From: Justin Corwin (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 16 2001 - 16:15:29 MST
can i get a definition of "eugenics?"
my impression is that it's simply crude genetic manipulation by forcing
partners of "good" genetic streams to mate, thus eliminating the "reverse
selection" of genetic populations which seems to be occuring now(poor and/or
unintelligent people having more children than college grads and such)
this seems pretty much like a social meme rather than a scientific one,
since i'm not sure that the effectiveness would justify the social
intrusiveness of such a scheme(not that social intrusiveness is a bad thing,
just impolite, and stupid to bring up, if the results aren't worth it).
what are the criterion for such a genetic selection? if they have technology
to select "good" genes, why bother actually mating, and just use in vitro,
or fully artificial human gestation?
i guess i should wait for the definition i asked for, before going further
in my conjectures.
>There has lately been an attempt by certain eugenicists to appropriate the
>name of transhumanism to themselves. Eugenics bears the same relation to
>transhumanism as astrology to astronomy. The general attitude is that
>eugenicists are not welcome on transhumanist sites or mailing lists.
>(There are a few real transhumanists who disagree with the dismissal of
>eugenics - even though they themselves think that eugenics is bogus - on
>the grounds that part of transhumanism is tolerating everything.)
>Not just SL1, but SL1 pseudoscience. Why bother?
>-- -- -- -- --
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/
>Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT