Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Yeah, even if we posit that emotion and intellect are fundamentally disconnected, which seems really unlikely given some of the new work on Neural Workspace Theory, then we still have to acknowledge the role that emotions have in acting as on the fly determiners of judgment.

Generally we don't make daily decisions by undertaking some kind of cost benefit calculation. Instead, we default to our feelings about a matter; potentially as established by calculations we have undertaken earlier. Heuristics, in other words

since emotions represent our most primal thinking and encapsulate the perceived harm or benefit of a situation to the total being, whereas rational thought encapsulates only one faculty and is often incapable of arriving at harm or benefit conclusions rapidly enough to be useful in our daily lives, I would argue that emotions are in general the better determinant for our activities than rational thought, the spectacular success of rational thought in manipulating physical reality in the 19th and 20th centuries not withstanding. AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I think one of his points about biotech and liberal democracy was that biotech would become a new battleground for class warfare. The law is supposed to gauruntee equality of opportunity; but when certain parts of society become so affluent that they can accrue a mass of advantages not available to the rest of society, then equality of opportunity stops looking like a fundamental human right and starts looking like a bad joke, whence the liberal argument for the redistribution of wealth. Part of what Fukuyama is going to say in that book is that biotech can give people the kind of entrenched, permanent advantages that make equality before the law meaningless. At that point the state will have to either prohibit that kind of research all together (fukuyama's choice) or give up any pretense to liberal democracy. I think he's basically right about that.... whether or not the abandonment of liberal democracy is a bad thing depends on what the alternatives are.

Which is where Fukuyama's somewhat shaky worldview begins to show itself. We're a long way off equality before the law now, and there are massive differences in opportunity based purely on parentage, yet we shamble along with the system we have. This system has survived despite massive changes in socio-economic groups in the last century. It survives because it is by its nature a hodge podge compromise.

Fukuyama seems to believe our liberal democracies are something purer than they are, and simultaneously better and more fragile than they really are.

I felt that movie argued for its premise by assuming it. The author (Gore Vidal IIRC) thinks genetic determinism isnt just wrong but entirely false; he's assuming the opposite of what the rest of the society he depicts assumes. So the guy that no one gives a chance can get to the moon, the guy with impeccable genetics turns out to be a murderer in one case and a degenerate in the other. But what if its true? He doesnt seem to have even considered that possibility. If it was true then there would be a permanent underclass of geneticly inferior people; descrimination against them would be a matter of course. I think its worth looking at what the implications might be if genetic determinism has any truth to it at all. I thought it was a good movie in terms of the story it told but it didnt argue very effectively for its point. AF

Except I felt it did show how people can be greater than the sum of their genes. Ethan Hawke was driven, and willing to suffer to reach his dream. Jude Law had no such drive, despite his superior genes.

I can see your criticism and accept it was by no means a perfect movie (for example the handling of the murder case was very odd, the realisation that the director could murder a man despite his superior genes could have been an important point, but was just kind of sidelined). But I still think it had an interesting message and one that isn't as simple as you suggested. It doesn't argue genetic determinism is entirely false - it recognises the abilities granted by superior genes, it just argues that isn't the whole story, our own drive and will to succeed plays a very important part as well.

Oh, and Gore Vidal was in the movie but I don't think he played any part in its creation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nickmund wrote:I personally think well will have to bioengineer ourselves to survive. Otherwise, our otherwise comfortable lifestlye will cause us to devolve. An example of this can be found with many speices of birds in Newzeland. With no preadtors around the birds didnt need thier use of flight and subiquently lost the abillity to do so. When westaners colonised the islands they brought cats, and dogs, and other animals that found the birds easy prey.

That relies on the idea of devolution, which just isn't true.

They didn't lose flight because they devolved, they lost flight because flightless birds were better adapted to life in New Zealand at that time.

Wrexasaur wrote:Before any of this occurs (genetic engineering) I'd bet my bottom dollar that we will be well accustomed to cybernetic modifications. CM's, at least in my opinion, would work very well. I have reservations about the feasibility of genetic enhancements, if for no reason besides the massive complications involved in such an endeavor.

Genetic modifications, ESPECIALLY when speaking of some sort of general upgrade to a 'superhuman' status, are incredibly complicated concepts. So complicated that I would need to take several classes to speak confidently on the matter. Creating an entirely new life-form in a lab, and one which will be functioning to the point where they would be capable of creating separate social structures from their 'lesser cousins'. My head is spinning because of the numerous problems with this concept. I am not convinced it is possible.

Anyway. I don't think genetic modification is immoral; just as I don't consider the possibilities so endless as many would suggest. An extra arm? Yeah, I would guess that is entirely possible. A bigger brain? Sure, why not? Longer fingers and the capability to accept cybernetic alterations more readily? Yep, that sounds possible. Now, all of them? Dunno bout' that one, sounds pretty goddamn tricky. Especially if you want the outcome to produce something that resembles a Space Marine.

Focusing on specific alterations seems the most reasonable possibility, given the infinite factors involved in such a drastic level of alteration. Mutants if you will. Not superhumans, just a significantly diverse set of upgrades, such as the most common example of extra arms exemplifies. I see many problems with that example, as the amount of alteration is awe-inspiring. A new type of spine? The complications involved in such a modification are mind-boggling. It does not seem unreasonable to increase strength and possibly intelligence at the same time; I doubt the possibility that the outcome would in any way resemble 'super-people'. They might to some, but it is not a far-flung idea to assume that modifications will have inherent limits.

While having extra arms makes for a vivid example, I don't think it would actually be viable for a long time, much less creating some type of new species.

Alterations would probably be mostly along the lines of increased muscle mass/decreased fat, stronger bones, better lungs, a better circulatory system, very good looks, high intelligence, certain favored personality traits (assertiveness, for instance, possibly something like kindness/empathy), more personal charisma, and so on. A "superman" not in the sense that they're actually super-human in their abilities, but rather that they're equivalent to the best of the regular humans in nearly every category. Which, when combined, makes them perhaps equivalent to the "top" .0001% of the population; only now they're, maybe, 5% of the population, which is a pretty big swing. They're also more connected, as they can identify each other by their lineage, and they're also more likely to have familial connections to powerful individuals from the get go. And this isn't even going into the potential implications of truly super-human intelligence.

Give me an external brain, a sidekick. I'm fething set.

Good day gentlemen; I'm off to draw schematics of everything I see, with the use of my extra brain.
This little bugger can send me information at a range of up to 5 miles. I can literally watch myself walk while I take readings of the surrounding space.

You do make a good point, in the sense that said biotechnological advancements wouldn't be occuring in a vacuum. Even if they're not easily mass-produced, other advancements may be, and they may help to even the score.

