining future behavior and that is only for a few select behaviors.
If you can imagine utility achieved for society by a given person as a function of genetics and environment you can imagine that changing both
will profoundly affect its value
We probably can't maximize it unless we manipulate both
Furthermore, the good news is that there would be positive feedback. Environmental (cultural / societal) factors are what would enable GE in the first place. But then the human products of GE would affect society later on, and influence the genetics more, and so on back and forth
Is there a practical purpose for such technology, sure. It is currently being used to help parents help screen for down syndrome. Something that works because of its high probability. There is some hope that it may be able to determine which zygotes are destined to be psychopaths. Even in that case I think science would have to prove that the probability of the test would have to be close to 100% before being allowed to terminate on that evidence alone.
It could be much less. The cost of getting rid of a zygote is negligible. It's not like it's hard to generate zygotes
Here are where I think you have some false beliefs...
You've misconstrued them but ...
2. You see this as a way to bring world order. But, you have to also be able to see that it is a way to make the gap between the have's and the have-nots even wider.
Could genetic manipulation confer superior ability on people or not? You seem to be admitting that it could here, at least tacitly, just after downplaying the importance of the same. Make up your mind
Some classes would even consider themselves evolutionarily superior, this is not a level playing field for mankind.
This is where legal institutions come in
3. You say we are an imperfect people right now, but don't recognize this as the catch-22 you should fear. It is the imperfect people of the current of near future that will be administering this program and sure enough they will screw it up.
There's the biggest obstacle, I think. For this reason genetic engineering of humans would have be regulated and incremental
You may not agree with the above statement and that is fine. Could you at least reply with some comments that show you are capable of playing devils advocate to your own ideas. If not, then I find it hard to believe you will be successful within the scientific process.
There are people who are way more biased in the scientific community than I am lol