The Harbinger of Ferocity

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I find it amusing you chose the extremely controversial changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as your citation,
@catchamber. You do know that those alterations, as with the ones that affected related gender dysphoria and Autism were and are extremely suspect, correct? They might be "official" changes, but there is still debate on their validity to this day and some mental health offices do not recognize those changes. Why would someone do this?

It was a matter of political correctness and funding, not science. If you look up any of the other forms of dysphoria, quickly compare them to those gaps that have since been created. Clinically, there is an argument for them understood as being mental illnesses. This is not my saying one way or another if they are, but fact is being intentionally removed from science because it "hurts people's feelings".

There is no standard of "must cause pain" only the standard of "it must not be the statistical norm for humans". That entire attempted argument is such an insane line of reasoning I needn't explain myself any further there, @Odin summarized it.

As for "Not present in many human beings.", can you show me where any statistical majority is present where people do not meet those criteria? Even a percent of the entire human population less than half is considered a minority, sorry. I can guarantee you that far, far, far fewer than a percent of people would fail to qualify under that definition of human. That is not a large enough population to cater a special definition to or unique understanding of.

With regard to people being biased against genetically modified organisms, just sit back for a moment and observe the massive organic market and it's continued boom into mainstream. People wrongfully fear something as simple as food that has been altered to be more resistant to drought or even the use of antibiotics in meat animals, which is comparatively much more tame. There are even anecdotes of shipments of modified rice being donated to starving people in Africa that were destroyed because the local populace were convinced by activists thatit was somehow tainted; they then in turn misunderstood this as some sort "curse" or witchcraft. An anecdote certainly, but we are talking about humanity.

Bypassing the need for reproductive sex will not bypass the fact of what humans subconsciously tend toward in their preferencing for mate selection. They would logically choose, in most cases, desirable traits for their children or those they understood as desirable. Not that they are thinking to reproduce with their children, but what is generally known and understood as worthy of pursuit by either gender.

As I said before, when speaking to odds and likelihood, feel free to believe the fringes, but I will be here, placing my bets on what I can confirm as most likely.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Humans with polymelia, smaller brains, no capacity for articulate speech or abstract reasoning, or severe cases of scoliosis don't fit this definition. While you can call them defected, some would say that giving them that title is a form of morphological chauvinism.

Those "some" you refer to are allowing their emotions and feelings to cloud their reality. If you are diagnosed medically lacking, are disabled, or are somehow biologically defective, you are just that. This does not mean you are somehow useless or not worthy of life, or inherently are a lesser person, but it is a fact that you are not the norm and are still graded against that. A few of us in this topic are medically classified as having some form of disability, yet here we are, still serving a purpose and still doing things in our lives, still off being individuals. Arguing "morphological chauvinism" is newspeak, plain and simple.

None the less, you have blatantly disregard several key areas to make your attempted point. The word choice and content of the cited paragraph is clear, as shown below:

Human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

Yes, because you can predict the future so well, you know how the average person will respond to genemodding becoming mainstream. Let's ignore the fact that the breeding, selling, and consuming of genetically modified organisms has been approved in numerous countries, let alone that legal genemodding of human embryos has already happened in the UK, US, and China.

Yes, you can get a blurry image of the future without a crystal ball. Try looking to the past and present first, then imagining thereafter through that combined lens. I am going to stay on the side of probability and median likelihood rather than plunge off into the pool of hypothetical "What if?" statements. I will not argue this point with you again. I care nothing at all for the maybe when the probably is more pressing and likely.

We are not living in a day and age where that level of genetic experimentation on humans is significant enough, not even close I add, to make such a profound change in what it means to be human. Furthermore, you seem to have blatantly ignored my reference to this as well, so do not act as though I did not somehow acknowledge your claim in anticipation thereof:

In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.

