life is easier to have rights without having to earn them the old caveman way. I don't prefer unpleasent feelings like fear and violence . I wish the manimal could be imporoved too.
that video was so sufisticated [if that means what i think it means] that i had no clue throughout the entire thing what you were saying and meaning. 0.o i am critisizing you though
Berserker793 , sorry but you oblige me to make a sharp criticism on you now.
Significant and measurable evolutionary changes only happen in hundreds or even thousands of generations which translates into periods of, at least, dozens of thousands years.
There is no such a think as inverse Darwinism and the new cultural trend of excessively protecting the mentally handicapped ( which, so far, lasted just few decades) is just an insignificant minor fluctuation in human evolution.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that mentally handicapped people ( socially protected or not ) reproduce more than average people. Therefore, their contribution to the human genetic pool is insignificant.
That is the big problem of lacking a deep knowledge on biology and evolution. If you depart from poor and misunderstood knowledge and big misconceptions you end up with atrocious conclusions.
And no, if someone is a superficial and an arrogant bigot, it is highly improbable that he would get a correct macroscopic view about human evolution.
Berserker793 , I would not use the word "eugenics". Not just because its nefarious association with nazis and social-darwinists but rather due the disastrous ignorant, misguided, unethical and inhumane "social engineering" tried in the past by people who did not have any solid comprehension of natural selection, genetics and humane ethics.
On the contrary, a genetic-engineering society can be planed and executed by people who have the highest expertise in the related biological sciences, have the highest rational moral standards necessary for a harmonic society and, most important of all, it would be applied only on individuals that VOLUNTARILY choose to improve themselves and live in a more harmonic, pleasant and creative society.
However it would not become immediately a "perfect utopia" but, instead, it will evolve gradually, through continuous genetic and technologic changes and corrections, aiming to reach high levels of harmony and a pleasant and creative human existence.
There is a reason for gradual engineered evolution. Too abrupt and massive changes can cause unpredictable and irreversible results. So, it is a process that should be accomplished wisely and carefully step by step.
The first people to volunteer would be people that have a solid understanding of genetics, genetic-engineering and high rational morality. There would be back-up genomes in a huge database in case something goes wrong. Once other people would verify great improvements on health, longevity, physical beauty and on hundred of different modalities of intelligence and other mental processes then probably social adhesion would accelerate.
How many people would rather remain susceptible to diseases, have short lifespan, low physical attractiveness and having average mental capabilities that would make them look like retards in comparison to enhanced humans ?
If biological immortality is reached at some point then reproduction would not be necessary anymore ( with the exception of surplus people needed to inhabit terra-formed planets) because super-population should be controlled. Sex would be used only for pleasure.
And yes, to people with poor scientific imagination this looks like "science-fiction" but real science is accelerating and would rapidly surpass even the most daring scientific fiction.
Actually, science already achieved some technologic feats that were regarded "science-fiction" in the past.
Berserker793, there is a small misunderstanding on your part. Genetic-engineering would not be about selecting current "best genomes" through selective breeding like Spartans did in the past.
It is not about selective breeding ( this is eugenics, not genetic-engineering ). Such eugenics practice is inhumane and unethical.
Genetic-engineering would be about the capability to enhance EVERYONE'S genome up to a high standard regardless to his previous genetic fitness.
How about this argument... Even if there are factual basis for racial models, so what? If it's used to track a disease, well OK. If it's used to justify Social Darwinism, that's another story. Then it's based on narcissism. Let's say blacks aren't as smart as whites. And? Maybe 'they' dance better? Maybe 'they' have more fun? 'They' obviously don't share priorities. Such a model assumes what traits r important to the author r what traits SHOULD be important. It lacks appreciation for diversity.
CO2Junkie , I have an entire video dedicated AGAINST social-darwinism called "Social-Darwinism, An Ignorant Misrepresentation of Science" and you are such a dimwit that you make your own asinine "straw-man" assumptions and then attack them as if you were attacking someone else ideas. We do not need this kind of intellectual dishonesty. Either you apologize of this slandering misrepresentation and start honest arguments or I will kick your stupid ass out of my place.
And genetic engineering of human genome does not necessarily eliminates diversity. On the contrary, it can increase diversity far beyond your dumb and limited imagination.