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I think one of his points about biotech and liberal democracy was that biotech would become a new battleground for class warfare. The law is supposed to gauruntee equality of opportunity; but when certain parts of society become so affluent that they can accrue a mass of advantages not available to the rest of society, then equality of opportunity stops looking like a fundamental human right and starts looking like a bad joke, whence the liberal argument for the redistribution of wealth. Part of what Fukuyama is going to say in that book is that biotech can give people the kind of entrenched, permanent advantages that make equality before the law meaningless. At that point the state will have to either prohibit that kind of research all together (fukuyama's choice) or give up any pretense to liberal democracy. I think he's basically right about that.... whether or not the abandonment of liberal democracy is a bad thing depends on what the alternatives are.

Which is where Fukuyama's somewhat shaky worldview begins to show itself. We're a long way off equality before the law now, and there are massive differences in opportunity based purely on parentage, yet we shamble along with the system we have. This system has survived despite massive changes in socio-economic groups in the last century. It survives because it is by its nature a hodge podge compromise.

yeah I think I'd agree with that. I'd only add that the creation of permanent, hereditary classes are basically incompatible with democratic government. Every modern country with a liberal democracy has a large middle class; once that goes, democracy goes too. If seems to fukuyama (and to me) that biotech could lead to the creation of such classes, so in that sense he's right to worry.

sebster wrote:

abaddonfidelis wrote:I felt that movie argued for its premise by assuming it. The author (Gore Vidal IIRC) thinks genetic determinism isnt just wrong but entirely false; he's assuming the opposite of what the rest of the society he depicts assumes. So the guy that no one gives a chance can get to the moon, the guy with impeccable genetics turns out to be a murderer in one case and a degenerate in the other. But what if its true? He doesnt seem to have even considered that possibility. If it was true then there would be a permanent underclass of geneticly inferior people; descrimination against them would be a matter of course. I think its worth looking at what the implications might be if genetic determinism has any truth to it at all. I thought it was a good movie in terms of the story it told but it didnt argue very effectively for its point. AF

Except I felt it did show how people can be greater than the sum of their genes. Ethan Hawke was driven, and willing to suffer to reach his dream. Jude Law had no such drive, despite his superior genes.

I can see your criticism and accept it was by no means a perfect movie (for example the handling of the murder case was very odd, the realisation that the director could murder a man despite his superior genes could have been an important point, but was just kind of sidelined). But I still think it had an interesting message and one that isn't as simple as you suggested. It doesn't argue genetic determinism is entirely false - it recognises the abilities granted by superior genes, it just argues that isn't the whole story, our own drive and will to succeed plays a very important part as well.

Oh, and Gore Vidal was in the movie but I don't think he played any part in its creation.

well how might that movie have played out if the Ethan Hawke guy had really been incapable of getting to saturn or whatever? what if he just wasnt smart enough to do the math? Will power counts for alot, but what if there's a genetic component to that too? What if you could preselect for that trait? The author assumes you cant; the genetically superior guys have some real spiritual defects. What would a life time of discrimination do to the psyche of the ethan hawke character? his bright eyed bushy tailed optimism seemed to me totally at odds with the likely result of that kind of treatment. pessimism tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy. could someone who had been considered by other 2nd class all their life really muster the will power and dedication it would take? At first I saw his desire to go to saturn or whatever as an escapist fantasy. That seemed like a pretty believable psychological response. escapist fantasies dont tend to lead to the kind of pro active steps he was taking. IDK. Dont get me wrong it was a good movie I just thought it didnt take the idea of genetic determinism very seriously.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

The title of this thread and your avatar go so well together.

I am not sure what biotech he is referring to so I will be very broad and none specific in my response.

I would say that even if they are as dangerous as he thinks they should still be researched.

Why?

Because someone will research it anyway (either illegally or in another country) and then it will be completely out of the control of the state. I think it is better if the state allows such research to be conducted but keeps it close where it can be monitored. Then if any good to society comes of said research the state can decide weather or not to implement it. Also speaking generally the interconnectiveness (not a word but you can hash out what I mean by it well enough) of various branches of biotech research should not be overlooked, by banning one type of research another may be inadvertently hindered.

Also ditch the fluorine in our drinking water, bad for the bodily essence.

Before any of this occurs (genetic engineering) I'd bet my bottom dollar that we will be well accustomed to cybernetic modifications. CM's, at least in my opinion, would work very well. I have reservations about the feasibility of genetic enhancements, if for no reason besides the massive complications involved in such an endeavor.

Personally, I've always thought cybernetic alteration lacking in vision. Why not just ascend to life as pure data, gradually replacing your brain with an artificial one (so as to avoid ye olde teleportation paradox)? Screw limiting yourself to however much silicon you can cram into your body, why not operate a dozen at once? Also has the nifty side effect of providing near immortality.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I would argue that its more than a buzzword. Its an ideal on which our entire legal system is based. Equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. It just means that we all have a basically fair shake at getting the things we want out of life. Obviously we dont have equality of opportunity in an absolute sense, but we have more equality of opportunity in the 20th century than existed in, say, the 16th. Its an ideal worth pursuing. I think its achievable within certain parameters.

But we're not talking about a reformation of the legal system, necessarily, we're talking about a reformation of our biological condition, which is quite a bit different. Our legal system isn't based on the presumption that all people are equally intelligent, equally capable, and so forth. To the contrary, it's set up to resolve conflicts, which usually require differences to be present in those bringing their cases to the legal/political field.

to a certain extent its set up to mitigate the differences in ability leading to differences of outcome. affirmative action was put in place, for instance, because its supporters effectively argued that after 400 years of slavery black folks were going to need some help catching up. they could not compete on a level playing field because of the debilities imposed by the past. alot of social programs are set up for that purpose, more or less. we're not all equally capable of course.... the idea of equality before the law is just that we should be judged by those capabilities, not by our place of birth or the language we speak etc etc.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I do think that equality before the law is an ideal worth pursuing, at least unless pretty drastic changes come about, but if equality of opportunity is under threat from some people simply being far superior in ability to others, then we're no longer concerning ourselves with the purely legal implications of the idea.

yes. that's the threat. the implications are basically economic, which would in turn lead to political and legal readjustments, probably not in the favor of the genetic under class.

orkeosaurus wrote:
It's common to say that equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome; if this is true then we need to be able to identify some sort of third factor, a variable that causes differentiation between the outcome of two people's lives when they were afforded equal opportunity. But what is this factor?

indeed. a subject of endless debate between liberals and conservatives....

orkeosarus wrote:
An obvious one would be differences in ability, in character, in physical attributes, in sort the differences between individuals.

thats what the conservatives say.... or maybe the 3rd factor is growing up in the ghetto? peoples responses to that question basically determine their political outlook.

