Eugenics on Nature

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 764
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am
psyreporter wrote: September 16th, 2021, 8:29 pm Empirical science has been unable as of today to explain the origin of life and consciousness and yet, it intends to steer to a determinism based perspective in which life is a deterministic chemical process and consciousness an illusion.
The two thoughts in this statement are dissconnected.
You might as well say my dog does not know where his bone is, yet Trump is still not President.
The connection is that science is abusing it's own terms of what can be deemed 'validity' to pose that life is no factor to consider other than that it merely exists, i.e. that life is meaningless and that determinism is true.

What could possibly be a basis for considering life to be of substance beyond what it can be empirically?

The notion 'it is alive thus it is life' appears to be how science views life in practice.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am
Eugenics on Nature or synthetic biology is said to be the greatest thing in science in the 21th century.
Please quote your source. If not, try to stick to what has actually been said.
A special in The Economist, by reporters specialized in the subject.
The Economist wrote:Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry.
https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am
With Eugenics on Nature, science intends to ‘redesign life’. Thus, without ever having been able to explain why life exists, science believes that it can become master of it.
I can change channels on my TV without knowing how transistors work. I can even produce TV programmes, operas, and a whole hiost of other entertainments but never having any understanding of how TV signals are transmitted.
The Mona Lisa was painted with zero understanding of the chemistry of pigmentation.
When it concerns life, the existence and prosperity of humanity and Nature is at stake. One would potentially falsely assume that life has no purpose. Life and Nature may not be merely intended for human amusement.

As mentioned in the OP: If it is unknown where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am1) This is a made up phrase, which is supposed to traduce genetic enginnering.
"Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution"

With synthetic biology, humans would intend to self direct evolution of Nature. The self + direction, the key characteristics of Eugenics, are present. Just the human would be replaced with Nature.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am2) If it had no theoretical basis it would not work. It does work.
When it concerns long term prosperity and the optimal serving of life (when applicable), it is not possible to claim that eugenics works.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am3) I think you mean to ask is it morally justifyable, since it is already justified by genetic engineers.
When the question whether something is 'morality justifiable' is not yet answered, it cannot be said that it is justified.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am4) GE has already provided advantages. It is just the pinnacle of thousands of years of slow patient selective breeding which has modified a massive range of domesticants, including humans themseleves. GE just provides shortcuts.

The moral value of GE would be based on a case by case basis. There is no "Eugenic on Nature". Nothing we do changes Nature. Our understanding of Nature enables us to change genomes.
As mentioned in my previous post, the 'method' for selection is at question. With Eugenics, one assumes that there is no more to life than what empirical science can prove to exist, and that idea may not be valid.

In short: there may be more to life than the empirical and if that would be the case, Eugenics as a guiding principle for evolution could be 'immoral' (not optimal and thus something that should be prevented).
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4234
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Sculptor1 »

psyreporter wrote: September 19th, 2021, 10:32 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am
psyreporter wrote: September 16th, 2021, 8:29 pm Empirical science has been unable as of today to explain the origin of life and consciousness and yet, it intends to steer to a determinism based perspective in which life is a deterministic chemical process and consciousness an illusion.
The two thoughts in this statement are dissconnected.
You might as well say my dog does not know where his bone is, yet Trump is still not President.
The connection is that science is abusing it's own terms of what can be deemed 'validity' to pose that life is no factor to consider other than that it merely exists, i.e. that life is meaningless and that determinism is true.
WHo is "science" that it can abuse itself?
Determinism is true, what of it? What makes you think that "science" whoever they are thinks life is invalid?
What you are offering is just a polemic; a polemic with false quotations and bougus ideas about people in your imagination.

What could possibly be a basis for considering life to be of substance beyond what it can be empirically?