Haha, well I was with u until u mentioned removing alleles from the genepool. When u remove alleles to alter behavior u assume 2 much control & that's quite an aggressive idea. It's fine if u want a little town where u all agree to this. But I like my aggression, disobedience & boldness. It protects me. I am happy 2 live in a dangerous world in which I 2 am dangerous. Yer utopian world will be over-run & enslaved by those last few people who hadn't had their anti-aggression gene-therapy yet.
CO2Junkie, it is you the one who are making wrong assumptions.
1) You are assuming that disagreement necessarily brings violence. That is a poor understanding of human biological mind.
It is perfectly possible to disagree and instead or resorting to violence, try to solve the differences friendly and civilly through logic arguments and evidence.
2) Contrary to a common misconception, each specific behavior is controlled by a big set of genes ( and not just one gene ). Removing ( or adding ) some alleles does not necessarily eliminate aggressive behavior. Instead, it simply could mean that aggressive behavior would be better controlled by conscious intelligent processes.
3) It is obvious that some human instincts ( particularly the aggressive tribal ones ) are obsolete and inadequate in a highly technologic environment and highly organized societies. The proof is that we almost got extinct by an imminent nuclear war just few decades ago when USA and URSS almost triggered a total war of mutual annihilation. If Kennedy had made the wrong move as demanded by his generals we would not be having this conversation now.
It is not just poverty that causes violence but more specifically injustice that results in poverty and injustice generally that triggers violence. Poverty on its own is a relatively beneign condition.
Poverty is created by society by labeling person's living within certain social standards as such. It's a contrivance inherently catalyzed by capitalistic economic philosophy. Those forced to accept the fact that they have to live beyond their means because of their social status DO become violent when they are envious and feel a sense of injustice being imposed on them.
Why they feel it's injustice is the moral dilemma that arises from "Darwinian" economic philosophy which eventually turns a nation into an aristocracy and plutocracy. Then it reverts due to revolution, currency collapse, or both, and you end up with wars between classes over purchasing power. It works perpetually, and it has for thousands of years.
So, saying "Poverty on its own is a relatively benign condition" contradicts what it means to live in poverty, i.e. injustice, and the assertion doesn't fit with reality. It would be nice to say "Poor people can be happy regardless of the fact that they're poor", but it doesn't work that way collectively. There's nothing to suggest they can't, but when happiness is taught by society as materialism, people lose their grip on it. It just happens.
I would highly recommend everybody watching a video called "WHAT WE ARE" made from Ernest Cline's famous poem "Dance Monkeys, Dance!":
Its link is near to the right side of the page.
It employs fast and clever display of images and gives us a humorous and insightful vision about what we, humans, really are and about our potentials, our arrogance, our stupidity and our dangerous traits.
I'm not the biggest fan of manipulating our bodies in general, when we think we know something thoroughly enough and play around with it, and later it turns out we didn't know as much as we thought and bad things happen... I know this is not very elegantly phrased, hope you know what I mean.
Maybe it helps if I mention, I have the strong feeling that one of the most predominant trait of humans is hubris (not in a sense that has anything to do with gods or similar).
One thing, though, I'm not so sure about the sort of genetical version of lobotomy you suggested to make us un-nasty ;-)
I mean, from what I've read, it' not even that there are speial genes for every single trait in us. Fiddling around with one gene might have a lot wider impact... So I'm not sure of the outcome of such things...
Okay, so after watching this, I have to say that I just had gotten you pretty wrong. I better see now where you're coming from, I pretty much agree, well I even agreed on most part with the other video.
So, I apologize if I have been "nasty" in some way :-)
Hey, I didn't think I confused "is" and "ought" at all. The main reason for my comments in the other video were that you near the and sais something like, that punishment ... is exaggerated. This really sounded like you were encouraging this behaviour, therefore my objecting comments.
Although it will likely happen eventually, it gives the ability of those funding and carrying it out, to also modify other genes, removing certain emotions entirely perhaps. It could and will lead to an eventual enslavement of humanity. There will always be the corrupt who wish to modify the human genome for their own gains.