orkeosaurus wrote:
This sounds good, but means that the supermen and the regulars probably do have equal opportunity. And further, this definition requires a line to be made between where advantages are "personal" and where they are the result of differences in "opportunity". For instance, which is a trust fund worth millions of dollars, given to you on your 18th birthday by your billionaire father? Which is a good college education, payed for by your parents? Which is a good education at a private high school? Which is having a strong sense of determination, instilled upon you by your parents at a young age? Which is having good nutrition in the womb? Which is being descended from a long line of intelligent people? Which is just being a capable person, from what appears to be pure chance? It's a continuum at best, and there's no difference at all at worst.

yes thats true. I wouldnt say that differences in ability make us unequal before the law. I'd say that equality before the law becomes meaningless if capabilities are so widely seperated that the underclass can never succeed no matter how hard they try. If capabilities are determined by personal qualities like drive or intelligence then hey not much you can do about it - but if theyre determined by advantages conferred by your parents thats a problem. we manage to get along well enough with that system right now, but it obviously has its problems. the more pronounced those differences become the bigger the problem would become too. I think that the creation of a hereditary upper class based on biotech or concentration of wealth or anything else is inherently dangerous to democratic institutions. so basically if you like democracy then it follows that you have to support some kind of parity of outcome. you cant let differences in outcome become too entrenched or too pronounced. that may require state intervention. if so then I'm for it.

orkeosaurus wrote:
You could attempt to make a division based on whether benefits are intentionally conveyed or merely conveyed by circumstance, but this would be difficult to do, and I'm not sure I see the reason for making this distinction in the first place. Why would stumbling upon pirate treasure make you more worthy of wealth than having a rich uncle who really likes you?

You could make an argument based on some concept of "free will". This may even work, if you believe in, say, an eternal soul that exists independently from your randomly assigned form. However, if you don't believe in this sort of dualism, I don't see how this would work. If you are merely what you appear to be - a brain, attached to a body, created by evolution, genetics, childhood, and so forth - then I don't see how you could purposefully act out of accordance with yourself (as you define purpose). Even if you could, I don't see why actions that were, essentially, random, and done without relation to your personality, your character, and so forth would deserve exceptional rewards. If anything, I think they would be less deserving of reward, on account of this reward going to something unrelated to the action (the individual).

I may have been too quick to simply label equality of opportunity a "feel-good buzzword", but I think there are some serious problems with trying to get a coherent definition of it. Hell, you can see that pretty clearly when conservatives and liberals argue over what the concept entails.

abaddonfidelis wrote:that's more or less what the southern lawyers said when they argued the case for segregation before the supreme court in brown v board of education. that the two classes of society - the over and the under class - were seperate but equal (before the law.) I dont think a just society is possible on that basis without radically redefining the concept.

orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm, I think you misunderstand me. What I'm saying isn't that the supermen and the regular humans would "separate but equal", but rather that even if there was no legal distinction between them at all, the supermen wouldn't necessarily mind. For instance, if a court has convened to determine who was right in a particular case, and the court did its job, it would be more likely to favor the superman simply because he's more likely to actually be right, on account of being smarter. And the superman will have an easier time convincing the court to rule in hi favor if he's especially good looking, articulate, insightful with regard to the jury's/judge's mindset, and so forth. In other words, equality before the law isn't equality of legal outcome, even now.

thats possible. its also possible, as you point out, that the court might favor him because he has some advantages conferred by his birth. Telling the difference is tough - thats what brown v board was all about. I think that if differences in outcome are so pronounced that people start using place of birth or heredity or skin color or whatever as a short hand for "more likely to be right" then thats a big problem. AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well how might that movie have played out if the Ethan Hawke guy had really been incapable of getting to saturn or whatever? what if he just wasnt smart enough to do the math? Will power counts for alot, but what if there's a genetic component to that too? What if you could preselect for that trait? The author assumes you cant; the genetically superior guys have some real spiritual defects. What would a life time of discrimination do to the psyche of the ethan hawke character? his bright eyed bushy tailed optimism seemed to me totally at odds with the likely result of that kind of treatment. pessimism tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy. could someone who had been considered by other 2nd class all their life really muster the will power and dedication it would take? At first I saw his desire to go to saturn or whatever as an escapist fantasy. That seemed like a pretty believable psychological response. escapist fantasies dont tend to lead to the kind of pro active steps he was taking. IDK. Dont get me wrong it was a good movie I just thought it didnt take the idea of genetic determinism very seriously.

How does this compare to most movies, though?

I mean, there are lots of movies (/books/comics/video games/so on) where you have a plucky young squire who decides he's going to become a knight, even without the proper training and approval. Or where you have average Joe (who was maybe in the army or something) defeating dozens of well-trained enemies, on account of him really wanting to go home and see his family. Or you have the nerd who gets the girl. So on and so forth.

You don't see generally movies being made where the squire gets killed ten minutes in by the fat, drunken knight who was insulting the tavern wench because he doesn't have the training or experience to beat him, or where the action hero gets shot in the stomach by the trained marksmen and dies like a dog in the first firefight, or where the nerdy guy gets friendzoned in the end because he's not the girl's "type". Even if those are by far the more likely scenarios.

Defying the odds is an inherent part of nearly any movie.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

The title of this thread and your avatar go so well together.

lol. dont they?

ma55ter_fet wrote:
I am not sure what biotech he is referring to so I will be very broad and none specific in my response.

I would say that even if they are as dangerous as he thinks they should still be researched.

Why?

Because someone will research it anyway (either illegally or in another country) and then it will be completely out of the control of the state. I think it is better if the state allows such research to be conducted but keeps it close where it can be monitored. Then if any good to society comes of said research the state can decide weather or not to implement it. Also speaking generally the interconnectiveness (not a word but you can hash out what I mean by it well enough) of various branches of biotech research should not be overlooked, by banning one type of research another may be inadvertently hindered.

I wonder..... if the research turned out to be so expensive that only corporations or the state could afford to fund it, then I would argue that it could be brought under control because globalization is slowly wiping out local jurisdictions. You could just outlaw it everywhere on the planet with 1 piece of legislation and that would be that. Alot of it depends on how expensive the research is and how quickly and effaciously globalization does its work, but its at least possible that you could prevent any state at all from pursuing it....

Also ditch the fluorine in our drinking water, bad for the bodily essence.

thats the way your hard core commie operates mandrake....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well how might that movie have played out if the Ethan Hawke guy had really been incapable of getting to saturn or whatever? what if he just wasnt smart enough to do the math? Will power counts for alot, but what if there's a genetic component to that too? What if you could preselect for that trait? The author assumes you cant; the genetically superior guys have some real spiritual defects. What would a life time of discrimination do to the psyche of the ethan hawke character? his bright eyed bushy tailed optimism seemed to me totally at odds with the likely result of that kind of treatment. pessimism tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy. could someone who had been considered by other 2nd class all their life really muster the will power and dedication it would take? At first I saw his desire to go to saturn or whatever as an escapist fantasy. That seemed like a pretty believable psychological response. escapist fantasies dont tend to lead to the kind of pro active steps he was taking. IDK. Dont get me wrong it was a good movie I just thought it didnt take the idea of genetic determinism very seriously.

