IQ is very difficult to measure because of the myriad ways intelligence manifests itself. Someone can be a total idiot when it comes to writing, and a total genius when it comes to math, and vice versa as well as many other scenarios.
And don't forget the "Savaant" examples where someone who initially seems mentally TRIBBLE turns out to be a genius.
I personally view IQ tests as a waste of time due to this fact until at least we can come up with a far superior method of testing.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Then again, sometimes major risk taking behavior is found in otherwise very intelligent people. The numbers of incredibly stupid and risky science experiments I've seen performed on YouTube for views, from people who know just enough about chemistry to know they'll create a big, showy reaction is just one of the many examples. Kinda goes to gradii's point about different kinds of intelligence.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
On the one hand, there are few who'd argue with correcting obvious physical issues, such as the cleft lip mentioned above.
On the other hand, there are those who'd edit out, for instance, autism, despite the fact that every human being who can be identified as having made a major contribution to the advancement of humanity has displayed traits of being on the autism spectrum (Tesla's our patron saint! And the letters of Einstein are pretty illuminating...). Then there's the idea of trying to edit astigmatism, despite its fairly harmless nature, or even selecting for sex or hair color.
On the gripping hand, comic books and Star Trek Lego genetics aside, once someone has reached a given point in their development, genetic alteration will do nothing - the genes have already expressed. Even immediately post-birth, the best you can hope for is epigenetics; the primary blueprint was set long before. If you want effective genetic therapy, you'd need to treat the embryo before it becomes a fetus, at which stage even a thorough genetic mapping could only give an opinion on whether a given genetic mutation will be expressed. Add to this the fact that most of the things we'd want to affect are governed by entire complexes of genes, not the simple switches once imagined, and the problem becomes unfathomably complex. Better not to TRIBBLE with things too much, in my opinion.
Just to offer a counter-point, how much of that may be coincidental? And how many of those historic figures are accurately and legitimately diagnosed, as opposed to contemporary values being transposed, and simply saying 'this fits'? Alan Turing, for example, was likely simply to be considered, at the best, as 'eccentric', and less charitably, as an 'odd ball' (his sexuality would likely not even be a factor in judgement, as it would not have been common knowledge to his peers, in the way such things are discussed nowadays) while I do agree with the premise, I am wary of applying it historically without valid diagnoses... Equally, I would have to ask how frequently autistic traits actually produce that kind of intense, if unconventional brilliance, rather than others who are less socialized and less able to function as independent adults? In terms of screening and editing out, does the possibility of brilliance, outweigh the likelihood of dysfunctionality enough, to take that gamble that someone showing those markers could indeed become the next Tesla, rather than someone who may need supervision their whole life? Is that a gamble a parent should be able to take? Would they then be liable, should their offspring then do something like the Data/Tasha situation... Would their parents be liable for bringing a life into the world which, through no fault of its own, does not easily understand, or may fail to pick up on social cues which a neurotypical individual would? (That's not intended to say that aspies are all potential date-rapists, just a hypothetical scenario for the thought experiment...) I think once that level of screening and editing becomes possible, the implications could be massive (such as in Gattaca, where the school wouldn't admit Vincent, because they wouldn't be able to get insurance to cover a faith birth, and job aptitudes were determined by genetic sequence...)
that goes into the whole nature versus nurture debate which has been raging unabated for a few centuries. Clearly both have some influence.... but we still lack the ability to quantify them.
Ah gene therapy and genetic engineering, that touchy subject that many Star Trek writers seems to struggle with.
Back when Roddenberry was the primary driver behind Star Trek we got the in-story Federation ban on genetic engineering. This decision was almost certainly informed by Gene's experiences in WWII, where the atrocities committed had largely destroyed the reputation of the philosophy behind eugenics.
Fast forward to today and we have a new generation of writers who didn't witness those events and have a much more forgiving view of the concept, creating internal conflict as writers try to reconcile the established ST world with their own views of what a utopian society should be.
DS9 was the first to really bring up the issue with Bashir being an augmented human. In that case the merits and flaws of the issue were largely discussed with equal weight being given to both sides of the argument. With the pro side pointing out the medical benefits that could be derived and the con side pointing out the destabilizing affects on society as it would inevitably create a sort of arms race as everything competed to create better people. In the end neither side was declared the winner of the argument and the audience was left to be the judge.