Wanting to remove alleles from the genepool constitutes the 'is ought to be' fallacy. Sorry, what I see is a cute promise of peace & love if people only agree to be lobotomized. Now that we have awoken to discover there r no gods/goddesses, do u wish to step into the role? Yer the designer now? Don't think so ;) Of course u might pull it off if you win the war. This is just like religion - 'do X and all will be perfect' but we just need this one last lil' war 2 force everyone into agreement.
CO2Junkie , comparing genetic reorganization of the human genome to lobotomy is as idiotic as comparing the replacement of the processor of a computer with the act of smashing the computer with a big hammer.
Comparing scientific ideas which are mostly open to logical criticism and continuous creative innovation to religion is like comparing the rapid current of the turbulent waters of a tropical river to a frozen and almost static piece of ice in Antarctica.
The third humongous flaw is that you are confusing continuous genetic controlled improvement with "instant perfection" or "utopia".
Such a grossly flawed analogies and misunderstandings points out to a serious intellectual deficiency or to dogmatic beliefs that seriously interfere with your thought processes. If so, it is actually you the one still embedded with a religious mindset. That is typical to atheists / agnostics who have a very poor understanding of science.
Good video!
You can think deeper than many others, MysteriousMaskMan!
InternetRevolution 3 years ago
Your vids are very rational,I must say!5+
MissPuduhepa 3 years ago
life is easier to have rights without having to earn them the old caveman way. I don't prefer unpleasent feelings like fear and violence . I wish the manimal could be imporoved too.
anthoneycrunch 3 years ago
that video was so sufisticated [if that means what i think it means] that i had no clue throughout the entire thing what you were saying and meaning. 0.o i am critisizing you though
elynns0126 4 years ago
Berserker793 , sorry but you oblige me to make a sharp criticism on you now.
Significant and measurable evolutionary changes only happen in hundreds or even thousands of generations which translates into periods of, at least, dozens of thousands years.
There is no such a think as inverse Darwinism and the new cultural trend of excessively protecting the mentally handicapped ( which, so far, lasted just few decades) is just an insignificant minor fluctuation in human evolution.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Furthermore, it is unlikely that mentally handicapped people ( socially protected or not ) reproduce more than average people. Therefore, their contribution to the human genetic pool is insignificant.
That is the big problem of lacking a deep knowledge on biology and evolution. If you depart from poor and misunderstood knowledge and big misconceptions you end up with atrocious conclusions.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
And no, if someone is a superficial and an arrogant bigot, it is highly improbable that he would get a correct macroscopic view about human evolution.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Berserker793 , I would not use the word "eugenics". Not just because its nefarious association with nazis and social-darwinists but rather due the disastrous ignorant, misguided, unethical and inhumane "social engineering" tried in the past by people who did not have any solid comprehension of natural selection, genetics and humane ethics.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
On the contrary, a genetic-engineering society can be planed and executed by people who have the highest expertise in the related biological sciences, have the highest rational moral standards necessary for a harmonic society and, most important of all, it would be applied only on individuals that VOLUNTARILY choose to improve themselves and live in a more harmonic, pleasant and creative society.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
However it would not become immediately a "perfect utopia" but, instead, it will evolve gradually, through continuous genetic and technologic changes and corrections, aiming to reach high levels of harmony and a pleasant and creative human existence.
There is a reason for gradual engineered evolution. Too abrupt and massive changes can cause unpredictable and irreversible results. So, it is a process that should be accomplished wisely and carefully step by step.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
The first people to volunteer would be people that have a solid understanding of genetics, genetic-engineering and high rational morality. There would be back-up genomes in a huge database in case something goes wrong. Once other people would verify great improvements on health, longevity, physical beauty and on hundred of different modalities of intelligence and other mental processes then probably social adhesion would accelerate.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
How many people would rather remain susceptible to diseases, have short lifespan, low physical attractiveness and having average mental capabilities that would make them look like retards in comparison to enhanced humans ?
If biological immortality is reached at some point then reproduction would not be necessary anymore ( with the exception of surplus people needed to inhabit terra-formed planets) because super-population should be controlled. Sex would be used only for pleasure.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
And yes, to people with poor scientific imagination this looks like "science-fiction" but real science is accelerating and would rapidly surpass even the most daring scientific fiction.
Actually, science already achieved some technologic feats that were regarded "science-fiction" in the past.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Berserker793, there is a small misunderstanding on your part. Genetic-engineering would not be about selecting current "best genomes" through selective breeding like Spartans did in the past.