How does this compare to most movies, though?

I mean, there are lots of movies (/books/comics/video games/so on) where you have a plucky young squire who decides he's going to become a knight, even without the proper training and approval. Or where you have average Joe (who was maybe in the army or something) defeating dozens of well-trained enemies, on account of him really wanting to go home and see his family. Or you have the nerd who gets the girl. So on and so forth.

fantasies. just doesnt work that way 99 times out of 100. theres always an exception I guess.

orkeosaurus wrote:
You don't see generally movies being made where the squire gets killed ten minutes in by the fat, drunken knight who was insulting the tavern wench because he doesn't have the training or experience to beat him, or where the action hero gets shot in the stomach by the trained marksmen and dies like a dog in the first firefight, or where the nerdy guy gets friendzoned in the end because he's not the girl's "type". Even if those are by far the more likely scenarios.

Defying the odds is an inherent part of nearly any movie.

I would watch that movie. lol. but yeah you're right heroism is kind of assumed in movies. I guess thats true. mb I over-intellectualized it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:While having extra arms makes for a vivid example, I don't think it would actually be viable for a long time, much less creating some type of new species.

Alterations would probably be mostly along the lines of increased muscle mass/decreased fat, stronger bones, better lungs, a better circulatory system, very good looks, high intelligence, certain favored personality traits (assertiveness, for instance, possibly something like kindness/empathy), more personal charisma, and so on. A "superman" not in the sense that they're actually super-human in their abilities, but rather that they're equivalent to the best of the regular humans in nearly every category. Which, when combined, makes them perhaps equivalent to the "top" .0001% of the population; only now they're, maybe, 5% of the population, which is a pretty big swing. They're also more connected, as they can identify each other by their lineage, and they're also more likely to have familial connections to powerful individuals from the get go. And this isn't even going into the potential implications of truly super-human intelligence.

Perhaps that is possible. It doesn't seem impossible, but to suggest that all of those modified would want to work together strikes me as mildly unrealistic. Given that 'the best' humans haven't actually worked together on any noticeable scale, beyond competing, I do not believe there is a significant threat from the possibility you suggest. Sure, 5% instead of a truly insignificant amount, but I see absolutely no reason human nature would not stand in the way of social stratification within those that are modified. I.e., I just can't see them WANTING to work together like that. If they considered themselves enough of a minority they might, but even on that level I would assume their ability to dominate the larger social structure would be limited by the fact that they are humans.

I see no reason why the currently powerful and unmodified wouldn't be able to crush them into a paste. Intelligence on the part of the enhanced could be a determinative factor in all of this, but their ascension into a significant place of power is still limited by our current power structure. Infiltration? I dunno bout' that; there appears to be way too much pressure from existing social forces as it is. Gradual movement towards a balance of power seems the most likely outcome, assuming that vastly superior intelligence equates to teamwork and perseverance; I don't actually believe that it always does.

Disgruntled super-intelligent people taking on their teamwork friendly counterparts. That would make for an awesome cartoon.

You do make a good point, in the sense that said biotechnological advancements wouldn't be occuring in a vacuum. Even if they're not easily mass-produced, other advancements may be, and they may help to even the score.

That is the main issue, at least from my perspective. The cost to produce a super-being strikes my as a recipe for failure, at least in terms of large scale-production. What demand? I mean, many might want it, but now many people could actually shell out that kind of dough? No, I do not think it would work on the scale that you suggested earlier, and if it did I would assume that the quality of those that were enhanced to be well beneath the standard you have established.

Well beneath, by the fact that most of those that were 'pre-modified' genetically, would be blobs of jelly. They would have flaws, in other words. I assume that there would be a rate of error that would force such a program into a much smaller scale than you are allowing for. Much, much, much smaller.

Laughing Man wrote:Personally, I've always thought cybernetic alteration lacking in vision. Why not just ascend to life as pure data, gradually replacing your brain with an artificial one (so as to avoid ye olde teleportation paradox)? Screw limiting yourself to however much silicon you can cram into your body, why not operate a dozen at once? Also has the nifty side effect of providing near immortality.

This concept seems like the only way our species will make it out of the solar system. Barring some sort of warp drive, we are like a goddamn snail crossing the Atlantic Ocean. We would evolve many times over by the time we reached anything of significance.

The idea that you would be separate from some kind of larger self, seems unlikely. Whatever concept of you there once was, doesn't seem entirely necessary within a system where you are actually in multiple places at once. You would be much more than your current self.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I would watch that movie. lol.

POPCORN! A truly awesome film it would be too. Orkeo has a knack for these kind of ideas.

Orkeo wrote:You don't see generally movies being made where the squire gets killed ten minutes in by the fat, drunken knight who was insulting the tavern wench because he doesn't have the training or experience to beat him...

Awesome.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:yeah I think I'd agree with that. I'd only add that the creation of permanent, hereditary classes are basically incompatible with democratic government. Every modern country with a liberal democracy has a large middle class; once that goes, democracy goes too.

What about India? Democracy has existed without large middle classes, and while a middle class can make a democracy better it isn't necessary, nor does it ensure a decent democracy.

If seems to fukuyama (and to me) that biotech could lead to the creation of such classes, so in that sense he's right to worry.

Don't you think there isn't a political overclass already - could you realistically run for the senate if you wanted? What's going on when people are writing books worrying about the future of a system you don't actually have?

sebster wrote:well how might that movie have played out if the Ethan Hawke guy had really been incapable of getting to saturn or whatever? what if he just wasnt smart enough to do the math? Will power counts for alot, but what if there's a genetic component to that too?

The central premise of the movie is that at some part of humanity is beyond genes, yes. There aren't many movies better summed up by their tagline than this one; "There is no gene for the human spirit".

What would a life time of discrimination do to the psyche of the ethan hawke character?

It made him determined to succeed. In contrast, a similar life made his janitor boss hesitant to buck the system.

his bright eyed bushy tailed optimism seemed to me totally at odds with the likely result of that kind of treatment.

He wasn't bright eyed and bushy tailed. I don't know where you're getting that from, it's a very strange reading of the movie. He had an ambitious plan, but he hardly went about that plan full of optimism and hope. He was full of caution and paranoia, to the point where he never realised people were helping him succeed.

Dont get me wrong it was a good movie I just thought it didnt take the idea of genetic determinism very seriously.

It did, though. It accepted that are capabilities are determined largely by our genes. But it then said that if the only thing we consider is genes, we will be missing something, because there is a drive and determination to succeed that comes from more than just our genes. And this is an important point, one that is intuitive - because we all know incredibly gifted people who've achieved nothing and middling talents who've achieved a great deal, but one that we could forget very easily.

