Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 07, 2011, 03:02:12 PM

I'd say providing those needs is very compassionate, rather than arrogant, and the opposite behaviour is violent and despotic.

Now, we don't need the biopsychosocial model to know that people need to drink water, do we? As for the "nurturing environment", it's close to what I'm talking about.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 07, 2011, 03:02:12 PM

There is, and a lot. First of all, their definition of weak is highly speculative and not scientifically supported. Some eugenics programs wanted to get rid of homosexuals. What is the scientific rational behind that? Secondly, the goal is to maximise well being, which includes social relations, how well we interact with each other and how we feel. If, for example, somebody feels remorse because other people actuated a eugenic program of somebody they know, they will feel sorrow, despair, and other negative emotions, which result in an unstable psycho-physical condition, and that can be measured, studied and verified scientifically.

Just because the mainstream view of science is very narrow and simplistic, it doesn't mean that it reflects what science really is. If you think that there is nothing scientifically wrong with eugenics programs, it means that you have a very limited understanding of what science is.

You repeat almost exactly what I said about why eugenics program is wrong, and then tell me I have a very limited understanding of what science is. Disappointing indeed.

The fact that a theory is wrong doesn't make it unscientific. Plus, I explicitly told that "eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population" is a scientific fact, their premise, not the eugenics movement itself! I explained why defining "weak" objectively is impossible. It was a perfect example of how demagogy can take a scientific fact, contaminate it to fit certain goals of policy makers. You need to attack the analogy, not me.

Also, arbitrary feelings doesn't make or destroy science. That's why I asked the second question. I've been asked several times what I would do if I knew my baby would be born disabled. There isn't a clear answer to that. You feel remorse either way. I hope you are getting a hint about why I use the word "arrogance" here.

I think my rebuttal of the eugenics movement was actually better than yours.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 07, 2011, 03:02:12 PM

Quote

I think it's the same two fallacies. (1) You can't actually know what healthy is, and (2) you don't know enough about how it all works.

Yes we do. We don't know what healthy is in its entirety, but the same goes for aerodynamics, physics, medicine, engineering, etc. I don't see you complaining about people building cellphones, flatscreens and giving you antibiotics.

The question of whether an aeroplane is better or not doesn't have an answer. If you are asking if it can fly to a longer distance, or carry more people, then yes. You can't decide that a person is unhealthy if she is in her desired state. You can't label a relationship unhealthy if the people involved are not complaining. You could say they are unfit for the population though, if for instance their mental state is causing problems to the population at large. And that doesn't make it fine, it's just a necessary evil.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 07, 2011, 03:02:12 PM

Quote

Suppose you claim to have the perfect individuals according to a particular model and the technology to perfectly clone them.

The premise is wrong. Perfect individual? Perfection is an empty word, you might have a desirable condition, given certain factors, What you might have, theoretically, is a collection of desirable individual types, given different environments and conditions.

Quote

And you know that with sexual reproduction, it would take billions of people, millions of whom will suffer from disease before any positive trait is introduced to the population, would you take that risk? What would the RBE movement do?

I don't understand the question. First of all, cloning humans is not a good idea, both morally and scientifically. Secondly, what do you want to achieve with this?

Why are you so unwilling to participate in a simple mind experiment? You claim that we can know desirable traits in humans and what a desirable environment is for humans. I said, let's suppose you do know that... Even if not perfect, you could statistically know that letting people arbitrarily reproduce will cause much more suffering.

And how on earth can you assert that cloning humans is scientifically or morally bad? Are you sure you didn't make that up on the fly just to avoid participating in my dilemma? Again, assuming you can perfectly clone someone... How is it scientifically unsound? I'm guessing you would probably assert that someone could feel bad about this. If you are basing everything on current conventions, how on earth are you even suggesting to "change our ways"? And morally? Come on, you are eliminating sickness from the world. Please respond within bounds of the mental experiment, or don't respond at all.

Look, you made me act rude, but you are giving me a heartache.

If verbal violence is as bad as physical violence, I'd like to add mental violence as the worst to that list. Wink

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on September 07, 2011, 03:02:12 PM

Quote

And I respect that. We almost share the same motives. Though if you don't trust people enough to control an unrestricted free market to act for the betterment of mankind, how do you suppose the same people to voluntarily work for that in a collective? I think it requires exactly the same intellectual achievement for the individuals.

Because of what history shows us. According to classical economics theories, FOSS, Creative Commons, Open Source Ecology, Open Hardware initiative, the Rep Rap, Couchsurfing, Just for the love of it, etc. should not exist.

Yet they do.

This, and many other things, prove that people naturally want to work towards the betterment of society, if they are given a chance.

Well, I spend most of my time with FOSS, hospitality networks, open standards, Esperanto movement and such and barely make any money. I really don't understand how classical theories predict that they wouldn't exist? For starters, unrestricted free markets (I wouldn't call it "classical") would be compatible with any of these.

Don't think I don't get your point though. I think we should all do what we want to do, and want to do things that would take us somewhere together. And no monetary transactions would be needed, everyone would have what they need to accomplish their goal. And this is actually possible with current technology and resources within this world. I also understand toying with this idea by using a model of the human.

What I can't accept is, undermining of major philosophical questions in order to make some solution feel real, hiding cynicism behind political correctness to feel confident. We must accept how hopeless it is, and why it is hopeless, to even begin thinking about it honestly.