It is not about selective breeding ( this is eugenics, not genetic-engineering ). Such eugenics practice is inhumane and unethical.
Genetic-engineering would be about the capability to enhance EVERYONE'S genome up to a high standard regardless to his previous genetic fitness.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
How about this argument... Even if there are factual basis for racial models, so what? If it's used to track a disease, well OK. If it's used to justify Social Darwinism, that's another story. Then it's based on narcissism. Let's say blacks aren't as smart as whites. And? Maybe 'they' dance better? Maybe 'they' have more fun? 'They' obviously don't share priorities. Such a model assumes what traits r important to the author r what traits SHOULD be important. It lacks appreciation for diversity.
CO2Junkie 4 years ago
CO2Junkie , I have an entire video dedicated AGAINST social-darwinism called "Social-Darwinism, An Ignorant Misrepresentation of Science" and you are such a dimwit that you make your own asinine "straw-man" assumptions and then attack them as if you were attacking someone else ideas. We do not need this kind of intellectual dishonesty. Either you apologize of this slandering misrepresentation and start honest arguments or I will kick your stupid ass out of my place.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
And genetic engineering of human genome does not necessarily eliminates diversity. On the contrary, it can increase diversity far beyond your dumb and limited imagination.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Haha, well I was with u until u mentioned removing alleles from the genepool. When u remove alleles to alter behavior u assume 2 much control & that's quite an aggressive idea. It's fine if u want a little town where u all agree to this. But I like my aggression, disobedience & boldness. It protects me. I am happy 2 live in a dangerous world in which I 2 am dangerous. Yer utopian world will be over-run & enslaved by those last few people who hadn't had their anti-aggression gene-therapy yet.
CO2Junkie 4 years ago
CO2Junkie, it is you the one who are making wrong assumptions.
1) You are assuming that disagreement necessarily brings violence. That is a poor understanding of human biological mind.
It is perfectly possible to disagree and instead or resorting to violence, try to solve the differences friendly and civilly through logic arguments and evidence.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
2) Contrary to a common misconception, each specific behavior is controlled by a big set of genes ( and not just one gene ). Removing ( or adding ) some alleles does not necessarily eliminate aggressive behavior. Instead, it simply could mean that aggressive behavior would be better controlled by conscious intelligent processes.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
3) It is obvious that some human instincts ( particularly the aggressive tribal ones ) are obsolete and inadequate in a highly technologic environment and highly organized societies. The proof is that we almost got extinct by an imminent nuclear war just few decades ago when USA and URSS almost triggered a total war of mutual annihilation. If Kennedy had made the wrong move as demanded by his generals we would not be having this conversation now.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Either we genetic-engineer ourselves or we could face extinction soon or later.
Unfortunately, a competent technology for altering wisely our genome would be ready only in about 50 years.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
The Yale university experiment? Ahh yes, I remember that one vividly.
Scary thought.
Clutchology 4 years ago
I remember a sociological self-report study once that concluded that most people commit crime, big or small, at least some of the time.
The others just lie ;)
Clutchology 4 years ago 2
It is not just poverty that causes violence but more specifically injustice that results in poverty and injustice generally that triggers violence. Poverty on its own is a relatively beneign condition.
stratvic 4 years ago
Poverty is created by society by labeling person's living within certain social standards as such. It's a contrivance inherently catalyzed by capitalistic economic philosophy. Those forced to accept the fact that they have to live beyond their means because of their social status DO become violent when they are envious and feel a sense of injustice being imposed on them.
psymon208 4 years ago
Why they feel it's injustice is the moral dilemma that arises from "Darwinian" economic philosophy which eventually turns a nation into an aristocracy and plutocracy. Then it reverts due to revolution, currency collapse, or both, and you end up with wars between classes over purchasing power. It works perpetually, and it has for thousands of years.
psymon208 4 years ago
So, saying "Poverty on its own is a relatively benign condition" contradicts what it means to live in poverty, i.e. injustice, and the assertion doesn't fit with reality. It would be nice to say "Poor people can be happy regardless of the fact that they're poor", but it doesn't work that way collectively. There's nothing to suggest they can't, but when happiness is taught by society as materialism, people lose their grip on it. It just happens.
psymon208 4 years ago
Agreed but perhaps it is perpetuated equally by the politics of envy.
stratvic 4 years ago
Mysterious, I think about this too.
iviewthetube 4 years ago
I would highly recommend everybody watching a video called "WHAT WE ARE" made from Ernest Cline's famous poem "Dance Monkeys, Dance!":
Its link is near to the right side of the page.
