Is the Internet making us indifferent?

[TomOfSweden]

I have a theory that the human race is deteriorating due to the lack of selective breeding.

Simply put, I believe the wrong sort of people are breeding out of proportion, largely due to the need for cannon & factory fodder.

It's not just a theory. Our invention of medicine, hospitals and aid for the handicapped has hampered selective breeding quite a bit. I'm not sure what you mean with cannon and factory fodder? Our brains have probably not changed much since 30 000 years. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Sure, there's been adaptions. But nothing measurable. The genetic errors that are increasing is the errors that prevent an unaided human to survive.

[Thorne]

It's not just a theory. Our invention of medicine, hospitals and aid for the handicapped has hampered selective breeding quite a bit. I'm not sure what you mean with cannon and factory fodder? Our brains have probably not changed much since 30 000 years. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Sure, there's been adaptions. But nothing measurable. The genetic errors that are increasing is the errors that prevent an unaided human to survive.

Not sure I like the term "selective breeding." It brings up thoughts of the Nazi effort to create a super race. But if you mean "natural selection" then I have to agree with you. People who, even 100 years ago, would have died in infancy or childhood, are living at least long enough to procreate, tending to infuse defective genes into the pool. We therefore have more and more people dependent upon medical intervention for their survival, placing an increasing burden upon the medical resources, causing an increase in cost.

Simply put, I believe the wrong sort of people are breeding out of proportion, largely due to the need for cannon & factory fodder.

This really scares me! What do you consider "the wrong sort of people?" People who are not like you? And for most of the world, cannon fodder is a thing of the past. Modern warfare requires much less brawn and a lot more brain. The same with "factory fodder." Routine drudgery is being taken over by automation, requiring fewer people to sit at a machine all day doing one simple task. Of course, then you have more people sitting around their homes watching the idiot box all day, unable to find simple jobs which won't tax their minds, putting a burden on the welfare system.

[Hime]

I don't think that this phenomenon (lots of people watching a crime and not doing anything about it) is caused by the Internet. It's often known as the Bystander Effect, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility">Diffusion of Responsibility</i>, and the most famous case in the US was the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. Simply put, people in a large crowd are actually less likely to call the police or intervene, because they assume that someone else will do it. Probably all 600 YouTube viewers were thinking "someone else must have already notified the police about this," when in reality none of them had.

If this crime had happened in the US, where I live, and the rapists had been caught and convicted, it's possible that they would get the death penalty. Personally, I don't agree with that. The crime that they committed was terrible, but I don't think that killing them would do anything to mitigate the damage done to this woman and her family. I think that society should look for ways to rehabilitate criminals rather than simply punishing them.

[TomOfSweden]

double post

[TomOfSweden]

Not sure I like the term "selective breeding." It brings up thoughts of the Nazi effort to create a super race. But if you mean "natural selection" then I have to agree with you. People who, even 100 years ago, would have died in infancy or childhood, are living at least long enough to procreate, tending to infuse defective genes into the pool. We therefore have more and more people dependent upon medical intervention for their survival, placing an increasing burden upon the medical resources, causing an increase in cost.

The term is "Eugenics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The Nazi's gave it a lot of bad press. It was very trendy at the start of the 20'th century. The Nazi's took the idea of Eugenics and coupled it with the assumption that there exists a perfect human. As if there was an original perfect human race that has been diluted through interbreeding. But these are two completely different theories. The first one is up for debate but the second one is just plain daft. There's never been the slimmest of scientific support for it ever. It's as stupid as New Age and Phrenology.

I'm a big fan of Eugenics, for the simple reason that I think we have to.

What we're doing now is breeding humans for increased amounts of genetic errors. What an error is, is a debate in itself. Let's just call it "traits all humans would rather avoid". Things like short sightedness. It has no useful function for anybody, and is a pure nuisance. We're compensating for the increased number of errors with medicines and aid to the handicapped. Like glasses for instance, negating the handicap, and therefore spreading the defective gene. When 8000 years ago, short sightedness would have led to death, killing off the gene for good. If this keeps going, a thousand years from now we'll all have a number of genetic defects that will make us dependent on a number of gadgets for us to at all survive and breed. I don't see that as a positive development.

The error in thinking is that if we don't employ eugenics, that our bodies will remain the same, as if there's a natural state for humans. Some sort of equilibrium. As if God created us. We now know that, this is not how it works. All species and life is in constant flux. We're always evolving and adapting. A little bit for every generation. The question is, what? What is it that humanity is adapting to?

I think we should take matters into our own hands. I think we should use Eugenics and create perfect little designer babies with the looks and traits of our choice. If we're going to evolve no matter what, we might as well decide the direction of the evolution. Eugenics is the key.

[Thorne]

I think we should take matters into our own hands. I think we should use Eugenics and create perfect little designer babies with the looks and traits of our choice. If we're going to evolve no matter what, we might as well decide the direction of the evolution. Eugenics is the key.

That's all well and good, but who decides what "perfect" is? You? Your wife? Or shall we just let the State (whichever government is in power) determine that for you? Maybe force all citizens to have only children with Conservative tendencies? (Substitute a political party from your own country.)

And do we REQUIRE people to submit to a Eugenics bureau whenever they wish to have children? And destroy any children which are born without the boards stamp of approval? No, that road leads to madness. Let's keep it to the old-fashioned way.