And remember we were looking at an exceptional individual in the main character. Plenty of other invalids simply drifted down into the bottom rungs of society.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:to a certain extent its set up to mitigate the differences in ability leading to differences of outcome. affirmative action was put in place, for instance, because its supporters effectively argued that after 400 years of slavery black folks were going to need some help catching up. they could not compete on a level playing field because of the debilities imposed by the past. alot of social programs are set up for that purpose, more or less.

There are a lot people who don't consider affirmative action to be conducive to equality of opportunity, but rather equality of outcome, and therefore unjust. That's how the whole idea gets to be such a bitch. Affirmative action is further compounded by the range of arguments used to justify it. For instance, some people say that affirmative action is necessary to balance out a lack of education, or whatever personality traits are acquired from having lived childhood in poverty. These are pretty clearly differences in personal ability caused by differences in circumstance. And if you have the exact same people undergo the same exact circumstances, you have equality of outcome. On the other hand, if the rationale was that it was needed to counter arbitrary racism on the part of employers/admissions officers/etc, it's less of a compensation for personal conditions and more of a sanction against the actions of the racists, and so isn't necessarily fraught with the same problems.

we're not all equally capable of course.... the idea of equality before the law is just that we should be judged by those capabilities, not by our place of birth or the language we speak etc etc.

True. However, at this point we're discussing legitimate differences in capabilities, that exist on account of the decisions their parents made.

thats what the conservatives say.... or maybe the 3rd factor is growing up in the ghetto?

That means nothing without there also being an implied difference in a person's circumstances that came about as a result of it; in other words, two people who are (completely) identical aside from one having "grown up in the ghetto" will perform equally in any task (that isn't merely "having grown up in the ghetto", of course). For having grown up in the ghetto to have any bearing requires personal traits to be acquired from it, whether these traits are wealth, education, special knowledge, connections, personality traits, etc.

However, what's the difference between being unsuccessful because you were born in the ghetto and never received a good education, and being unsuccessful because you're stupid and weren't able to use a good education even if you had one? After all, people generally don't decide that they want to be stupid. You could say the difference is in their capacity to improve from this point on, and that would probably be a valid distinction. However, a person isn't now what they have the capability to become in the future, so this seems less an issue of justice and more an issue of utility.

yes thats true. I wouldnt say that differences in ability make us unequal before the law. I'd say that equality before the law becomes meaningless if capabilities are so widely seperated that the underclass can never succeed no matter how hard they try. If capabilities are determined by personal qualities like drive or intelligence then hey not much you can do about it - but if theyre determined by advantages conferred by your parents thats a problem.

Advantages are largely conferred by your parents in any case. Furthermore, what makes the hereditary nature of the gap so dangerous? The inheritance of wealth? I mean, if you have a huge division in ability you have the problems associated with them regardless of how they came about.

we manage to get along well enough with that system right now, but it obviously has its problems. the more pronounced those differences become the bigger the problem would become too. I think that the creation of a hereditary upper class based on biotech or concentration of wealth or anything else is inherently dangerous to democratic institutions. so basically if you like democracy then it follows that you have to support some kind of parity of outcome. you cant let differences in outcome become too entrenched or too pronounced. that may require state intervention. if so then I'm for it.

Once again, I'm not sure that democracy will necessarily fail under these circumstances. One possibility is that the supermen would be looked up to, on account of their huge advantages in intelligence and personal charisma.

thats possible. its also possible, as you point out, that the court might favor him because he has some advantages conferred by his birth. Telling the difference is tough - thats what brown v board was all about. I think that if differences in outcome are so pronounced that people start using place of birth or heredity or skin color or whatever as a short hand for "more likely to be right" then thats a big problem. AF

True, that would start to become a problem. And that would put us back to Gattaca again!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Perhaps that is possible. It doesn't seem impossible, but to suggest that all of those modified would want to work together strikes me as mildly unrealistic. Given that 'the best' humans haven't actually worked together on any noticeable scale, beyond competing, I do not believe there is a significant threat from the possibility you suggest. Sure, 5% instead of a truly insignificant amount, but I see absolutely no reason human nature would not stand in the way of social stratification within those that are modified. I.e., I just can't see them WANTING to work together like that. If they considered themselves enough of a minority they might, but even on that level I would assume their ability to dominate the larger social structure would be limited by the fact that they are humans.

Actually, I largely agree with you there. I don't think the supermen would be especially loyal to each other. Then again, they may (and probably would) still think that their modified counterparts are superior to regular people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AbbadonFidelis: Actually, to be honest, I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that I'm debating with you about at this point. Perhaps we should clarify a bit?

I would argue that India does have a large middle class..... certainly it has one that is growing very quickly. Originally democracy was more or less inherited from the British as a matter of course. There's seldom a change in fundamental structures of govt without revolution within or conquest without; there's been no revolution within bc the population isnt urban enough for that kind of thing. I should have been more specific - urban upper and under classes specifically are what I meant. a rural underclass tends to be pretty docile unless pushed exceptionally hard.

I think that if someone devotes themselves to politics from an early age they can get all the way to the top, sure. Neither Clinton nor Obama had any especial advantage conferred by birth. Those are just recent examples.

We have upper and lower classes but they are not hereditary or permanent. The boundaries are permeable. As long as they remain so they are not a fundamental threat to democratic institutions - if those boundaries become ossified then democratic govt stops making sense. Since the high can never fall and the low can never rise, there would be no further need for the upper class to compromise with the lower class through democratic processes - they would refuse to do so, in which case revolution would be the inevitable result, leading most probably to the establishment ofn authoritarian state based on the support of the military and the urban poor (as in Italy at the end of the roman civil war, for instance). An urban under class tends to be stronger than the urban over class if it comes to outright hostility; if a country is rural then the overclass tends to be stronger and a mid eval style aristocracy is the more likely result.

Gattaca didnt accept that someone might not have the intelligence or inner resolve to accomplish something difficult if genetic factors told against it. Suppose there's a genetic determinant to will power? In that case Ethan Hawke cant get off the planet no matter how hard he tries. I think its worth looking at that scenario because no one really knows how far the genetic component reaches.
AF

Orkeosaurus wrote:There are a lot people who don't consider affirmative action to be conducive to equality of opportunity, but rather equality of outcome, and therefore unjust. That's how the whole idea gets to be such a bitch.

It is indeed a bitch. I just meant that equality before the law isnt the only thing that matters. equality of outcome has real legal implications as well.

That means nothing without there also being an implied difference in a person's circumstances that came about as a result of it; in other words, two people who are (completely) identical aside from one having "grown up in the ghetto" will perform equally in any task (that isn't merely "having grown up in the ghetto", of course). For having grown up in the ghetto to have any bearing requires personal traits to be acquired from it, whether these traits are wealth, education, special knowledge, connections, personality traits, etc.

well I think where you grows up matters alot in terms of your capabilities.... I cant really explain why. we don't just come out the way our genes make us. our experiences matter alot to your development. the two children would have a very different set of capabilities.

However, what's the difference between being unsuccessful because you were born in the ghetto and never received a good education, and being unsuccessful because you're stupid and weren't able to use a good education even if you had one? After all, people generally don't decide that they want to be stupid. You could say the difference is in their capacity to improve from this point on, and that would probably be a valid distinction. However, a person isn't now what they have the capability to become in the future, so this seems less an issue of justice and more an issue of utility.

well the difference is whether the outcome is just or not. if you get a poor outcome bc you're lazy then hey, that's justice. if you get a poor outcome bc you grew up in the ghetto, then thats an accident. you now have a legitimate gripe against a social system that handicapped you from birth.

yes thats true. I wouldnt say that differences in ability make us unequal before the law. I'd say that equality before the law becomes meaningless if capabilities are so widely seperated that the underclass can never succeed no matter how hard they try. If capabilities are determined by personal qualities like drive or intelligence then hey not much you can do about it - but if theyre determined by advantages conferred by your parents thats a problem.

Advantages are largely conferred by your parents in any case. Furthermore, what makes the hereditary nature of the gap so dangerous? The inheritance of wealth? I mean, if you have a huge division in ability you have the problems associated with them regardless of how they came about.

the gulf is wide but arguably bridgeable. what if biotech makes an IQ of 400 possible? the gulf wont be bridgeable anymore. if you're born to the wrong family you'll just be doomed to life as a peasant and thats all there is to it. that is..... not the society we have now.... or the one that most people would want if we could have it.

we manage to get along well enough with that system right now, but it obviously has its problems. the more pronounced those differences become the bigger the problem would become too. I think that the creation of a hereditary upper class based on biotech or concentration of wealth or anything else is inherently dangerous to democratic institutions. so basically if you like democracy then it follows that you have to support some kind of parity of outcome. you cant let differences in outcome become too entrenched or too pronounced. that may require state intervention. if so then I'm for it.

Once again, I'm not sure that democracy will necessarily fail under these circumstances. One possibility is that the supermen would be looked up to, on account of their huge advantages in intelligence and personal charisma.

well let me ask you this.... if I have an IQ of 400... and you have an IQ of 60.... why should we both get 1 vote a piece? Not as a question of justice or politics - I mean why shouldnt I use my superior intelligence to take your vote away? I can either fool you into voting how I want you to vote, or I can just get ahold of enough physical force to wipe out democracy all together because it no longer serves me. What can you do about it? IMO not much. Given an aggressive and self centered human nature, there's just no reason that people who dont have to share ever would. so thats why I think democracy would go away. the strong just wouldnt put up with it.

Actually, to be honest, I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that I'm debating with you about at this point. Perhaps we should clarify a bit?

Sure. I'm arguing that biotech could potentially create a hereditary, entrenched classes, at which point social mobility would end and democracy would become meaningless. Therefore if we like democracy we should do use the state to prevent research along those lines. As I understand you so far you're arguing that the development of that kind of technology is not inherently dangerous to democracy.
AF

Alright. I'm arguing a few things, and I might be getting things crossed because of that. I suppose I am arguing that:

1. Equality of Opportunity is only a meaningful concept if it exists independently of Equality of Outcome, and the only way this can be done is by constraining the meaning of "opportunity" in such a manner would necessarily be somewhat arbitrary, or to invoke the idea of a dualistic distinction between a person's true self/soul and the person who has arrived as a result of physiological traits or the conditions of their childhood/past. (You don't seem to really be arguing against this, so maybe I'm just going off on a tangent here.)

2. I don't see any reason to make a moral distinction in the treatment of personal traits that arise as a result of circumstantial genetic inheritance from one's parents, traits that arise as a result of deliberate genetic engineering by one's parents, and traits that arise as a result of the circumstances of one's childhood (deliberately created to bring these traits about or not).

3. The structure of a liberal democracy has considerable leeway in it, and this allows a lot of difference in personal capability to exist within it. However, perhaps the idea of a strict "democracy" is not what should be discussed, but rather the idea of a system in which all people are equally influential in the political process (even if this idea isn't fully realized). In other words, the idea of equal participation may take serious damage, even if the legal mechanisms of liberal democracy remain intact. The supermen may be the ruling class de facto, in an unaltered (legalistically) liberal democracy, due to their ability to control the political process. I suppose you could also say that the "spirit of democracy" would be in jeopardy, rather than the actual democratic process itself.

4. I'm not sure that the (hypothetical) hereditary nature of the engineering would be that big of an issue. The only real difference I see between a set group coming about with these traits due to the wealth of their family and a group coming about with these traits at random is the potential multiplier effect of these people also inheriting wealth, advanced education, or so forth.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Now, I suppose you could ask whether emotions are necessary to having a sense of value. Most people wouldn't really consider thirst or pain to be an emotion, I don't think.

Thirst could be defined as the desire for fluids.

Pain is a bit trickier, but someone who didn't fear prior sources of pain probably isn't going to be alive for very long.

Ooh, I hadn't considered complete fearlessness. Yeah, that would get you ended pretty quickly.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
since emotions represent our most primal thinking and encapsulate the perceived harm or benefit of a situation to the total being, whereas rational thought encapsulates only one faculty and is often incapable of arriving at harm or benefit conclusions rapidly enough to be useful in our daily lives, I would argue that emotions are in general the better determinant for our activities than rational thought, the spectacular success of rational thought in manipulating physical reality in the 19th and 20th centuries not withstanding. AF

I agree, but I think its important to note that emotions don't compel us to act all on their own. Fear may drive us to flight, but the things that we perceive that cause fear are determined by the creation of heuristics through rational calculation. Basically, we generate rules of thumb through reflection that are infused with emotion by the experiential data used to create them in first place.

Would it then be apt to say that emotion is the reason to act, and that logic is the capability? Or am I off base?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright. I'm arguing a few things, and I might be getting things crossed because of that. I suppose I am arguing that:

1. Equality of Opportunity is only a meaningful concept if it exists independently of Equality of Outcome, and the only way this can be done is by constraining the meaning of "opportunity" in such a manner would necessarily be somewhat arbitrary, or to invoke the idea of a dualistic distinction between a person's true self/soul and the person who has arrived as a result of physiological traits or the conditions of their childhood/past. (You don't seem to really be arguing against this, so maybe I'm just going off on a tangent here.)

constraining it how....? I'm interested to see you develope this idea....

Orkeosaurus wrote:
2. I don't see any reason to make a moral distinction in the treatment of personal traits that arise as a result of circumstantial genetic inheritance from one's parents, traits that arise as a result of deliberate genetic engineering by one's parents, and traits that arise as a result of the circumstances of one's childhood (deliberately created to bring these traits about or not).

