I understand “most people” locally—that’s most of those people who form your society and who influence your culture and political decisions. Were you thinking of some sort of global referendums and, by implication, a global government?
I don’t claim and don’t believe that this would work for times in the past.
Our present will be the past in the immediate future :-P
If you don’t trust the “past” people to change your gene pool, what makes you think “future” people will trust you to change their gene pool?
I understand “most people” locally—that’s most of those people who form your society and who influence your culture and political decisions. Were you thinking of some sort of global referendums and, by implication, a global government?
No, I was thinking of ideas that are so universal that they’re not even culture-dependent or politics-dependent to any significant degree. Pretty much every sighted person thinks blindness is bad.
If you don’t trust the “past” people to change your gene pool, what makes you think “future” people will trust you to change their gene pool?
Even though present-day people aren’t perfect and can make mistakes, the overall trend is asymptotically towards making fewer mistakes and the difference between past and present should not be the same as the difference between present and future. Furthermore, I don’t claim that what everyone agrees on would be exactly correct, only that the risk of being over-inclusive is not significant.
I was thinking of ideas that are so universal that they’re not even culture-dependent or politics-dependent to any significant degree.
Besides fixing gross genetic abnormalities (e.g. cleft palate and such), I am not sure what kind of universally acceptable traits can you gene-engineer.
the overall trend is asymptotically towards making fewer mistakes
8-0 That’s a huge claim that I don’t see much evidence for. Not to mention that it assumes objective unchanging criteria of what a “mistake” is. I smell hubris.
Besides fixing gross genetic abnormalities (e.g. cleft palate and such), I am not sure what kind of universally acceptable traits can you gene-engineer.
“Besides that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
Of course, that kind of abnormality is just what I was referring to.
Some types of mental retardation are such that everyone who does not have them would agree that they are bad to have.
On the other hand, psychopathy would fail on criterion 1; it can’t be defined well enough. (You could avoid mentioning a specific phenotype in your definition and instead define it as “has genes X, Y, and Z”, but it would then fail on criterion 3 since people would have little reason to oppose an arbitrary list of genes that is not connected to a specific phenotype.)
The Wikipedia artticle for it has a criticism section.
Also, giving and analyzing the test seems to involve lots of human judgment. Which means that in order for point 1 to be true, everyone will have to trust the judgment of test-givers. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
I understand “most people” locally—that’s most of those people who form your society and who influence your culture and political decisions. Were you thinking of some sort of global referendums and, by implication, a global government?
Our present will be the past in the immediate future :-P
If you don’t trust the “past” people to change your gene pool, what makes you think “future” people will trust you to change their gene pool?
No, I was thinking of ideas that are so universal that they’re not even culture-dependent or politics-dependent to any significant degree. Pretty much every sighted person thinks blindness is bad.
Even though present-day people aren’t perfect and can make mistakes, the overall trend is asymptotically towards making fewer mistakes and the difference between past and present should not be the same as the difference between present and future. Furthermore, I don’t claim that what everyone agrees on would be exactly correct, only that the risk of being over-inclusive is not significant.
Besides fixing gross genetic abnormalities (e.g. cleft palate and such), I am not sure what kind of universally acceptable traits can you gene-engineer.
8-0 That’s a huge claim that I don’t see much evidence for. Not to mention that it assumes objective unchanging criteria of what a “mistake” is. I smell hubris.
“Besides that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
Of course, that kind of abnormality is just what I was referring to.
So, nothing that touches the mind?
Some types of mental retardation are such that everyone who does not have them would agree that they are bad to have.
On the other hand, psychopathy would fail on criterion 1; it can’t be defined well enough. (You could avoid mentioning a specific phenotype in your definition and instead define it as “has genes X, Y, and Z”, but it would then fail on criterion 3 since people would have little reason to oppose an arbitrary list of genes that is not connected to a specific phenotype.)
What problem do you see with the Hare?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Hare checklist is the standard instrument for measuring psychopathy.
The Wikipedia artticle for it has a criticism section.
Also, giving and analyzing the test seems to involve lots of human judgment. Which means that in order for point 1 to be true, everyone will have to trust the judgment of test-givers. I don’t think that’s going to happen.