Are We Afraid of Our Human Nature ?

Revealing a quite common fallacy. This video answers some questions posed in the comments section of the previous video "Sexual Behavior".

Click here to watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As49mSwIWWw

Also watch a superb video called "What we are" made from Ernest Cline's famous poem "Dance Monkeys, Dance!":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

It gives more substance for my arguments in my video.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• human
• nature
• evolutionary
• biology
• lies
• deception
• cheating
• stealing
• rape
• murder
• evolution
• anti-dogmatism

[InternetRevolution]

Good video!

You can think deeper than many others, MysteriousMaskMan!

[MissPuduhepa]

Your vids are very rational,I must say!5+

[anthoneycrunch]

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.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[CO2Junkie]

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]

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]

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.

[Clutchology]

The Yale university experiment? Ahh yes, I remember that one vividly.

Scary thought.