Lastly:

So long as the ability to modify the underlying patterns that influence mate selection is rare or nonexistent, this might be true. But, in a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that trend may stop being universal. In vitro fertilization already bypasses the need for sex, and in vitro gametogenesis makes multiplex parenting a feasible strategy. There's nothing to indicate that humanity as a whole will forever be bound to traditional mating strategies.

"In a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that rend may stop being universal."

I need ask, what world do you see around you? The entire system has shifted over time, I have no doubt about that and you are acting as if I am for some reason, but you are attempting to make an extreme and baseless claim. Again, I will not even entertain that argument unless you have profound evidence to show that somehow people in this future you keep referring to are so far removed from their own humanity that this metric no longer applies. I further note that "in vitro fertilization" does not bypass the biological influences of sexual drive or sexuality at all. They might not be physically having said children, but I strongly doubt people will suddenly up and surrender deep seated, subconscious, primitive, mammalian mate determining qualities.

In the future platinum hair might be viewed as taboo and all people desire is curly, rich, midnight colored hair. That I could believe, any number of reasons that might be credible, but I am not about to be convinced that the majority will ever dive off into something as insane as adding or removing digits, limbs or tails, cat ears, hooves, et cetera. Odds strongly favor against that to be the outcome.

Even today in what is considered a "progressive culture" a fair amount of people hold that tattoos are still somehow taboo, even if only one. Body modification just takes that one step further until your concentric circles reach a point where the everyman will not tolerate it at all.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The definition of human is anything but arbitrary, @catchamber. It is so well defined that one could open up any dictionary and find the indexed portion dedicated to humans, whose qualities are generalized there.

No less, fringe groups as those will not become mainstream if the average person has any say in it, which they will by power of their aggregate number. This is common sense, not something one needs be enlightened into. You will not see some massive macro culture shift to anything near that degree of deviation. In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.

Physical attraction is complicated and varies across all human cultures, eras, and individual preferences (hence the fact that beauty is subjective). Some things are pretty universal: Scientifically, women tend to prefer masculine features and men who are taller than they are (usually a symbol of high testosterone, strength and sexual prowess); men tend to be attracted to women who are shorter than they are, have fuller lips, symmetrical faces, and large breasts (symbols of high estrogen levels and thus high fertility). Scientifically and evolutionarily, we prefer people whose features promise us reliable reproduction options: healthy, attractive, and strong children.

Medical Daily

We are speaking to statistical averages, not individual variations. You have previously demonstrated to me you take difficulty on me noting this from our prior conversations, so let me be up front; the normal person is, by the numbers, going to consistently identify the same or similar traits as what they find attractive as the next most averaged person. By working out from there, you develop a measurable trend until you reach the extremes of what people would willingly tolerate in social and cultural norms, especially in dominant First World countries who would unquestionably have access to widespread use of such technology before anyone else.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Until you have evidence otherwise that people are not going to behave like people, your contrarian claim's burden of proof is on you and you alone, @catchamber. This is a fact, one of several you have previously put effort to combat before. This is no different from those.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

People are still slaves to their own humanity unless they choose to free themselves from it, @catchamber. No amount of tampering with the human being, until you undo what it means to be human, will likely change something that core to people. Just because we are discussing the dangers of a what amounts to an extreme means that the general rules of our understandings go out the window. The majority of people will, by and large, stay true to what it is they know. Even in our age of multimedia and technology, this has only been continuously proven and is the exact reason I say that people will be influenced by rather than divert to.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Until you can show me a social dynamic that favors this, I am going to disagree based on historical evidence, @catchamber. I strongly doubt that the unusual or the extreme will ever overtake the norm, especially in an area people are as sensitive to as say, appearance. Any basic understanding of people will tell you that they will, habitually, favor what is known to them. It will unquestionably influence the norm, but a standard will emerge or persist to some length that has longstanding roots in what is known than unknown or different.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I agree there would be not bottling the genie at that point, @Kratesis. Once that door is open, no amount of legislation, intent or operation will ever keep it under wraps, even if need be. I fear the worst in such a case, but do consider me curiously optimistic. I believe people would narrow down what they want to a science as they oft do already.