If you have read the Star Trek novels they are still wrestling with this issue, but often in a less civil manner. Probably the worst example I can recall was the Typhon Pact novel "Paths of Disharmony" where the issue was reduced to crude black and white morality with one side being declared morally superior and the other treated as villainous.
Sadly it has become to easy to turn an issue like this into an excuse to hurl insults at anyone with a differing view.
On one side we have the hypothetical benefits that could come from gene therapies to boost immune systems, screen for genetically passed diseases, and other health related treatments. There is a very appealing aspect to the idea of making life better for people using gene therapies, with the general argument being that if you can help improve somebodies life shouldn't you do it.
However this is counterbalanced by the social implications that comes from the ability to manipulate a person at the most fundamental levels. History has been dominated by the philosophy of centrally engineered societies where a small group dictates what the "good" of society should be and coerces people to go along with that ideal. For example, imagine a scenario where some genetics expert figured out the genes responsible for a persons sexual preferences and then offered a gene therapy "cure" for homosexuality. With sexuality being such a controversial topic it is almost inevitable that some demagogues would advocate for babies to be screened and "treated" for those "defective" genes.
There are genuine benefits that could be derived from gene therapy but also many opportunities for abuse. Like most things in life it comes down to trying to figure out where the responsible balance lies.
Ah gene therapy and genetic engineering, that touchy subject that many Star Trek writers seems to struggle with.
Back when Roddenberry was the primary driver behind Star Trek we got the in-story Federation ban on genetic engineering. This decision was almost certainly informed by Gene's experiences in WWII, where the atrocities committed had largely destroyed the reputation of the philosophy behind eugenics.
And I think this is part of why I align so well behind the Star Trek view of genetic engineering as a "For Real Emergencies Only" thing and NOT eugenics. I also think that if you're talking about the tech levels seen in the Star Trek universe, by the time things reach that level of sophistication, non-genetic remedies are going to be extremely advanced. That way there isn't even a slight stink of choosing who "deserves" to live and who is "unworthy of life."
Of course, the flip side of the whole idea that it is IMO wrong to decide who deserves and doesn't deserve life on the basis of their genetics alone is where I get the idea that it was wrong to punish Julian Bashir for the actions of his parents. He didn't have any say in it and he has proven he is as capable of being a good person as any other--that is to say, not perfect, but with no more propensity to be dangerous than anybody else. His parents should be made a major example of so that no one gets ideas that they should take the gamble of getting the Ultra Rare Julian Bashir (1x) card, but not him, in any way.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
but is it eugenics to bring all of humanity up to a base line? I don't mean we tamper with disabilities that aren't crippling such as a wide range of autism, or vision issues, or hearing issues... but intelligence below functional levels in which it's caused by the brain being unable to process specific information.
I don't mean bring down anyone, but if after a certain amount of time, such as the case of Bashier, the individual is shown to still have difficulties grasping basic concepts, we should lift them up a bit more toward the baseline... like a prod here and there, but nothing drastic.
but is it eugenics to bring all of humanity up to a base line? I don't mean we tamper with disabilities that aren't crippling such as a wide range of autism, or vision issues, or hearing issues... but intelligence below functional levels in which it's caused by the brain being unable to process specific information.
I don't mean bring down anyone, but if after a certain amount of time, such as the case of Bashier, the individual is shown to still have difficulties grasping basic concepts, we should lift them up a bit more toward the baseline... like a prod here and there, but nothing drastic.
The problem is who gets to define what the baseline is, how it is measured, and how changes are implemented. How do you define what intelligence is in the first place, the gift of free will means that everyone views things differently. Does believing an idea that goes against the accepted view constitute being unintelligent?
In the wrong hands an "uplift" program could quickly turn into re-education camps where those with undesired viewpoints would be sent to be reprogrammed to think "right". A quick look at history shows how quickly and easily something like this could be abused. The astronomer Galileo was punished by the ruling powers of his time for promoting ideas that challenged the established views of the time.
This doesn't even factor in the problem of escalation, as the populations average level increases there will be a tendency to try to raise the bar to stay competitive. To borrow a line from the movie The Incredibles, "when everyone is super no one will be". Whether it be people or entire civilizations there will always be a need to improve in order to prosper, and as such genetic augmentation will result in an endless escalation as everyone tries to stand out from the rest of the pack.
but is it eugenics to bring all of humanity up to a base line? I don't mean we tamper with disabilities that aren't crippling such as a wide range of autism, or vision issues, or hearing issues... but intelligence below functional levels in which it's caused by the brain being unable to process specific information.