That being said, though, I do agree that there are far too many people who are kept alive artificially, who would not be able to survive on their own, yet are quite capable of having children. This does, indeed, pollute the gene pool, and also places an enormous financial burden on taxpayers. I don't know what the solution could be, though. Forced sterilization is one possible treatment, but one I'm not willing to allow. We again run into the problem of who decides. Do we really want a government bureaucracy to determine whether a person needs to be sterilized? I don't think so!

[TomOfSweden]

That's all well and good, but who decides what "perfect" is? You? Your wife?

Who decides how children should be brought up? These kinds of conflicts will sort themselves out like they've always be done. With loud argumentation and crockery projectiles. I'm sure there will be trends just like we have with clothes today. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that this will happen, whether we want it or not. If not legally, then illegally. Parents strong wishes to have a healthy child just like they've dreamed of, will trump anything any government or moral opinion could say anything about.

Or shall we just let the State (whichever government is in power) determine that for you? Maybe force all citizens to have only children with Conservative tendencies? (Substitute a political party from your own country.)

And do we REQUIRE people to submit to a Eugenics bureau whenever they wish to have children? And destroy any children which are born without the boards stamp of approval? No, that road leads to madness. Let's keep it to the old-fashioned way.

That being said, though, I do agree that there are far too many people who are kept alive artificially, who would not be able to survive on their own, yet are quite capable of having children. This does, indeed, pollute the gene pool, and also places an enormous financial burden on taxpayers. I don't know what the solution could be, though. Forced sterilization is one possible treatment, but one I'm not willing to allow. We again run into the problem of who decides. Do we really want a government bureaucracy to determine whether a person needs to be sterilized? I don't think so!

He he. You're still mixing up the subject of eugenics with Nazi practices. This can all be put down as paranoid ramblings that will never happen...again. Because nobody would want it. Democracy is good that way.

[Thorne]

Who decides how children should be brought up? These kinds of conflicts will sort themselves out like they've always be done. With loud argumentation and crockery projectiles. I'm sure there will be trends just like we have with clothes today. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.

Yes, it will start that way. A fashion statement by the rich, designer children at exorbitant cost to satisfy exorbitant egos. But as the technology becomes more prevalent and the costs start to drop it will spread slowly to the middle class. Once that happens the governments will step in.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that this will happen, whether we want it or not. If not legally, then illegally. Parents strong wishes to have a healthy child just like they've dreamed of, will trump anything any government or moral opinion could say anything about.

Healthy, yes. I'm not disputing that. But there is more involved in genetics than just healthy. The ongoing debate between "Nature or Nurture" will take on new urgency as parents, or governments, try to weed out "undesirable" elements from their offspring. And once again I must ask, who decides what is undesirable?

He he. You're still mixing up the subject of eugenics with Nazi practices. This can all be put down as paranoid ramblings that will never happen...again. Because nobody would want it. Democracy is good that way.

And that is how it WILL happen...again! Democracy is also good at allowing the worst aspects of humanity (by my definition, anyway) to flourish. But it is in the more autocratic governments that the worst abuses will probably arise. States run by ego maniacal dictators, or by religious fanatics. No, we must never assume that something cannot happen just because we don't want it to happen. We must be aware of what's happening and keep vigilant to prevent suck things. Having healthy children is one thing. Having healthy boys (or girls) because that's what the State decrees is another. And NOT having children because you are the wrong color, or religion, or because someone in a musty little office somewhere has decided that your genome is not acceptable, is something else entirely.

[TomOfSweden]

Yes, it will start that way. A fashion statement by the rich, designer children at exorbitant cost to satisfy exorbitant egos. But as the technology becomes more prevalent and the costs start to drop it will spread slowly to the middle class. Once that happens the governments will step in.

Why would the state step in? Parenthood is such a strong instinct, that I think regulation would be irrelevant. Even if they'd tried, nothing would change. Like it is with prostitution. The regulation doesn't change the behaviour.

Healthy, yes. I'm not disputing that. But there is more involved in genetics than just healthy. The ongoing debate between "Nature or Nurture" will take on new urgency as parents, or governments, try to weed out "undesirable" elements from their offspring. And once again I must ask, who decides what is undesirable?

Since the brightest minds today are debating this, I doubt we'll sort it out in this thread. It'll be interesting. But it doesn't really enter into the equation. If instincts can be modified with genetic engineering, we will. If not, we won't. The important thing to keep in mind is all the time, that the government would be powerless to regulate it. All it needs is one liberal country in the world, and then everybody would go there to have their babies designed. And we can be pretty sure that South Korea will never relinquish it's ultra liberal stance on this for any foreseeable future. Compare it to the abortion debate. In countries where abortion where regulated, the rich went abroad. Only the absolute poorest are ever impacted by the regulation.

And that is how it WILL happen...again!

I'll believe it when I see it.

Democracy is also good at allowing the worst aspects of humanity (by my definition, anyway) to flourish.

I agree, and that is why I like democracy. All extreme governmental systems are kept best in check in the open where they can be easily compared and evaluated.

But it is in the more autocratic governments that the worst abuses will probably arise. States run by ego maniacal dictators, or by religious fanatics. No, we must never assume that something cannot happen just because we don't want it to happen. We must be aware of what's happening and keep vigilant to prevent suck things. Having healthy children is one thing. Having healthy boys (or girls) because that's what the State decrees is another. And NOT having children because you are the wrong color, or religion, or because someone in a musty little office somewhere has decided that your genome is not acceptable, is something else entirely.

Probably. But then again. Aren't they guilty of the most vile human rights abuses already? How can it get any worse? Wouldn't this just be another in a long list? The Chinese might engineer their perfect communist citizen who isn't actually a greedy bastard, like the rest of us