It employs fast and clever display of images and gives us a humorous and insightful vision about what we, humans, really are and about our potentials, our arrogance, our stupidity and our dangerous traits.
It fleshes out the arguments of my video.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
I found this shiny pearl thanks to CindyPantz's channel that features this exceptional video.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
I'm not the biggest fan of manipulating our bodies in general, when we think we know something thoroughly enough and play around with it, and later it turns out we didn't know as much as we thought and bad things happen... I know this is not very elegantly phrased, hope you know what I mean.
Maybe it helps if I mention, I have the strong feeling that one of the most predominant trait of humans is hubris (not in a sense that has anything to do with gods or similar).
GentleSavage1 4 years ago
One thing, though, I'm not so sure about the sort of genetical version of lobotomy you suggested to make us un-nasty ;-)
I mean, from what I've read, it' not even that there are speial genes for every single trait in us. Fiddling around with one gene might have a lot wider impact... So I'm not sure of the outcome of such things...
GentleSavage1 4 years ago
Okay, so after watching this, I have to say that I just had gotten you pretty wrong. I better see now where you're coming from, I pretty much agree, well I even agreed on most part with the other video.
So, I apologize if I have been "nasty" in some way :-)
GentleSavage1 4 years ago
I agree that pretending human's "nasty sides" didn't exist is not good idea
GentleSavage1 4 years ago
Hey, I didn't think I confused "is" and "ought" at all. The main reason for my comments in the other video were that you near the and sais something like, that punishment ... is exaggerated. This really sounded like you were encouraging this behaviour, therefore my objecting comments.
GentleSavage1 4 years ago
There's been whole books on the "is" and the "ought", you must know and accept the is, before you can even begin to figure out the ought.
subach 4 years ago
Who is to decide which genes are to be modified?
Although it will likely happen eventually, it gives the ability of those funding and carrying it out, to also modify other genes, removing certain emotions entirely perhaps. It could and will lead to an eventual enslavement of humanity. There will always be the corrupt who wish to modify the human genome for their own gains.
cattraknoff 4 years ago
"Who is to decide which genes are to be modified?"
The most wise scientists with deep knowledge about human nature and its genetic origins and capable to plan a harmonic and fulfilling society.
Who else ?
The only way to avoid corruption is constant vigilance on the powerful.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Wanting to remove alleles from the genepool constitutes the 'is ought to be' fallacy. Sorry, what I see is a cute promise of peace & love if people only agree to be lobotomized. Now that we have awoken to discover there r no gods/goddesses, do u wish to step into the role? Yer the designer now? Don't think so ;) Of course u might pull it off if you win the war. This is just like religion - 'do X and all will be perfect' but we just need this one last lil' war 2 force everyone into agreement.
CO2Junkie 4 years ago
CO2Junkie , comparing genetic reorganization of the human genome to lobotomy is as idiotic as comparing the replacement of the processor of a computer with the act of smashing the computer with a big hammer.
Comparing scientific ideas which are mostly open to logical criticism and continuous creative innovation to religion is like comparing the rapid current of the turbulent waters of a tropical river to a frozen and almost static piece of ice in Antarctica.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
The third humongous flaw is that you are confusing continuous genetic controlled improvement with "instant perfection" or "utopia".
Such a grossly flawed analogies and misunderstandings points out to a serious intellectual deficiency or to dogmatic beliefs that seriously interfere with your thought processes. If so, it is actually you the one still embedded with a religious mindset. That is typical to atheists / agnostics who have a very poor understanding of science.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago
Well said, MMM.
I think that without genetic engineering our genes and change our nasty instincts, we are doomed.
MajorityPreferLies 4 years ago
I agree.
Highly destructive technology ( nuclear weapons, etc ) combined with ape like brains ( most humans ) is a formula for disaster.
AntiBrainwashing 4 years ago