I don't mean bring down anyone, but if after a certain amount of time, such as the case of Bashier, the individual is shown to still have difficulties grasping basic concepts, we should lift them up a bit more toward the baseline... like a prod here and there, but nothing drastic.
Yeah, there's a HUGE difference between tweaking people to have better genes and wiping out people with defective genes. That was the core issue.
The WW2 version of eugenics meant improving the population by "culling the herd", not by genetic tinkering. That was where the atrocities came in. The TRIBBLE ideal was far from reasonable or practical(they treated skin color as a defect). But they tried to enforce it anyways.
There is no real reason expect that a genetic "arms race" would actually result in the eradication of those not augmented.
In my story idea, the "normals" died out long ago, but long before they died out they had decided to improve themselves. Which was largely a too little, too late thing, but not due to genetics. It was more because the normals tried to do like Khan and thought they should rule the universe, IE they treated the augments like slaves. soo... revolt, yadda yadda.... interstellar war.... asteroid bombardment of Earth....
The problem is who gets to define what the baseline is, how it is measured, and how changes are implemented. How do you define what intelligence is in the first place, the gift of free will means that everyone views things differently. Does believing an idea that goes against the accepted view constitute being unintelligent?
In the wrong hands an "uplift" program could quickly turn into re-education camps where those with undesired viewpoints would be sent to be reprogrammed to think "right". A quick look at history shows how quickly and easily something like this could be abused. The astronomer Galileo was punished by the ruling powers of his time for promoting ideas that challenged the established views of the time.
Thank you. The idea that disagreement equals stupidity or inferiority seems even more entrenched today, given the lowered quality of civil discourse that now exists thanks to the Internet and 24-hour media. I am not keen on seeing someone try to act based on such a patronizing assumption. (To be clear: I am not accusing you of that assumption. )
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
The problem is who gets to define what the baseline is, how it is measured, and how changes are implemented. How do you define what intelligence is in the first place, the gift of free will means that everyone views things differently. Does believing an idea that goes against the accepted view constitute being unintelligent?
In the wrong hands an "uplift" program could quickly turn into re-education camps where those with undesired viewpoints would be sent to be reprogrammed to think "right". A quick look at history shows how quickly and easily something like this could be abused. The astronomer Galileo was punished by the ruling powers of his time for promoting ideas that challenged the established views of the time.
Thank you. The idea that disagreement equals stupidity or inferiority seems even more entrenched today, given the lowered quality of civil discourse that now exists thanks to the Internet and 24-hour media. I am not keen on seeing someone try to act based on such a patronizing assumption. (To be clear: I am not accusing you of that assumption. )
I wouldn't blame the media, not solely. Modern science is becoming increasingly dogmatic and stale. This creates the same sort of environment, but for a somewhat different reason. A lot of people really take it on FAITH rather than evidence, which is kinda pathetic. As someone once said "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". Faith and science are opposing methods of approaching a situation.
but is it eugenics to bring all of humanity up to a base line? I don't mean we tamper with disabilities that aren't crippling such as a wide range of autism, or vision issues, or hearing issues... but intelligence below functional levels in which it's caused by the brain being unable to process specific information.
I don't mean bring down anyone, but if after a certain amount of time, such as the case of Bashier, the individual is shown to still have difficulties grasping basic concepts, we should lift them up a bit more toward the baseline... like a prod here and there, but nothing drastic.
As long as the lowered mental capacity is due to genetics then sure, it should be treated exactly like any other defect.
But then again I have little problem with eugenics (for uplift or improvement) as long as it is applied rationally and fairly with reasonable safeguards.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I wouldn't blame the media, not solely. Modern science is becoming increasingly dogmatic and stale. This creates the same sort of environment, but for a somewhat different reason. A lot of people really take it on FAITH rather than evidence, which is kinda pathetic. As someone once said "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". Faith and science are opposing methods of approaching a situation.
