Encounters with Psychopaths and Sociopaths

[Ideologue]

What I'm suggesting doesn't have anything to do with eliminating people that actually exist (that's a whole different pamphlet!).  It's about genetic counseling to prevent the births of those blighted with conditions that would lower their quality of life.  The whole thing would not too different than how we counsel people about diseases like Tays-Sachs and such now.  The technology is just about there.

Socially, we're also about to a point where we could implement the plan without insane consequences.

Of course, unless it turns out libertarianism is actually just a high-functioning form of sociopathy--who knows?--it's not like difference in opinion would vanish just because negative traits were removed before they could be expressed.  You'd still have politics; you'd still have artistic expression; you'd still have cultural differences.  It's all good.

And as the technology continues to advance, simple eugenics will be replaced by active manipulation of human DNA to produce people that are not just the most well-adjusted possible humans, but better than any human could possibly be.  Stronger, smarter, happier, longer-lived, more creative, able to see things in ways so different that you and I are unable to conceive them, which you seem to find so important.

It's about making people happier and better.

P.S. the only thing I am worried about in regards to losing genetic diversity is what could happen in the face of a pandemic; and that's not as easily waved away.

[LaCroix]

What I'm suggesting doesn't have anything to do with eliminating people that actually exist (that's a whole different pamphlet!).  It's about genetic counseling to prevent the births of those blighted with conditions that would lower their quality of life.  The whole thing would not too different than how we counsel people about diseases like Tays-Sachs and such now.  The technology is just about there.

Socially, we're also about to a point where we could implement the plan without insane consequences.

Of course, unless it turns out libertarianism is actually just a high-functioning form of sociopathy--who knows?--it's not like difference in opinion would vanish just because negative traits were removed before they could be expressed.  You'd still have politics; you'd still have artistic expression; you'd still have cultural differences.  It's all good.

And as the technology continues to advance, simple eugenics will be replaced by active manipulation of human DNA to produce people that are not just the most well-adjusted possible humans, but better than any human could possibly be.  Stronger, smarter, happier, longer-lived, more creative, able to see things in ways so different that you and I are unable to conceive them, which you seem to find so important.

It's about making people happier and better.

P.S. the only thing I am worried about in regards to losing genetic diversity is what could happen in the face of a pandemic; and that's not as easily waved away.

i don't think you understood my post

[Ideologue]

Perhaps not, although you used an example I never did, dyslexia, which I don't know enough even to say that it is a disease.

If it does not cause suffering in any meaningful sense, then I see no particular reason to use eugenics to screen against it.

The examples I used do cause suffering, and the highest-functioning depressive lacks utility in his or her life in comparison to someone who does not have the disease, pretty much by definition; the highest-functioning sociopath is an emotional, financial, or physical danger to other people, like our doctor friend who's trying to de-asshole himself through behavioral therapy but has spent decades being cruel to others.  I don't see how or why such "diversity" should be valued.  If it's a disease, it's a fucking disease; we didn't value polio for building character, we eradicated it.

[Razgovory]

I would have liked it if they were able to screen the crazy out of me.  Sure, I think differently then others, sometimes in creative ways that others do not, but it's not worth the trouble.

[LaCroix]

Perhaps not, although you used an example I never did, dyslexia, which I don't know enough even to say that it is a disease.

If it does not cause suffering in any meaningful sense, then I see no particular reason to use eugenics to screen against it.

The examples I used do cause suffering, and the highest-functioning depressive lacks utility in his or her life in comparison to someone who does not have the disease, pretty much by definition; the highest-functioning sociopath is an emotional, financial, or physical danger to other people, like our doctor friend who's trying to de-asshole himself through behavioral therapy but has spent decades being cruel to others.  I don't see how or why such "diversity" should be valued.  If it's a disease, it's a fucking disease; we didn't value polio for building character, we eradicated it.

we eradicated polio because it is physically infectious; it brings only harm. what you're suggesting is eradicating genes associated with a sizable percentage of the species. also, disease can be defined as "abnormal condition," which is a far more neutral way to put when discussing mental states

when i said normalizing the population, or thinking the same, i don't mean on the surface. i wasn't suggesting that it would make everyone's politics the same. i was referring to the deeper issue of how people think. you start zapping genes away and who knows what the result would be. take visualization, for example. einstein, tesla, ramanujan, etc. had abnormal visualization, which (at least in part) allowed them to make their discoveries. as mentioned here before, my old autistic undergrad professor has eidetic memory - a trait that seems to pop up every now and then in autistic savants. their extreme brilliance and near superhuman traits might very well be caused by the same genes that create your low-functioning suffering individuals. some (normal-functioning) people just generally think differently without having those extraordinary traits, and maybe that's a result of some gene somewhere that might be associated with one of your "diseases"

i don't feel everyone should think, feel, or experience the same way. that's the normalization i referred to

[Ideologue]

Genetic disorders are extremely physically infectious.  If your parent has a genetic disorder, you stand a significant chance of contracting it yourself.

As for potentially destroying the traits of our most gifted scientists, that's not really an argument against eugenics, that's an argument for how eugenics ought to be applied.  If they can be applied in such a way as to preserve cool traits like eidetic memory and being able to visualize physical models, while screening for the combination of genes that contribute to low-functioning autists, who can barely make do.  In other words, your objection is a technical one.

As for how people think or experience, that's shakier ground; but if people don't feel the same way, they should, if possible, feel the same thing, which is obviously happiness.

[garbon]

Happiness and entertainment? Is that all that there should be?

[Ideologue]

And intellectual pursuit, I suppose.

I probably define the two more broadly than I you're implying.

[LaCroix]

Genetic disorders are extremely physically infectious.  If your parent has a genetic disorder, you stand a significant chance of contracting it yourself.

As for potentially destroying the traits of our most gifted scientists, that's not really an argument against eugenics, that's an argument for how eugenics ought to be applied.  If they can be applied in such a way as to preserve cool traits like eidetic memory and being able to visualize physical models, while screening for the combination of genes that contribute to low-functioning autists, who can barely make do.  In other words, your objection is a technical one.

As for how people think or experience, that's shakier ground; but if people don't feel the same way, they should, if possible, feel the same thing, which is obviously happiness.

polio is not in the same classification as schizophrenia

we don't know how to apply eugenics because we don't know what sort of interactions will cause a fluke that creates an einstein. even if we did know, maybe it's a completely random chance that cannot be reenacted. furthermore, by messing with genes we might unintentionally prevent a positive abnormality from forming - one we wouldn't know of until it happened

your last point sounds like this whole exercise is a projection of some depression

[garbon]

your last point sounds like this whole exercise is a projection of some depression

Which oddly enough is where this tangent began.

[LaCroix]

Which oddly enough is where this tangent began.

that's what i get for not reading half a page

[Ideologue]

I am not.  My emotions inform me; they do not define me.

[LaCroix]

I am not.  My emotions inform me; they do not define me.

it's all part of the sum

[Ideologue]

I just hope they contribute to the big ol' mosaic of our world, I guess.