The notion 'it is alive thus it is life' appears to be how science views life in practice.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am
Eugenics on Nature or synthetic biology is said to be the greatest thing in science in the 21th century.
Please quote your source. If not, try to stick to what has actually been said.
A special in The Economist, by reporters specialized in the subject.
But you are attributing these culumnies to "science" and you offer The Economist's POV. WHo wrote that and do they know anything about science?
The Economist wrote:Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am
With Eugenics on Nature, science intends to ‘redesign life’. Thus, without ever having been able to explain why life exists, science believes that it can become master of it.
I can change channels on my TV without knowing how transistors work. I can even produce TV programmes, operas, and a whole hiost of other entertainments but never having any understanding of how TV signals are transmitted.
The Mona Lisa was painted with zero understanding of the chemistry of pigmentation.
When it concerns life, the existence and prosperity of humanity and Nature is at stake.
No. Nature abides regardless of science, scientists and The Economists.
No one can change the laws of nature.
One would potentially falsely assume that life has no purpose. Life and Nature may not be merely intended for human amusement.

As mentioned in the OP: If it is unknown where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am1) This is a made up phrase, which is supposed to traduce genetic enginnering.
"Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution"

With synthetic biology, humans would intend to self direct evolution of Nature. The self + direction, the key characteristics of Eugenics, are present. Just the human would be replaced with Nature.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am2) If it had no theoretical basis it would not work. It does work.
When it concerns long term prosperity and the optimal serving of life (when applicable), it is not possible to claim that eugenics works.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am3) I think you mean to ask is it morally justifyable, since it is already justified by genetic engineers.
When the question whether something is 'morality justifiable' is not yet answered, it cannot be said that it is justified.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am4) GE has already provided advantages. It is just the pinnacle of thousands of years of slow patient selective breeding which has modified a massive range of domesticants, including humans themseleves. GE just provides shortcuts.

The moral value of GE would be based on a case by case basis. There is no "Eugenic on Nature". Nothing we do changes Nature. Our understanding of Nature enables us to change genomes.
As mentioned in my previous post, the 'method' for selection is at question. With Eugenics, one assumes that there is no more to life than what empirical science can prove to exist, and that idea may not be valid.
That is so false it is not even wrong.

In short: there may be more to life than the empirical and if that would be the case, Eugenics as a guiding principle for evolution could be 'immoral' (not optimal and thus something that should be prevented).
YTou have not made that case in any sense.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 764
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 amWHo is "science" that it can abuse itself?
Determinism is true, what of it? What makes you think that "science" whoever they are thinks life is invalid?
What you are offering is just a polemic; a polemic with false quotations and bougus ideas about people in your imagination.
Abuse of its terms as ground for 'validity' in the face of reasonable plausibility, with the abuse claim being based on the fact that science ignores the question 'why' life exists while there is reasonable plausibility to consider that life has purpose.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 amNo. Nature abides regardless of science, scientists and The Economists.
No one can change the laws of nature.
That assumption is based on magical belief. It is not valid to use such as ground for a guiding principle or a practice such as Eugenics.

The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, i.e. that the laws of Nature remain the same in time, is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism. (you once suggested this to me when I was new on the forum)
Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 am
As mentioned in my previous post, the 'method' for selection is at question. With Eugenics, one assumes that there is no more to life than what empirical science can prove to exist, and that idea may not be valid.
That is so false it is not even wrong.
The notion 'it is alive thus it is life' is how science views life in practice. Science considers life to be meaningless beyond that empirical ... and uses a dogmatic belief to consider that life finds its origin in laws of Nature (determinism).

Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 am
In short: there may be more to life than the empirical and if that would be the case, Eugenics as a guiding principle for evolution could be 'immoral' (not optimal and thus something that should be prevented).
You have not made that case in any sense.
Do you agree that humans should strive for optimal evolution? If so, then one is obliged to answer the question 'why' life exists, to discover whether morality is applicable, before one can determine what is optimal for human evolution. Without such knowledge, a base level of respect for 'the unknown' is simply required.

The "kicking a stone like a little boy"-excuse may not be responsible when it concerns a major attempt by science to top-down control evolution with Eugenics.

As it appears, one of the main arguments for Eugenics, is the "kicking a stone like a little boy"-excuse (i.e. "we need to make progress" and learn to control evolution). That this is the case is also evident from the special in The Economist:

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance.
https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06

Companies are being let 'run dumb' with a major scale synthetic biology revolution (Eugenics on Nature) and the only ethical motive to do so, if there would be a motive, is the "kicking a stone like a little boy"-excuse.