Personally I would call the problem one of excessive pride, than faith (since that means admitting one doesn't know everything). We should be more humble in our approach to science, recognizing that we don't know it all, and that it is not a bad thing to admit that. I'd say if we could bring more of the honest curiosity and the joy in the investigation that a child has, and that lack of embarrassment in asking why and knowing that we don't have all of the answers, that would not be a bad thing. Compared to the enormity and the complexity of all that's out there, we really are very much still "children" and we might do better to emulate them in that respect as opposed to thinking we know everything worth knowing or falling prey to confirmation bias and thus misinterpreting or subconsciously (or even consciously) skewing our data.
But the reason I called out the media/internet is because it has to do with the attitude that we ourselves put into it and then get right back out from it. The results of our own crass behavior online are IMO our own fault. We feed immaturity and rudeness in, and then act surprised when we get it back.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
@gulberat nobody involved in science has ever or will ever pretend to know everything. That's what drives science forward, looking for the answers. Not sitting on our collective laurels. Anyone who claims to know everything is lazy or lieing.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
@gulberat nobody involved in science has ever or will ever pretend to know everything. That's what drives science forward, looking for the answers. Not sitting on our collective laurels. Anyone who claims to know everything is lazy or lieing.
you're taking "everything" too literally. He's talking about how in some cases people will try to say that anything that doesn't fit their view is obviously wrong.
For example, the people that have tried to date the Earth...
I can't quote on mobile but; 'we need to be more humble in our aproch to science, recognising that we don't know it all' that's the part I took issue with. It didn't make sense considering the very definition of science.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
but is it eugenics to bring all of humanity up to a base line? I don't mean we tamper wiTo borrow a line from the movie The Incredibles, "when everyone is super no one will be".
It's an often cited saying, but people seem to forget that it was from the villain.
If everyone is immune to Measles and no one can get Alzheimers anymore, that would still be pretty awesome.
@gulberat nobody involved in science has ever or will ever pretend to know everything. That's what drives science forward, looking for the answers. Not sitting on our collective laurels. Anyone who claims to know everything is lazy or lieing.
He'd be lazy AND lying.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Markhawkman correctly understood my meaning. I am surprised that anyone would think I meant "know everything" in a perfectly literal sense, but when you consider how some ostensibly capable scientists sometimes allow confirmation bias (essentially working backwards from what one thinks to be a foregone conclusion) to blind them to flaws in data and experimental design, then such an attitude can be a problem for real scientific advancement. Not to say it always happens, but it can.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
That way there isn't even a slight stink of choosing who "deserves" to live and who is "unworthy of life."
Define 'stink'... Parents deciding that they need to terminate a child is not 'a stink', but a massively complex, emotionally wracking and draining process which I pray to God you never have to go through. We (my wife and I) Do Not for one second think that a child with Downs is 'unworthy of life'... We decided that they did not deserve to live with the condition and the lifetime of stigma, burden and hostility which they would have endured. Massive difference, and absolutely not 'a stink' by any morally self-righteous definition!
but is it eugenics to bring all of humanity up to a base line? I don't mean we tamper with disabilities that aren't crippling such as a wide range of autism, or vision issues, or hearing issues... but intelligence below functional levels in which it's caused by the brain being unable to process specific information.
I don't mean bring down anyone, but if after a certain amount of time, such as the case of Bashier, the individual is shown to still have difficulties grasping basic concepts, we should lift them up a bit more toward the baseline... like a prod here and there, but nothing drastic.
Yes, it is eugenics. The word itself has the same kind of reputation now, and is frequently taken as another term for racism+ ie it's no longer enough to hate [Insert ethnicity of choice here] but having to breed something Better and Purer... (Not the implication you intended, I admit, but it is an intent by which the term is known, so worth mentioning)
The issue, as has been mentioned upthread, is 'who gets to set the bar'? What happens when the bar shifts? What happens when the bar shifts again? Where does that actually stop? In another debate, I made reference to the Model T and the Bugatti Veyron, and will do so again here, as it is an apt comparison: Manufacturing a superior product. At one time, the Model T was considered innovative and cutting edge, and an upgrade from a horse which could only go so far before having to be rested. Now, even by the most 'standard' family car, it is laughably obsolete, and I believe Bugatti has already released a successor to the Veyron... Where does it stop...? And thus with gene engineering... First it's just used to screen for serious congenital defects... Then it's used to screen for 'less desirable' defects such as myopia, because hey, who wants to be short-sighted? Why be short-sighted if you don't have to? Then it's used for things like height and strength... We can even see that today from the days of slavery in America... Back then, they bred the strongest slaves to the strongest slaves to get stronger slaves... Now, we see the guys playing in the NBA and NFL... Guys who are massively tall and strong with honed reactions which are considerably above 'the average guy'... (ignoring the steroid abuse ) I have a friend in the US (short, white, typically average lady) who's college-age son is already 6'6 and playing basketball (maybe even a star of tomorrow, who knows...) (oh yeah, he's bi-racial...) so that genetics clearly passes on... So while I absolutely agree that gene-therapy has benefits and applications, my concern, if it was to involve bring all humanity up to a baseline, is 'who defines the baseline' and 'where does it stop' when someone decides to re-define it...?