I wonder how an artist would feel about the art they create if the source of that art was (arguably) not themselves, but a decision that occurred before they were born. I think it would pretty much demolish the idea of individual free will.... which would be really strange, since clearly someone did make a choice to make that person predisposed to create art.... thinking about this stuff makes my head hurt.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
3. The structure of a liberal democracy has considerable leeway in it, and this allows a lot of difference in personal capability to exist within it. However, perhaps the idea of a strict "democracy" is not what should be discussed, but rather the idea of a system in which all people are equally influential in the political process (even if this idea isn't fully realized). In other words, the idea of equal participation may take serious damage, even if the legal mechanisms of liberal democracy remain intact. The supermen may be the ruling class de facto, in an unaltered (legalistically) liberal democracy, due to their ability to control the political process. I suppose you could also say that the "spirit of democracy" would be in jeopardy, rather than the actual democratic process itself.

yes. that's what I would say. if the upper class are able to effectively and consistently manipulate the results of elections then your vote doesnt really matter. we pretty nearly have that situation now, which is why I dont vote, so idk if it would even make a difference. alot of people dont believe that is the case. idk. I'm pretty ambivalent about voting. I think Obama is the 1st president since I first became aware of politics who isnt a national disgrace, so I'll probably vote for him.... you cant do much, but what you can do, do that.... is kind of my thinking there. but really I tend toward the view that democracy is a farce right now.

orkeosautrus wrote:
4. I'm not sure that the (hypothetical) hereditary nature of the engineering would be that big of an issue. The only real difference I see between a set group coming about with these traits due to the wealth of their family and a group coming about with these traits at random is the potential multiplier effect of these people also inheriting wealth, advanced education, or so forth.

well the traits would be conferred rather than individual. thats the difference. if the outcome of your life is based on what you choose and what you do then that outcome is arguably just. if its based on what someone else chooses and does than its just an accident. thats the end of equality of opportunity, social mobility, liberal democracy, etc, if carried to its extreme. AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would it then be apt to say that emotion is the reason to act, and that logic is the capability? Or am I off base?

yeah I agree with that. we choose what we want on the basis of how we feel, not on the basis of calculation. the strategies we use to actually get those things tend to be calculating rather than emotional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
since emotions represent our most primal thinking and encapsulate the perceived harm or benefit of a situation to the total being, whereas rational thought encapsulates only one faculty and is often incapable of arriving at harm or benefit conclusions rapidly enough to be useful in our daily lives, I would argue that emotions are in general the better determinant for our activities than rational thought, the spectacular success of rational thought in manipulating physical reality in the 19th and 20th centuries not withstanding. AF

I agree, but I think its important to note that emotions don't compel us to act all on their own. Fear may drive us to flight, but the things that we perceive that cause fear are determined by the creation of heuristics through rational calculation. Basically, we generate rules of thumb through reflection that are infused with emotion by the experiential data used to create them in first place.

yes. good point.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Would it then be apt to say that emotion is the reason to act, and that logic is the capability? Or am I off base?

I definitely agree that emotion is the reason to act, but I'm not sure about calling logic the capability. I think its more like the control to emotion's compulsion; telling us to what to feel and when to feel it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I would argue that India does have a large middle class..... certainly it has one that is growing very quickly. Originally democracy was more or less inherited from the British as a matter of course. There's seldom a change in fundamental structures of govt without revolution within or conquest without; there's been no revolution within bc the population isnt urban enough for that kind of thing. I should have been more specific - urban upper and under classes specifically are what I meant. a rural underclass tends to be pretty docile unless pushed exceptionally hard.

India's middle class is growing, but is large only in pure numbers simply because the total population is so large. As a proportion of India's total population it is very small. And for much of the history of their democracy it's been all but non-existant, yet democracy proceeded anyway.

I think that if someone devotes themselves to politics from an early age they can get all the way to the top, sure. Neither Clinton nor Obama had any especial advantage conferred by birth. Those are just recent examples.

They were very wealthy before winning office, and were still notably much less wealthy than the majority of office holders in US politics. It is a rich man's game.

We have upper and lower classes but they are not hereditary or permanent. The boundaries are permeable. As long as they remain so they are not a fundamental threat to democratic institutions - if those boundaries become ossified then democratic govt stops making sense. Since the high can never fall and the low can never rise, there would be no further need for the upper class to compromise with the lower class through democratic processes - they would refuse to do so, in which case revolution would be the inevitable result, leading most probably to the establishment ofn authoritarian state based on the support of the military and the urban poor (as in Italy at the end of the roman civil war, for instance). An urban under class tends to be stronger than the urban over class if it comes to outright hostility; if a country is rural then the overclass tends to be stronger and a mid eval style aristocracy is the more likely result.

Gattaca didnt accept that someone might not have the intelligence or inner resolve to accomplish something difficult if genetic factors told against it.

You're putting statements into the text that just aren't there. The film argues that it is possible for people to achieve beyond the strict abilities of their genes. It didn't argue that all people can do all things, merely that it was possible to achieve beyond the strict limitations of what science and society might consider our limits.

Suppose there's a genetic determinant to will power? In that case Ethan Hawke cant get off the planet no matter how hard he tries. I think its worth looking at that scenario because no one really knows how far the genetic component reaches.
AF

Which is an interesting thought, and I can see how it might be the central concept of an interesting movie. Gattaca took a different approach, and I don't think it makes sense to argue it was flawed because it didn't accept your central idea.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:constraining it how....? I'm interested to see you develope this idea....

Contraining in the sense that things which could be considered "opportunity" are not considered to be so for the purposes of determining "equality of opportunity". For instance the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome may be a person's drive to succeed. However, this drive to succeed may have been the result of, say, the a person's father being a good role model. Well, if the other guy didn't have a father who was a good role model, wasn't he then denied a drive to succeed? So doesn't this constitute a difference in opportunity? This is what I mean by the necessity to draw arbitrary divisions.

I wonder how an artist would feel about the art they create if the source of that art was (arguably) not themselves, but a decision that occurred before they were born. I think it would pretty much demolish the idea of individual free will.... which would be really strange, since clearly someone did make a choice to make that person predisposed to create art.... thinking about this stuff makes my head hurt.

Yeah, we're sort of getting into the nitty gritty of determinism here. I mean, you could say that the person who created the perfect artist only did so because of their own past influences. On the other hand, I certainly perceive my own will to be free, at least.

yes. that's what I would say. if the upper class are able to effectively and consistently manipulate the results of elections then your vote doesnt really matter. we pretty nearly have that situation now, which is why I dont vote, so idk if it would even make a difference. alot of people dont believe that is the case. idk. I'm pretty ambivalent about voting. I think Obama is the 1st president since I first became aware of politics who isnt a national disgrace, so I'll probably vote for him.... you cant do much, but what you can do, do that.... is kind of my thinking there. but really I tend toward the view that democracy is a farce right now.

