To me, the real turning point is if and when we learn how to precisely control our personalities—in short, reengineering human nature itself. Of course there’s the nature vs nurture matter in this, not to mention all the potential factors than even go into a personality, let alone alter it. But I’m 100% against uncontrolled transhumanism, or even mere unregulated genetic modification or augmentation.
Though, let’s suppose there was a way to correct obviously harmful behaviorial defects with at least a partial genetic basis, particularly behavior every society would see as egregiously harmful, and especially criminal (supposedly anti-social personality disorder- such as psychopathy—is one of these). Would the prospect of even reducing that behavior be worth it?
The dissonance is between the modifications you would like to see and the modifications which will dominate. Even if 99.999% wants to see a kinder, gentler, less psychopathic human, if there is one a-hole in the bunch who turns up psychopathic agression and reproduction drive in such a way that the resulting creature does pretty well, his result will dominate.
I would bet that personalities that will not kill off the other creatures who are genetically dangerous to them will never, over time, be on the winning side.
Not dominate, but force a mixed strategy; as I pointed out in another comment last week:
In game theory, whether social or evolutionary, a stable outcome usually (I’m tempted to say almost always) includes some level of cheaters/defectors.
Which requires the majority to have some means of dealing with them when they are encountered.
To me, the real turning point is if and when we learn how to precisely control our personalities—in short, reengineering human nature itself. Of course there’s the nature vs nurture matter in this, not to mention all the potential factors than even go into a personality, let alone alter it. But I’m 100% against uncontrolled transhumanism, or even mere unregulated genetic modification or augmentation.
Though, let’s suppose there was a way to correct obviously harmful behaviorial defects with at least a partial genetic basis, particularly behavior every society would see as egregiously harmful, and especially criminal (supposedly anti-social personality disorder- such as psychopathy—is one of these). Would the prospect of even reducing that behavior be worth it?
The dissonance is between the modifications you would like to see and the modifications which will dominate. Even if 99.999% wants to see a kinder, gentler, less psychopathic human, if there is one a-hole in the bunch who turns up psychopathic agression and reproduction drive in such a way that the resulting creature does pretty well, his result will dominate.
I would bet that personalities that will not kill off the other creatures who are genetically dangerous to them will never, over time, be on the winning side.
Not dominate, but force a mixed strategy; as I pointed out in another comment last week:
In game theory, whether social or evolutionary, a stable outcome usually (I’m tempted to say almost always) includes some level of cheaters/defectors.
Which requires the majority to have some means of dealing with them when they are encountered.