Nice context fail. I was replying to lordrezeon regarding what Roddenberry's experience of eugenics was when he created the show, which would have been greatly informed by World War II and avoiding leaving any opening to suggest that the society in Star Trek engaged in practices resembling those that were still fresh on the minds of a lot of people back then. Your choice to interject yourself into it to create for yourself an opportunity to make a personal swipe is your own. If you're interested in another round of invective, by all means be my guest, but you will be talking to yourself.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Nice context fail. I was replying to lordrezeon regarding what Roddenberry's experience of eugenics was when he created the show, which would have been greatly informed by World War II and avoiding leaving any opening to suggest that the society in Star Trek engaged in practices resembling those that were still fresh on the minds of a lot of people back then. Your choice to interject yourself into it to create for yourself an opportunity to make a personal swipe is your own. If you're interested in another round of invective, by all means be my guest, but you will be talking to yourself.
Given that the topic involves how gene therapy may be used, it is impossible to discuss it without how it impacts on individuals, parents and prospective parents, and how they will be judged for their procreative choices. Even if discussing a society as a whole, that then brings the issue of State Determined intervention taking the right to decision away from the individuals, which I personally find even more scary than the idea of 'sliding scales' which are then enforced on individual parents by social peer pressure... So using terms like 'a stink of choosing' without very careful definition of them, is antagonistic and provocative, especially to those who have already had to make such decisions, already deal with such stigma from reactionary pro-lifers, and would not wish that choice on anyone else... (and given that I had made that statement upthread, it was not unreasonable to consider it as being under reference) Feel free to ignore me, just remember that there are people behind the screens who, regadless of forum announcement, are already dealing with these issues...
I posted my last post here at about 7:30 am on the bus to work using the shoddiest wi-fi I've ever encountered on a phone that doesn't allow me to quote and I lucky if it allows me to see the right hand sides of peoples posts meaning I often miss the ends of peoples sentences.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
The very definition of "eugenics" requires that those deemed "inferior" be removed from the gene pool. The Final Solution differed from the older American version only in who exactly was included among the "inferior", and how exactly they were to be removed (the American solution favored forced sterilization rather than mass graves). However, eugenics is still the pseudoscience of "improving the breed", whether you want to do it by overwhelming force or by the lesser force of simply preventing the "unworthy" from having children.
And parts of this conversation are taking an ugly turn toward believing that I should have been among those sterilized, that my children (profoundly autistic daughter, mildly autistic/ADHD son) are among those genetically "flawed" who should not have been permitted to exist because their futures will never be typical. This is not to say that they have no futures - Iain in particular has horizons limited only by his own interests - but since they can't be mapped to the same arc as a neurotypical child, they are less "worthy" of life. Can't say I care for that tone. (And once one starts down that line, how long until I'm among the "unworthy"? I'm on the spectrum as well, and my path has hardly been what one might call "normal"...)
Comments
And don't forget the "Savaant" examples where someone who initially seems mentally TRIBBLE turns out to be a genius.
I personally view IQ tests as a waste of time due to this fact until at least we can come up with a far superior method of testing.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
Back when Roddenberry was the primary driver behind Star Trek we got the in-story Federation ban on genetic engineering. This decision was almost certainly informed by Gene's experiences in WWII, where the atrocities committed had largely destroyed the reputation of the philosophy behind eugenics.
Fast forward to today and we have a new generation of writers who didn't witness those events and have a much more forgiving view of the concept, creating internal conflict as writers try to reconcile the established ST world with their own views of what a utopian society should be.
DS9 was the first to really bring up the issue with Bashir being an augmented human. In that case the merits and flaws of the issue were largely discussed with equal weight being given to both sides of the argument. With the pro side pointing out the medical benefits that could be derived and the con side pointing out the destabilizing affects on society as it would inevitably create a sort of arms race as everything competed to create better people. In the end neither side was declared the winner of the argument and the audience was left to be the judge.
If you have read the Star Trek novels they are still wrestling with this issue, but often in a less civil manner. Probably the worst example I can recall was the Typhon Pact novel "Paths of Disharmony" where the issue was reduced to crude black and white morality with one side being declared morally superior and the other treated as villainous.
Sadly it has become to easy to turn an issue like this into an excuse to hurl insults at anyone with a differing view.
On one side we have the hypothetical benefits that could come from gene therapies to boost immune systems, screen for genetically passed diseases, and other health related treatments. There is a very appealing aspect to the idea of making life better for people using gene therapies, with the general argument being that if you can help improve somebodies life shouldn't you do it.
However this is counterbalanced by the social implications that comes from the ability to manipulate a person at the most fundamental levels. History has been dominated by the philosophy of centrally engineered societies where a small group dictates what the "good" of society should be and coerces people to go along with that ideal. For example, imagine a scenario where some genetics expert figured out the genes responsible for a persons sexual preferences and then offered a gene therapy "cure" for homosexuality. With sexuality being such a controversial topic it is almost inevitable that some demagogues would advocate for babies to be screened and "treated" for those "defective" genes.
There are genuine benefits that could be derived from gene therapy but also many opportunities for abuse. Like most things in life it comes down to trying to figure out where the responsible balance lies.
And I think this is part of why I align so well behind the Star Trek view of genetic engineering as a "For Real Emergencies Only" thing and NOT eugenics. I also think that if you're talking about the tech levels seen in the Star Trek universe, by the time things reach that level of sophistication, non-genetic remedies are going to be extremely advanced. That way there isn't even a slight stink of choosing who "deserves" to live and who is "unworthy of life."
Of course, the flip side of the whole idea that it is IMO wrong to decide who deserves and doesn't deserve life on the basis of their genetics alone is where I get the idea that it was wrong to punish Julian Bashir for the actions of his parents. He didn't have any say in it and he has proven he is as capable of being a good person as any other--that is to say, not perfect, but with no more propensity to be dangerous than anybody else. His parents should be made a major example of so that no one gets ideas that they should take the gamble of getting the Ultra Rare Julian Bashir (1x) card, but not him, in any way.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I don't mean bring down anyone, but if after a certain amount of time, such as the case of Bashier, the individual is shown to still have difficulties grasping basic concepts, we should lift them up a bit more toward the baseline... like a prod here and there, but nothing drastic.
The problem is who gets to define what the baseline is, how it is measured, and how changes are implemented. How do you define what intelligence is in the first place, the gift of free will means that everyone views things differently. Does believing an idea that goes against the accepted view constitute being unintelligent?
In the wrong hands an "uplift" program could quickly turn into re-education camps where those with undesired viewpoints would be sent to be reprogrammed to think "right". A quick look at history shows how quickly and easily something like this could be abused. The astronomer Galileo was punished by the ruling powers of his time for promoting ideas that challenged the established views of the time.
This doesn't even factor in the problem of escalation, as the populations average level increases there will be a tendency to try to raise the bar to stay competitive. To borrow a line from the movie The Incredibles, "when everyone is super no one will be". Whether it be people or entire civilizations there will always be a need to improve in order to prosper, and as such genetic augmentation will result in an endless escalation as everyone tries to stand out from the rest of the pack.
The WW2 version of eugenics meant improving the population by "culling the herd", not by genetic tinkering. That was where the atrocities came in. The TRIBBLE ideal was far from reasonable or practical(they treated skin color as a defect). But they tried to enforce it anyways.
There is no real reason expect that a genetic "arms race" would actually result in the eradication of those not augmented.
In my story idea, the "normals" died out long ago, but long before they died out they had decided to improve themselves. Which was largely a too little, too late thing, but not due to genetics. It was more because the normals tried to do like Khan and thought they should rule the universe, IE they treated the augments like slaves. soo... revolt, yadda yadda.... interstellar war.... asteroid bombardment of Earth....
My character Tsin'xing
Thank you. The idea that disagreement equals stupidity or inferiority seems even more entrenched today, given the lowered quality of civil discourse that now exists thanks to the Internet and 24-hour media. I am not keen on seeing someone try to act based on such a patronizing assumption. (To be clear: I am not accusing you of that assumption.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My character Tsin'xing
As long as the lowered mental capacity is due to genetics then sure, it should be treated exactly like any other defect.
But then again I have little problem with eugenics (for uplift or improvement) as long as it is applied rationally and fairly with reasonable safeguards.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Personally I would call the problem one of excessive pride, than faith (since that means admitting one doesn't know everything). We should be more humble in our approach to science, recognizing that we don't know it all, and that it is not a bad thing to admit that. I'd say if we could bring more of the honest curiosity and the joy in the investigation that a child has, and that lack of embarrassment in asking why and knowing that we don't have all of the answers, that would not be a bad thing. Compared to the enormity and the complexity of all that's out there, we really are very much still "children" and we might do better to emulate them in that respect as opposed to thinking we know everything worth knowing or falling prey to confirmation bias and thus misinterpreting or subconsciously (or even consciously) skewing our data.
But the reason I called out the media/internet is because it has to do with the attitude that we ourselves put into it and then get right back out from it. The results of our own crass behavior online are IMO our own fault. We feed immaturity and rudeness in, and then act surprised when we get it back.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
For example, the people that have tried to date the Earth...
My character Tsin'xing
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
If everyone is immune to Measles and no one can get Alzheimers anymore, that would still be pretty awesome.
He'd be lazy AND lying.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My character Tsin'xing
Yes, it is eugenics. The word itself has the same kind of reputation now, and is frequently taken as another term for racism+ ie it's no longer enough to hate [Insert ethnicity of choice here] but having to breed something Better and Purer... (Not the implication you intended, I admit, but it is an intent by which the term is known, so worth mentioning)
The issue, as has been mentioned upthread, is 'who gets to set the bar'? What happens when the bar shifts? What happens when the bar shifts again? Where does that actually stop? In another debate, I made reference to the Model T and the Bugatti Veyron, and will do so again here, as it is an apt comparison: Manufacturing a superior product. At one time, the Model T was considered innovative and cutting edge, and an upgrade from a horse which could only go so far before having to be rested. Now, even by the most 'standard' family car, it is laughably obsolete, and I believe Bugatti has already released a successor to the Veyron... Where does it stop...? And thus with gene engineering... First it's just used to screen for serious congenital defects... Then it's used to screen for 'less desirable' defects such as myopia, because hey, who wants to be short-sighted? Why be short-sighted if you don't have to? Then it's used for things like height and strength... We can even see that today from the days of slavery in America... Back then, they bred the strongest slaves to the strongest slaves to get stronger slaves... Now, we see the guys playing in the NBA and NFL... Guys who are massively tall and strong with honed reactions which are considerably above 'the average guy'... (ignoring the steroid abuse
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Given that the topic involves how gene therapy may be used, it is impossible to discuss it without how it impacts on individuals, parents and prospective parents, and how they will be judged for their procreative choices. Even if discussing a society as a whole, that then brings the issue of State Determined intervention taking the right to decision away from the individuals, which I personally find even more scary than the idea of 'sliding scales' which are then enforced on individual parents by social peer pressure... So using terms like 'a stink of choosing' without very careful definition of them, is antagonistic and provocative, especially to those who have already had to make such decisions, already deal with such stigma from reactionary pro-lifers, and would not wish that choice on anyone else... (and given that I had made that statement upthread, it was not unreasonable to consider it as being under reference) Feel free to ignore me, just remember that there are people behind the screens who, regadless of forum announcement, are already dealing with these issues...
I posted my last post here at about 7:30 am on the bus to work using the shoddiest wi-fi I've ever encountered on a phone that doesn't allow me to quote and I lucky if it allows me to see the right hand sides of peoples posts meaning I often miss the ends of peoples sentences.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And parts of this conversation are taking an ugly turn toward believing that I should have been among those sterilized, that my children (profoundly autistic daughter, mildly autistic/ADHD son) are among those genetically "flawed" who should not have been permitted to exist because their futures will never be typical. This is not to say that they have no futures - Iain in particular has horizons limited only by his own interests - but since they can't be mapped to the same arc as a neurotypical child, they are less "worthy" of life. Can't say I care for that tone. (And once one starts down that line, how long until I'm among the "unworthy"? I'm on the spectrum as well, and my path has hardly been what one might call "normal"...)