My response would be that it may be vital to put intelligence before practice. Philosophy may not have been provided with a serious opportunity to explore the subject before the practice was started.
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4234
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Sculptor1 »

psyreporter wrote: September 19th, 2021, 4:20 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 amWHo is "science" that it can abuse itself?
Determinism is true, what of it? What makes you think that "science" whoever they are thinks life is invalid?
What you are offering is just a polemic; a polemic with false quotations and bougus ideas about people in your imagination.
Abuse of its terms as ground for 'validity' in the face of reasonable plausibility, with the abuse claim being based on the fact that science ignores the question 'why' life exists while there is reasonable plausibility to consider that life has purpose.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 amNo. Nature abides regardless of science, scientists and The Economists.
No one can change the laws of nature.
That assumption is based on magical belief. It is not valid to use such as ground for a guiding principle or a practice such as Eugenics.

The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, i.e. that the laws of Nature remain the same in time, is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism. (you once suggested this to me when I was new on the forum)
Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 am
As mentioned in my previous post, the 'method' for selection is at question. With Eugenics, one assumes that there is no more to life than what empirical science can prove to exist, and that idea may not be valid.
That is so false it is not even wrong.
The notion 'it is alive thus it is life' is how science views life in practice. Science considers life to be meaningless beyond that empirical ... and uses a dogmatic belief to consider that life finds its origin in laws of Nature (determinism).

Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 am
In short: there may be more to life than the empirical and if that would be the case, Eugenics as a guiding principle for evolution could be 'immoral' (not optimal and thus something that should be prevented).
You have not made that case in any sense.
Do you agree that humans should strive for optimal evolution? If so, then one is obliged to answer the question 'why' life exists, to discover whether morality is applicable, before one can determine what is optimal for human evolution. Without such knowledge, a base level of respect for 'the unknown' is simply required.

The "kicking a stone like a little boy"-excuse may not be responsible when it concerns a major attempt by science to top-down control evolution with Eugenics.

As it appears, one of the main arguments for Eugenics, is the "kicking a stone like a little boy"-excuse (i.e. "we need to make progress" and learn to control evolution). That this is the case is also evident from the special in The Economist:

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance.


Companies are being let 'run dumb' with a major scale synthetic biology revolution (Eugenics on Nature) and the only ethical motive to do so, if there would be a motive, is the "kicking a stone like a little boy"-excuse.

My response would be that it may be vital to put intelligence before practice. Philosophy may not have been provided with a serious opportunity to explore the subject before the practice was started.
Your posts are polemic and your responses are not coherent.
You've not addressed anything I said, so it's time to end the conversation.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 764
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 3:38 amYour posts are polemic and your responses are not coherent.
You've not addressed anything I said, so it's time to end the conversation.
How about this reply, since this seems to reflect your position with regard Eugenics - a belief in determinism.
psyreporter wrote: September 19th, 2021, 4:20 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 19th, 2021, 11:34 amNo. Nature abides regardless of science, scientists and The Economists.
No one can change the laws of nature.
That assumption is based on magical belief. It is not valid to use such as ground for a guiding principle or a practice such as Eugenics.

The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy, i.e. that the laws of Nature remain the same in time, is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism.
Eugenics would require determinism to be true.

1) Do you agree that the determinism vs free will debate is not settled? (debatingfreewill.com (2021) by Daniel C. Dennett is an indication that the debate is not settled).

2) Do you agree that it is plausible - as a general idea - to perform a practice that requires something to be true of which it is evident that it cannot be said that it is true?

3) Do you agree that when a practice as described by 2) would profoundly disrupt the foundation of Nature and human life, that caution is required beforehand (before the practice is started) and that letting it 'run dumb' by companies with a short term profit motive is not responsible?
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4234
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Sculptor1 »

psyreporter wrote: September 20th, 2021, 7:42 am
Eugenics would require determinism to be true.

1) Do you agree that the determinism vs free will debate is not settled?

2) Do you agree that it is plausible - as a general idea - to perform a practice that requires something to be true of which it is evident that it cannot be said that it is true?

3) Do you agree that when a practice as described by 2) would profoundly disrupt the foundation of Nature and human life, that caution is required beforehand (before the practice is started) and that letting it 'run dumb' by companies with a short term profit motive is not responsible?
1) It's perfectly settled in my mind. Others can argue as mich as they like, but they cannot do so free of cause and effect.
2) SInce this sentence has no object I cannot answer it. But if you are saying can you do something that "appears" to be untrue" then yes. If you are asking if it is possble to do a thing which is not possibnle then no, obviously.
3) Since you have no clearly stated your intention of the content in 2, 3 being a follow on question cannot be answered.
However since you are trying to generalise a point which is REALLY based on your skeptical horror of genetic engineering I shall answer in that respect.
First I should point out that you have a unscientific and unphilosophical concept of "nature". You seem to think it has something to do with flowers and baby sheep, walks in the park and enjoying the rain. You are also conflating "human life" with this view of "nature" as if they are the same thing.
The other problem with your posts is that you are conflating "eugenics" with the more specific practices of stock breeding and genetic engineering.

Nothing we can do is going to change nature. We can work within the laws of nature to manipulate living things. We have done this already for at least 10,000 years. All domesticants from wheat to sheep to cats and dogs are all manipulated with selective breeding. Depnding on where you live nothing of what you life to call "nature" is natural in your view. There are no landscapes, no ecologies no environments that are not already altered by mankind.
From my own experience, outside my back door the "countryside" is 100% a cultural landsacpe. For thousands of square miles all around there is no virgin forest, plains or hillside that has not been manipulated by humans. pigs, cows and sheep, bees, all the trees, hedgerows, everything in gardens and fields are all the result of, and share the impact of, human manipulation.
What you think of a "nature" no longer exists.
Yet all of this has been achieved within the immutable laws of nature.
Were there have never been a human where I live, the surrounding area would have been mature oak and dessiduous woodland filled with deer, bear, wolf, badger, otter. Wild aurochs (now extinct) and other forms of wild cattle would be competing with the forests for land and the balance between the grasslands and woods would generally favour the dense forest relegating the plains to windsept areas bordered by steep escarpments.
All that has long gone.

Eugenics does not exist. It is a political movement discredited by WW2 and Hitler's attempt to build a master race.
The trouble with the concept is who or what decides what is a better or the best genetics. And waht steps are you willing to take to promote that genetic vision.

The fact of that makes it hard to take your posts seriously since you are using the term in a perjorative way.
Maybe you want the world to retutrn to the wild Eden before humans came along a ruined it all - I have a lot of sympathy for that myself, but do not think it is going to ever come about until we all decide to reduce our numbers by around 7.8 billion, leaving a chosen few to observe the wonderful return to the world as it was before the parasite that is the human species.

As it is we live in a complete artifical world as it is, and we need all the tools we can get to help us keep things going.
If you have any specific objections to the work of genetic engineering I'd be happy to discuss that.

However since GE is not significantly different from the elective breeding that we have been doing for the last 10000 years then I cannot support your idealogical rant against it, as it seem to be based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality.

It is an ideological position that if followed would have prevented us from making the COVID vaccines which have already saved millions of lives
Last edited by Sculptor1 on September 20th, 2021, 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 10171
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Steve3007 »

Atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they (hope to) find stability in life.

The extremity developed by atheism in the form of a dogmatic belief in the facts of science logically results in practices such as eugenics.
These kinds of claims are quite common, but they never stop being funny. At least from the point of view of having not much in the way of either religious or anti-religious upbringing. A bit like saying:

You know that thing that you're aware of but which has never been part of your life? Guess what: It's something that you've revolted against and that revolt will encourage you to practice eugenics! And you know that stuff you learned at school about the force it takes to stretch an elastic band? You dogmatically believe that!
Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 764
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Steve3007 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:29 amAnd you know that stuff you learned at school about the force it takes to stretch an elastic band? You dogmatically believe that!
Yes, that would actually be the case when seen from a fundamental philosophy perspective. The knowledge of the mentioned 'force' resides within a historical context.

While repeatability provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that facts are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that could have profound implications.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a 'certainty factor' isn't at question, when it concerns the potential usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with Eugenics, it could become important.

An example is the belief that evolution (natural selection) is driven by random chance, the foundation for Eugenics. Without the idea that facts are valid without philosophy such a belief would not be possible.

Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot logically be a basis for a guiding principle since a guiding principle would concern what is essential for value to be possible (a priori, "before value" or "before the qualia patternness is possible").
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021