/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10460920]

Society in general, but people towards the left end of the social values spectrum in particular, generally feel uneasy with the thought of genes substantially influencing human behavioral traits. Such research was taboo until the past few decades, and even now, IMO, the degree to which you lean left will predict the degree to which you try to downplay biological factors.

I assume that this is because these people view biological determinism as fatalistic. "If your genes say you were dealt a bad hand, there's nothing you can do." By contrast, this line of thinking goes, we can attempt social intervention, i.e. to attempt to boost outcomes by altering the environmental component.

However, for the most part, wide scale social interventions haven't been particularly successful. This begs the question of whether it's actually possible to boost outcomes through altering the environment.

By contrast, through emerging gene editing techniques, it certainly will become possible to boost favorable outcomes. I would propose that by ignoring such techniques, such environmental interventionists are actually doing society and the less fortunate a disservice. If they actually want to create favorable intervention, they must be pragmatic, and empirical evidence suggests that they may instead have better success going the biological route.

Obviously, this brings up issues related to fairness. If ethically such techniques are normalized and the wealthy have greater access to the techniques, we risk ending up in a two-tiered society with genetically augmented haves and have-nots. Regardless, I would submit that in the interest it is short sighted to let such considerations outweigh pursuing this line of inquiry.

Discuss.

[Anonymous No.10461001]

>>10460920
1) Your post begins with a strawman.
2) Another straw man.
3) You used the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly.
4) You need to actually show your evidence to back up your claims.
5) You are begging the question.

[Anonymous No.10461018]

>>10461001

[Anonymous No.10461032]

>>10461018
Maybe if you want to "discuss" something don't try so hard to anchor the starting point of your discussion.

[Anonymous No.10462285]

>>10461032

[Anonymous No.10462290]

>>10461001
its not a strawman its a hypothesis

[Anonymous No.10462322]

>>10460920

I'm on the left side of the spectrum and your post is crap. You're proposing biological transhumanism. That has nothing to do with the left or the right. It is a question of whether we should try to transcend ourselves or preserve our human essence. I'm pretty sure you would encounter similar distributions of advocates and opposers in both sides.

[Anonymous No.10462327]

>>10462322
Why do you have to mention your political views, are you insecure or something ?
Does OP give you conniptions ?

[Anonymous No.10462349]

>>10460920
>top 1 x 10^-9 spend billions genetically engineering themselves into demigods
>kill off everyone else because thanks to automation they have no need for human labor anymore

[Anonymous No.10462400]

>>10461001
Another victim of the fallacy fallacy. When will they learn?

[Anonymous No.10462410]

>>10460920
>left end of the social values spectrum in particular
I consider myself about as far left as you can go for the most part, and I have no issue with genetic modifications of humans, other animals, or plants. I would like to see hard data that suggests that the left leans in the way that you believe on this subject. Your anecdotal experience does not necessarily have any bearing on reality, rendering much of this discussion pointless.
>wide scale social interventions haven't been particularly successful
Once again, I'd like to see the hard data that led you to this conclusion.
>better success going the biological route
Is there some reason that I am unaware of that we cannot do both?

[Anonymous No.10462414]

>>10462327
We're providing counter-points to his argument. I don't believe that the left at large is against transhumanism, but then again I also don't have hard data. Regardless, OP is the one asserting a point and so bears the burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.10462422]

>>10462327
gb2 s4s :^)

[Anonymous No.10462480]

>>10460920
Well considering how the majority from boomers, to X genners; millennials and zoomers reacted to the recent Chinese genetic controversy, which was medical, I doubt most countries are going to allow genetic augmentation for vanity's sake in the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.10462931]

>>10462349
more than likely they wouldn't kill them off, just release some sort of mosquito carrying a bacteria that prevents normies from being able to reproduce

[Anonymous No.10462948]

>>10462480
That's just because it's not normalized yet.

[Anonymous No.10462954]

>>10462948
And it'll take that many generations to normalize it, hence:
>For the foreseeable future.
Zoomers won't start dying until the end of this century, and it's unlikely it would be entirely normalized in their offspring.

[Anonymous No.10462974]

>>10462954
Questionable. Look how quickly antisocial cell phone usage was normalized.

[Anonymous No.10462999]

>>10462974
Lmao, that's quite the bit different! People don't try and kill you for that.

[Anonymous No.10463029]

>>10462999
People try to kill abortion providers and that's legal and although stigmatized is socially normalized for the most part

[Anonymous No.10463803]

>>10463029
Yes, but the majority of society doesn't ardently outright disagree with abortion, otherwise it wouldn't have been legalized, in places like Ireland, for instance.
But the majority disagree with genetically altering humans, especially for vanity.

[Anonymous No.10463831]

>>10461001
Niggers have lower iq because of genes. COPE

[Anonymous No.10463870]

>>10460920
The left thinks it's fine to have bad genes, but society shouldn't hold that against you.