Notices

View Poll Results: May we cross ethics, if it is good for the society? And for human development as a whole?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    5 71.43%
  • No

    2 28.57%
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How to breed those little geniuses?

  1. #1 How to breed those little geniuses? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    24
    We know that intelligence are both nature and nurture, right? So how can be get most out of both? How can we get get to the roots of society so that when they get at the top the whole body can profit. How can we educate the people of tomorrow? How can we nurture the people of tomorrow so that we don't have to hire others to nurture us later in the course because our own people are not able to do the job right.

    As we are now playing a zero-sum game, where we are the winners and the children of tomorrow the losers. How can we make this an equilibrium?

    How can we generate a new generation, even if we have to cross ethics?


    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. Eugene McCarthy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    be careful making assertions. the zero-sum economic hypothesis is not supported by everyone, although i'm an avid supporter.

    well if we can throw ethics out the window there are a whole host of options to improve the intellegence and happiness of the members of the next generations.

    genocide of the sub-normally intellegent, all political dissenters, those with any heritable diseases, heck why not anyone with any transmitable disease?

    then we're left with a breeding population that is at or above normal intellegence, agrees with what was the majority(and would then be the monopoly) opinion, have no genetic defects, and on average have better immune systems or habits to prevent communicable diseases.

    we can all agree that this group would father a more successful next generation, and the drastic decrease in population would mean that the resources available could provide more per capita wealth to each person.

    my above statements are not a recommendation of what we should actually do, it's a "what if there were no ethics" scenario, similar to "a modest proposal"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

    i reviewed the above article, it contains accurate information on Swift's proposal.

    essentially what my post was meant to teach you is that "even if we have to cross ethics" is a very open ended expansion to the realm of acceptable ideas.

    a less drastic cross over of the ethical line is something that i actually think we will be resorting to before my lifetime is over: within the next one hundred years genetic modifications of human beings will become ever more ethically friendly. starting with treatment of genetic disorders, followed by modifications to improve the quality of life, and ultimately to grant to each individual the freedom to exist in whatever physical form they like. the disease curing has already been tried and will soon be revived(hopefully within ten years), increasing quality of life will probably come within the next 50 years, more liberal measures may not happen within my lifetime but i know my grand children will see the day.


    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    I thought ethics decided what is good for society?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I thought ethics decided what is good for society?
    Ethics change, so how can they ever be good for society which must have it base principles. Even if ethics have main guide lines, they are still influenced by culture (as we know some cultures are bad for humanity, or at least the survival of it), time and place.
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. Eugene McCarthy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Bellerophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    20
    @Saul

    That's only beneficial if you assume an inductive reality, that tomorrow will be like today, and that the skills we deem valuable today will still be valuable tomorrow. History has shown us that this is not always true. Contemplating introverts have historically been of little use in a pre-industrial society, but in the information age these character traits are suddenly valuable.

    The biggest problem in this thought experiment is how can we predict what skills we'll need tomorrow, and how can we instil these skills in the children of today?

    I think that it'd probably be best to breed slaves and train them as specialists in different fields, and then simply kill of the surplus. This way "our" kids could be free to pursue a purely hedonistic life.

    When that's said, I don't subscribe to the zero-sum hypothesis. Over time it is possible to improve living standards for all without subtracting from the quality of life for the few. I think quality of life follows the law of diminishing return in respect to resources. You can only eat so much caviar and you can only drink so much champagne.

    I don't think that most people would be happier if they could live a purely hedonistic life. I imagine it gets boring after a while, and that's when cruelty kicks in as you'll need more and more extreme entertainment. Belonging to a group and being useful to the people you care about is a fundamental need. This is especially evident in children, who will do almost anything to be useful for their parents.
    “All this science I don't understand. It's just my job, five days a week.” -RocketMan

    "Sometimes an ashtray is the only way to get a point across" -Thomas Kuhn (not really, but close) via O'Connor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    I would say no, for the same reason that was pointed out in another post. Ethics are generally decided by who is in power. In the U.S., when Bush was president, it was unethical to use stem cell research to advance medicine. With Obama, it is ethical to perform late term abortions for convenience. Globally, Hitler thought it was ethical to exterminate beings he considered sub-par.

    All three of those men were extremely powerful and significantly influenced human history. I happen to think all of their decisions were unethical.

    So, whose ethics are we going by? If we are using my ethics, then my answer would be, Yes. My decisions should stand regardless of other people's ethical boundaries because those other people are wrong. Assuming I have to live by their ethics, my answer would be No, because other people's ethical boundaries are wrong.

    Kind of circular logic. But any time you start talking about circumventing ethics for a cause, you have to ask, whose ethics are we talking about?
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Ethics are generally decided by who is in power. In the U.S., when Bush was president, it was unethical to use stem cell research to advance medicine. With Obama, it is ethical to perform late term abortions for convenience.
    Do you seriously believe this is an accurate view of the situation? If so, you're delusional.


    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    So, whose ethics are we going by? If we are using my ethics, then my answer would be, Yes. My decisions should stand regardless of other people's ethical boundaries because those other people are wrong. Assuming I have to live by their ethics, my answer would be No, because other people's ethical boundaries are wrong.
    So, you think it's ethical that only your preferences should be applied to all beings, and theirs completely disregarded if they have a different viewpoint? I'm just trying to determine how much of a sociopath you truly are so I can get a sense for your ethical stance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman whoisjohngalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    84
    I am saying that people's ethics are different based on their backgrounds, their experiences, and their religious status.

    When a question is asked whether violating ethics for a good cause, it is important to clarify whose ethics we are talking about...Are we talking about religious people's ethics? liberal's ethics? neo-nazi ethics? neo-conservatives? PETA's?

    Its an impossible question to answer because there is no way to define the parameters.

    Every action anybody takes violates somebody's ethics somewhere.
    Who is John Galt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    Its an impossible question to answer because there is no way to define the parameters.

    Every action anybody takes violates somebody's ethics somewhere.
    This comment seems completely unrelated to your previous. It's a real non-sequitur.


    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt
    If we are using my ethics, then my answer would be, Yes. My decisions should stand regardless of other people's ethical boundaries because those other people are wrong. Assuming I have to live by their ethics, my answer would be No, because other people's ethical boundaries are wrong.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have a late term abortion for convenience because it's ethical now with Obama in office.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    I see people are leaning to "yes"

    Yes, we can cross ethics, but the reality I think it's we can't..

    NO..not that we shouldn't...but simply we are unable to overturn 6 billions people's nature and make them homogeneous without any rebellion..

    Unite a country is so damn hard...let alone breed a new human species...
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •