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: 1036
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).
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4869
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: 1036
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.
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4869
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: 1036
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?
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4869
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.
Steve3007
Posts: 10351
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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!
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1036
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").
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1036
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

My apologies for the late reply.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:26 amNothing 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.
My argument is that it is potentially invalid to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).

A recent study indicated that the laws of Nature that according to you do not change and can be used by science to shape living things, are changing.

(2021) Scientists Say the Laws of Physics Are Changing
The cosmos is stranger than we know. It’s mind-bending to imagine that the laws of physics might learn and adapt over time.
https://futurism.com/laws-physics-changing

Do you agree that with changing laws of Nature, a practice such as Eugenics may not be a wise choice due to a lack of ability to determine what is 'good' in light of an unforeseeable future?
Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:26 amEugenics 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.
No, eugenics is a pseudoscience that originates from Universities (ideology of scientists). Politics were simply used to implement eugenics idea's in a certain way, which differed in many regions in the world.

Some recent articles mention a Eugenics movement in the UK:

(2020) The secret history of Britain’s universities and eugenics
Our educational institutions have strong historical ties with eugenics. Have they really reckoned with their histories?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/scie ... cl-society
Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:26 amHowever 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.
I do not have ideologies or interests in politics, I intend to be neutral.

My interest in the subject Eugenics / GMO is based on the idea that morality may be applicable beyond the scope of an individual. (i.e. that meaning is applicable on a fundamental level, as precursor to value).

My argument has been specifically that it may not be wise to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).

The multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company.

A flawed idea (a dogma) – the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature – lays at the root of the synthetic biology revolution or “Eugenics on Nature”.

When it concerns a practice that profoundly disrupts the foundation of Nature and human life, it can be an argument that caution is required before the practice is started and that letting it ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive is not responsible.
The Economist wrote:Reprogramming nature (synthetic biology) is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance.

Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019)
The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons.

If plants and animals are to posses of meaningful experience then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as ‘vitality of Nature’ or Nature’s bigger whole (Gaia Philosophy), of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

From that perspective, a base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.

Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.

Conclusion: no ideology, religion or politics.

Evidence that Eugenics may not be wise are 🐄 cows that have been driven to extinction due to how humans have applied eugenics. The short term self-interest of a human may not be optimal for evolution of a specie.

Cows Have Gone Extinct
WASHINGTON—In a deeply disturbing finding that has sent shockwaves throughout the nation and the world, officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed Thursday that cows have gone extinct.
https://www.theonion.com/cows-go-extinct-1825018199

The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4869
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Sculptor1 »

psyreporter wrote: December 30th, 2021, 6:47 am My apologies for the late reply.
Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:26 amNothing 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.
My argument is that it is potentially invalid to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).

A recent study indicated that the laws of Nature that according to you do not change and can be used by science to shape living things, are changing.

(2021) Scientists Say the Laws of Physics Are Changing
The cosmos is stranger than we know. It’s mind-bending to imagine that the laws of physics might learn and adapt over time.
****futurism*com laws-physics-changing
Sorry but this is not a serious source and there is a mountain of rubbish of this kind on the Internet.

Do you agree that with changing laws of Nature, a practice such as Eugenics may not be a wise choice due to a lack of ability to determine what is 'good' in light of an unforeseeable future?
WHilst I can say that we do not yet know everything, and that our understanding of the laws of nature can change, science has used the assumption of uniformitarianism for 100s of years and it has nevver let us down. All the constants that have been established have remained the same throughout this period.
If the laws were changing we'd not be able to do anything. We could not trust gettin gout of bed in the morning.
Whilst there are a range of reasons we might not want to persue Eugenics (all moral ones) I do not see Eugenics as a special case in the event of changing laws.

Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:26 amEugenics 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.
No, eugenics is a pseudoscience that originates from Universities (ideology of scientists). Politics were simply used to implement eugenics idea's in a certain way, which differed in many regions in the world.
It's not a science at all. The science it employs, though, is related to contolled breeding and genetic modification. We've practiced domestic selection from the moment humans were able to think abstratedly, and as soon as we kept livestock and pets we were practicing a form of eugenics. And everytime you choose a bride or a husband you are mking conscious choices about heredity.

Some recent articles mention a Eugenics movement in the UK:
Eugenics was forst coined by Sir Francis Galton coined it in 1883 in his book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development., He worked closely with Darwin on several projects, but Darwn did not share his views of human controlled breeding.


I do not have ideologies or interests in politics, I intend to be neutral.
Saying that is a political statment.

My interest in the subject Eugenics / GMO is based on the idea that morality may be applicable beyond the scope of an individual. (i.e. that meaning is applicable on a fundamental level, as precursor to value).

My argument has been specifically that it may not be wise to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).

The multi-trillion dollar synthetic biology revolution reduces plants and animals to meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company.

A flawed idea (a dogma) – the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature – lays at the root of the synthetic biology revolution or “Eugenics on Nature”.

When it concerns a practice that profoundly disrupts the foundation of Nature and human life, it can be an argument that caution is required before the practice is started and that letting it ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive is not responsible.



The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons.

If plants and animals are to posses of meaningful experience then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as ‘vitality of Nature’ or Nature’s bigger whole ( of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

From that perspective, a base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.

Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.

Conclusion: no ideology, religion or politics.

Evidence that Eugenics may not be wise are 🐄 cows that have been driven to extinction due to how humans have applied eugenics. The short term self-interest of a human may not be optimal for evolution of a specie.

Cows Have Gone Extinct
Very funny.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1036
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2021, 8:32 am
psyreporter wrote: December 30th, 2021, 6:47 amI do not have ideologies or interests in politics, I intend to be neutral.
Saying that is a political statment.
I have a natural tendency to view things from many diverse perspectives. I do not have emotional bonding with opinion (ideology) and prefer theory, which merely concerns what can be considered 'correct'.

You accused me of an 'ideologically driven rant that is based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality'. My previous reply indicated that that is not the case.

A summary of the arguments in my post:
  1. The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature may not be valid. This would imply that Eugenics on Nature is based on a flawed idea (a dogma).
  2. It may not be wise to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).
  3. Letting eugenics ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive may not be responsible.
  4. The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company may not be valid.
  5. A base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.
  6. Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2021, 8:32 am
psyreporter wrote: December 30th, 2021, 6:47 am 🐄 Cows Have Gone Extinct
Very funny.
Why?
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4869
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Sculptor1 »

psyreporter wrote: December 31st, 2021, 10:10 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2021, 8:32 am
psyreporter wrote: December 30th, 2021, 6:47 amI do not have ideologies or interests in politics, I intend to be neutral.
Saying that is a political statment.
I have a natural tendency to view things from many diverse perspectives. I do not have emotional bonding with opinion (ideology) and prefer theory, which merely concerns what can be considered 'correct'.

You accused me of an 'ideologically driven rant that is based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality'. My previous reply indicated that that is not the case.
Please cite!

A summary of the arguments in my post:
  1. The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature may not be valid. This would imply that Eugenics on Nature is based on a flawed idea (a dogma).
  2. It may not be wise to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).
  3. Letting eugenics ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive may not be responsible.
  4. The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company may not be valid.
  5. A base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.
  6. Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.

Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2021, 8:32 am
psyreporter wrote: December 30th, 2021, 6:47 am 🐄 Cows Have Gone Extinct
Very funny.
Why?
Because I saw a cow yesterday
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1036
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 31st, 2021, 11:17 am
psyreporter wrote: December 31st, 2021, 10:10 amYou accused me of an 'ideologically driven rant that is based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality'. My previous reply indicated that that is not the case.
Please cite!
A summary of the arguments in my post:
  1. The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature may not be valid. This would imply that Eugenics on Nature is based on a flawed idea (a dogma).
  2. It may not be wise to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).
  3. Letting eugenics ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive may not be responsible.
  4. The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company may not be valid.
  5. A base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.
  6. Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.
Sculptor1 wrote: December 31st, 2021, 11:17 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 30th, 2021, 8:32 am
psyreporter wrote: December 30th, 2021, 6:47 am 🐄 Cows Have Gone Extinct
Very funny.
Why?
Because I saw a cow yesterday
[/quote]

You are correct. The article was a joke.

The second article was a scientific article and indicates that eugenics breeding practices are threatening the cow as a specie and are driving them to extinction.

(2019) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
Dechow—an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics—and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If Holsteins were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species.
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.

“It’s pretty much one big inbred family,” says Leslie B. Hansen, a Holstein expert and professor at the University of Minnesota.

In the early 1950s, there were about 1,800 bulls represented in the population. “We were a little bit surprised when we traced the lineages and it went back to two bulls,” he says. They’re named Round Oak Rag Apple Elevation and Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief. Each one is related to about half the bulls alive today.

Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, Holstein fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking.


Eugenics for cows: “feminine and refined.”

Optimal for evolution? “feminine and refined.” means thin and angular. The problem is, a tall, thin cow isn’t necessarily the healthiest cow and shorter and rounder cattle are more likely to get pregnant.
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4869
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by Sculptor1 »

psyreporter wrote: January 1st, 2022, 6:46 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 31st, 2021, 11:17 am
psyreporter wrote: December 31st, 2021, 10:10 amYou accused me of an 'ideologically driven rant that is based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality'. My previous reply indicated that that is not the case.
Please cite!
A summary of the arguments in my post:
  1. The idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy or a belief in uniformitarianism when it concerns the laws of Nature may not be valid. This would imply that Eugenics on Nature is based on a flawed idea (a dogma).
  2. It may not be wise to use science as a guiding principle for life (for evolution).
  3. Letting eugenics ‘run dumb’ by companies with a short term profit motive may not be responsible.
  4. The idea that plants and animals are meaningless lumps of matter that can be “done better” by a company may not be valid.
  5. A base level of respect (morality) may be essential for Nature to prosper.
  6. Vitality of nature – the foundation of human life – is a motive to question the validity of Eugenics on Nature before it is practiced.
I asked you to cite the accusation you made of me. Not summarise your argument.

You said this: 'ideologically driven rant that is based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality'.
Where did I say that?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1036
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics on Nature

Post by psyreporter »

Sculptor1 wrote: January 1st, 2022, 4:28 pm I asked you to cite the accusation you made of me. Not summarise your argument.

You said this: 'ideologically driven rant that is based on a notion of sacredness and not practicality'.
Where did I say that?
A few posts back:
Sculptor1 wrote: September 20th, 2021, 9:26 amAs 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.
With regard your question regarding GE. I shared the following reasoning with regard GE:

The source of life is unknown as of today. 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.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. When humans would attempt to control genetic evolution from their short-sighted and external perspective, they may hinder a vital core of successful evolution. What may appear as a genetic defect in a given time may be part of a longer term (e.g. 300 year) strategy to achieve evolutionary solutions that are essential for longer term survival.

A basis of respect for nature may be vital for successful evolution.


--

Argument 1: GE for top-down control resides on the essence of inbreeding

Top-down control of genetic evolution through GE could be seen as a sort of incest of which it is known that it causes fatal problems.

One could start with the question: why does inbreeding cause severe issues such as major health problems and infertility? Does this question have an answer (not just the mechanism, but 'why' it is so)?

GE for top-down control of genetic evolution would reside on the essence of inbreeding so despite that it can be said that science (humans) will attempt to outrun any problems, at the core the practice may be set to cause fatal problems.

Argument 2: GE for Eugenics promotes weakness on the long term

From my perspective, using GE to remove 'unwanted genes' and diseases from the human race logically promotes weakness due to the principle that overcoming problems results in strength.

The reason is the essentiality of resilience, the ability to overcome unforeseeable problems, not just the ones that can be predicted.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. The fight to overcome the defects or diseases makes humanity stronger in the future. Filtering out genes (eugenics) would be like fleeing instead of overcoming problems and thus logically results in increased weakness over time.

An easy life or offspring with genes linked to prosperity (financial, career, intelligence etc) may not be what is good for longer term human evolution.

It may be essential to value what it takes to perform like Stephen Hawking in life. Despite a heradic genetic disease, he has contributed to human existence in ways that few others may have could.

In the case of Stephen Hawking can be seen that things may turn out differently than expected and for resilience to be served, a basis of respect should exist to allow people like Stephen Hawking to perform in life.

The struggle with a disease can result in solutions that enable humanity to survive on the long term. Not giving up could be essential and should be valued and rewarded socially to be effective.

It may be best to serve life instead of trying to stand above it.

Some hints:

Down syndrome: occurs 1 in 700 births, genome called "Super Genome".

(2018) The Down syndrome 'super genome'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 090148.htm

Huntington's disease: 80 percent less cancer than the general population.

(2018) Huntington's disease provides new cancer weapon
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084458.htm

(2007) Biologists Link Huntington's Disease To Health Benefits In Young
A new hypothesis has been proposed to explain prevalence of the disease by suggesting that people with Huntington's disease are healthier in childbearing years and have more children than general population. Huntington's strengthens the immune system during most fertile years allowing them to produce more offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 130029.htm

At question could be: would it be possible that the presumed (genetic) diseases/disorders serve a purpose? Perhaps in a time-span that is difficult to comprehend from the limited individual human's perspective?

It is logically good to intend to prevent disease. Perhaps there are good use-cases for eugenics when certain fundamental questions are addressed and kept in awareness. As it appears however, the idea that the human can 'master' life itself is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism (the idea that facts are valid without philosophy), which could result in disastrous flaws in human evolution.

An attempt to stand above life as being life logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.
GMOdebate.org | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 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