I do not find that an entirely valid argument, @catchamber. You will see an advent of a subculture and nothing more. Even with something as powerful as genetic engineering, you will see a consistent average and standard arise that most will build within and around, especially as cultural and economic values would alter. This would be little different than the next evolution of counter-culture we have witnessed before and certainly, on a macro level, will not be influential or significant enough to change the outcomes.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

It is too easy to exploit what is generally considered beautiful, @catchamber. It has been narrowed down to a science, one that could be exploited by any industry and already is, with only added incentive in this scenario. Granted it varies some, but certain traits and qualities have always been viewed as preferred to others. I am certain you have seen or at least heard of the idealized human appearance. Granted it might not be to your particular tastes, or anyone else's here, but if we are staying strictly on the path of averages, that is a measurable advantage which will more often than not benefit rather than harm.

While I can assure you that what I find beautiful is not this norm, I would be a liar to say that I am not better predispositioned toward people who are considered conventionally attractive. This is generally true for most people as well.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Prion diseases are an usual sort, aren't they, @Penny?

I must agree there is no way around the matter, that they are an inevitability provided humanity keeps progressing, even if only at this rate. I also submit that the only way to mitigate these threats - of which I do consider to be tremendous - is to provide a set of doctrine which cannot be deviated from. While this is unlikely to happen, that some will still exploit these boons even if such a ruling came to pass, it is critical to ensuring that people are afforded as much of a fair start as they can be, prior to even their own birth. It concerns me even more when I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I would invest all of my resources into it were it a possibility, if only to better assure my offspring a future. I say this because I know too that my power to do so is not nearly as great as many others.

I do not worry about say, the color of their hair or eyes, but who would not want their child to be physically attractive or outright beautiful? Who would not them to have an intellect that is just five percent higher? Or the potential to have a higher threshold of maximum muscle mass? Or a high metabolism? On and on and on.

So great are these advantages that they are not an option. Worse yet, I would never dare trust the average person with them. I know that if I would have the temptation to exploit them that many would. No less, I would equally be doing a disservice by denying these opportunities to them because of my own bias; I would much rather they decide their own person and who they are above all else. In such a case I cannot, in good conscious, do this.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The argument of genetic augmentation and alteration is that once you start down that path, where does it end? You would need create some sort of regulatory standards that relate strictly to giving the unborn an advantage that is only preventive, so as to avoid some mental or physical defects; anything beyond quickly becomes rampant designer choices or removes the fairness of a randomly dealt hand, an experience we are all more or less currently subjected to. This is totally ignoring that a person's identity might be well tied into their defects. Is it sincere or really in the best interest of the child to tamper with something they had no choice in? They already do not choose their parents, let alone their strengths or weaknesses, so how is it better to make them into what the parents wish them to be? Especially in a context where they cannot just "easily" change that about themselves?

Unquestionably if this were a realistic option a good parent would attempt to act on this, hopefully for the right reasons of wanting the best for their child as @Kratesis said. What we all know is that people would exploit these ends and design children they want to love. It raises an uncomfortable question of, "If I were different than how my parents made me, would they still love me?" Children already question how much they are or are not loved extensively, even if not in active, continuous thought.

While I am a proponent of using genetic engineering to mitigate potential threats to life and wellness, I accept that I would almost rather that not be an option for it opens a doorway to greater abuse, assuming I must elect one option. I do not look forward to a world of supermen and superwomen. Not just because I revere nature, but because it sets a standard of no more equal opportunity. As it is, not all people are biologically equal as some have inherent advantages that no amount of training or practice can make up for, but they did not choose these traits or have them chosen for them; they received them in the way any one of us could have. Creating a gap as small as allowing cosmetic changes allows for impactful changes to be made by less scrupulous sorts.