Yeah. There are a lot of things that are blamed for this, but I think that when you get down to it, you simply cannot have that significant of a degree of control over the government when you're vying with 150,000,000 people for it.

well the traits would be conferred rather than individual. thats the difference. if the outcome of your life is based on what you choose and what you do then that outcome is arguably just. if its based on what someone else chooses and does than its just an accident. thats the end of equality of opportunity, social mobility, liberal democracy, etc, if carried to its extreme.

Hmm. There could be a large difference in psychological reaction to having been deliberately created to have a certain personality and having developed that personality through random occurrences. Of course, in the end you still are who you are. Hmm. Too much philosophy for me, perhaps.

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I would argue that India does have a large middle class..... certainly it has one that is growing very quickly. Originally democracy was more or less inherited from the British as a matter of course. There's seldom a change in fundamental structures of govt without revolution within or conquest without; there's been no revolution within bc the population isnt urban enough for that kind of thing. I should have been more specific - urban upper and under classes specifically are what I meant. a rural underclass tends to be pretty docile unless pushed exceptionally hard.

India's middle class is growing, but is large only in pure numbers simply because the total population is so large. As a proportion of India's total population it is very small.

yes. I think that the relevant measure of the size of India's middle class is not the total population of the country, but the total urban population. Since most of India's population is IIRC rural, the size of India's middle class proportional to its urban population is fairly large.

I think that if someone devotes themselves to politics from an early age they can get all the way to the top, sure. Neither Clinton nor Obama had any especial advantage conferred by birth. Those are just recent examples.

They were very wealthy before winning office, and were still notably much less wealthy than the majority of office holders in US politics. It is a rich man's game.

It is a rich man's game but one does not have to be born rich to play it. one can get rich and then go on to play it. I think thats fair. I dont want someone in office who cant succeed in their own life first.

Gattaca didnt accept that someone might not have the intelligence or inner resolve to accomplish something difficult if genetic factors told against it.

You're putting statements into the text that just aren't there. The film argues that it is possible for people to achieve beyond the strict abilities of their genes.

yes but what if it isnt? the film argues its case by showing us a guy who overcomes his genetic limits. it assumes that such a thing is possible and then goes on to show it happening. what if it isnt possible? we would instead have a story of someone hopelessly struggling all their life to reach deeply significant but unattainable goals. the story would then end in spiritual defeat, insanity, or death. I think those are realistic scenarios and I wish the story had at least considered them.

Suppose there's a genetic determinant to will power? In that case Ethan Hawke cant get off the planet no matter how hard he tries. I think its worth looking at that scenario because no one really knows how far the genetic component reaches.
AF

Which is an interesting thought, and I can see how it might be the central concept of an interesting movie. Gattaca took a different approach, and I don't think it makes sense to argue it was flawed because it didn't accept your central idea.

The idea that you would be separate from some kind of larger self, seems unlikely. Whatever concept of you there once was, doesn't seem entirely necessary within a system where you are actually in multiple places at once. You would be much more than your current self.

Well, yes, that's one of the perks. ^.^ You're not just the body that you happen to be moving around at the moment, you're the sum total of all the various systems you're operating at the time and any iterations of yourself that you might have split off and reabsorbed, as well as iterations of other people that you trade experiences with.

There's a reason it's called transhumanism: Once we hit that point, it's difficult to recognize the resulting entities as human.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:constraining it how....? I'm interested to see you develope this idea....

Contraining in the sense that things which could be considered "opportunity" are not considered to be so for the purposes of determining "equality of opportunity". For instance the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome may be a person's drive to succeed. However, this drive to succeed may have been the result of, say, the a person's father being a good role model. Well, if the other guy didn't have a father who was a good role model, wasn't he then denied a drive to succeed? So doesn't this constitute a difference in opportunity? This is what I mean by the necessity to draw arbitrary divisions.

I understand now. yes that's true. equality of opportunity can only be carried so far. past a certain point it gets absurd. I think the best way for people who are handicapped from birth to deal with their situation is to say "well its not my fault but it is my responsibility. this is what I have to work with. now I have to do the best I can with it bc its my life." as long as the goals they have for their life are within reach - as long as the state or genetics or whatever doesnt set up insurmountable barriers to their accomplishment - then thats fair. if it does then oh well.... gakky life.

I wonder how an artist would feel about the art they create if the source of that art was (arguably) not themselves, but a decision that occurred before they were born. I think it would pretty much demolish the idea of individual free will.... which would be really strange, since clearly someone did make a choice to make that person predisposed to create art.... thinking about this stuff makes my head hurt.

Yeah, we're sort of getting into the nitty gritty of determinism here. I mean, you could say that the person who created the perfect artist only did so because of their own past influences. On the other hand, I certainly perceive my own will to be free, at least.

yeah. its just interesting to speculate I guess.

yes. that's what I would say. if the upper class are able to effectively and consistently manipulate the results of elections then your vote doesnt really matter. we pretty nearly have that situation now, which is why I dont vote, so idk if it would even make a difference. alot of people dont believe that is the case. idk. I'm pretty ambivalent about voting. I think Obama is the 1st president since I first became aware of politics who isnt a national disgrace, so I'll probably vote for him.... you cant do much, but what you can do, do that.... is kind of my thinking there. but really I tend toward the view that democracy is a farce right now.

Yeah. There are a lot of things that are blamed for this, but I think that when you get down to it, you simply cannot have that significant of a degree of control over the government when you're vying with 150,000,000 people for it.

absolutely. which is a great argument for keeping power in the states btw. fewer voters means each voter has more of a say. thats also part of why I think, viz the other thread, that the franchise ought to be restricted. capable and incompetent people's opinions dont have the same merit, so neither should their votes. there should be some proportionality based on demonstrated competence to manage your own affairs. more simply dumb people shouldnt be allowed to vote. but you can see how popular that idea was.....

well the traits would be conferred rather than individual. thats the difference. if the outcome of your life is based on what you choose and what you do then that outcome is arguably just. if its based on what someone else chooses and does than its just an accident. thats the end of equality of opportunity, social mobility, liberal democracy, etc, if carried to its extreme.

Hmm. There could be a large difference in psychological reaction to having been deliberately created to have a certain personality and having developed that personality through random occurrences. Of course, in the end you still are who you are. Hmm. Too much philosophy for me, perhaps.

yeah. exactly. its all really speculative who knows how people would actually react? The whole scenario is vaguely disturbing to me. thats why I think I'll end up agreeing with some of fukuyama's thesis. but its really alot to work out and I dont have any consistent outlook on the subject.... had never even occurred to me before I cracked that book.

Paris Hilton had equal opportunity didn't she? Maybe she's not as relevant as her inheritance dynasty would have us believe though, and I think it shows every couple of months on some tabloid headline. You can be handed the world on a platter just as a "fortunate" circumstance of birth, and still turn out to be a complete self-absorbed ignorant dumbass.

sure, but the odds favor you if you start with certain advantages.