I never get an counter argument if I plainly call people out.
You need to show genuine interest to even get a grain of effort from their side.
After they horked over the link, you slap them around using arguments you pulled from their source.

Current A.I. is just a glorified calcuator, a pretty cool life/world changing calcuator yes, but a calcuator nonetheless.

No, it doesn't. The word means what it means. The part that makes it bad is that it's about breading a race. That necessarily implies an authority imposing its will on a large group of people. You can have transhumanism without eugenics. This is not complicated.

It's not some fluke of history that every time eugenics has been put into practice or proposed it's been a few people saying "I don't like these people, we should get rid of them. I like these other people: we should breed more of them." The concept is INHERENTLY BAD AT ITS VERY CORE.

When you do away with the idea of breeding a race (AKA: Eugenics). You're left with individual choice. Do I want a tail? yes! Do I want twelve arms? Nah. Should someone be forcing me to decide which traits are "good" or "bad"? FUCK NO!

i agree. it's to early to make any conclusions

For the same reason we make parents vaccinate their children and send them to school. Because we know what happens if you don't do that.

This is a sub about the future of humanity. How could it possibly be a-political? Get a brain...

>historically: being black or jewish or gay or any other variation of the human condition that isn't straight and white)

So this is actually false. The disreputable - as in, they are collected from data but are no longer discussed in polite academic company - studies on race and intelligence pretty much all found asians were smarter. Not white people. And for white people groups, subgroups of jewish people were the smartest.

I had a professor of human genetics who was aware of these studies, and his theory was that it was the western languages that gave westerners such overwhelming success for a period of time. It's the "operating system" not the hardware. And our large success with llms seems to suggest this is in fact correct, the hardware doesn't even need to be human!

So actually, no. In his opinion, the ubermensch was a kid from whichever asian subgroup has the highest IQ, with rich parents and growing up in a blue state in the USA... This was the "most successful" combination currently possible.

Also you gotta get real here. These differences are small. Every human is essentially mentally retarded compared to AI, both at tasks existing models are designed to do, and what they will soon be able to do.

You've completely ignored the whole part of Eugenics that makes it fraught with problems:

>Why impose your decisions on an entire race of people? Why not let individuals choose for themselves what traits they want or don't want?

I've repeated this so so so many times. It's not rocket science.

I think the definition of eugenics needs an update.

Old school mad Nazi scientist eugenics = bad

Transhumanist eugenics = good

Umm, think this came up a few days ago on here.

I support eugenics if the consequences of not doing it are significant and well known.

Like, it's one thing if your 'master race' is buncha people of a particular appearance who are still just humans and capable of losing.

On the other hand, if the edits make people, say:

(1) live for centuries (2) regenerate limbs (3) they are all smarter than the smartest people who ever lived (4) they are better in every sport all the time, with modified tissue that gives them superhuman strength and toughness (5) They all look like models, from age 15 to age 950.

Once you are talking about such vast improvements - something a super-intelligence could likely work out exactly how to do in a matter of a few years once one exists - it's arguably dooming any unedited child to, well, being retarded, ugly, and dead at 80.

In that situation, your "principals" have a crippling and large cost to someone not yet born.

Why can't you people stay on one subject for more than one reply. It's like debating flat earthers, I swear!

Do you, or do you not understand the difference between Eugenics and Transhumanism?

To answer your question:I think Bostrom is intentionally muddying the waters. I'd love to see him actually point to a single person who believes that genetic screening and diagnostics tools for IVF alone constitute eugenics.

The term has a very clear definition:

>Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

It's not just medicine. It's about breeding a race of people. It necessarily means there is some authority dictating what is desirable and what is undesirable for an entire population.

It has historically been used to horrific ends and it's pretty difficult to see how Bostrom himself might "redefine" it to be something less troubling or how eugenics could be used toward benevolent ends. Why impose your decisions on an entire race of people? Why not let individuals choose for themselves what traits they want or don't want?

Bostrom seems to believe in some form of Eugenics. That's clearly implied by:"Do I support eugenics? No, not as the term is commonly understood."

So there is some other definition of eugenics that he DOES support?All we get for an answer is what he thinks is overly broad (which definitely is NOT "the term as it is commonly understood". IVF genetic screening isn't "commonly understood" to be eugenics by any stretch of the imagination and I think Bostrom fucking knows that!

Does Bostrom believe that people working on such powerful technology should NOT be weary of the possible ill effect their work could have on society? Does he think that chastising the use of racial slurs and bigotry in the academic communication of such science places too much burden on scientists? Really?! That sounds pretty dumb.

>Post-human doesn't imply eugenics.

There's a lot of overlap.

>Eugenics is about breeding a "superior" race and the eradication of "undesirable traits".

I mean, I can afford to give my kids a lot of advantages. In ten years that might amount to some nifty germline edits for every one of my descendants going forward. Project that advantage into the future...

If people don't want to use my tax money to subsidize these for everyone else's kids, that's their choice.

>It necessarily implies an authority defining what traits are desirable for a large group of people (the "race" in question).

It's called the FDA. As much as I hate them, this is literally their job.

>It goes beyond breeding and race and the need to eradicate any specific trait.

Some traits need eradicating. It doesn't have to be controversial; just allow parents choice and subsidize the costs where reasonable. This is hardly unprecedented, even with touchy issues. Look at the abortion rates for fetuses with Down's syndrome.

"We made it up"

Hey, mods can you take this one down, please?

Would rather deal with the sensational environmental doom post.

Politics invades every sub I subscribe to like a virus. You are the virus carrier- trying to get us talking about who to cancel. Get a life.

I think that's a very good question and I think a smart person would realize that such ideas tread into problematic territory. I would hope that people working in the field would be very aware of the problematic history of eugenics and would understand complicated terrain they tread.

Nick Bostrom seems to believe that exercising caution in the exploration of such powerful technology is getting in the way of important science. He seems to think that scientists shouldn't be burdened with such silly things like how their work might negatively impact society or how they might be able to communicate their ideas without using racial slurs or whatever.

poggers

What is it exactly about Bostrom’s view that you disagree with? > In contemporary academic bioethics, the word “eugenics” is sometimes used in different and much broader sense, as including for example the view that prospective parents undergoing IVF should have access to genetic screening and diagnostic tools (as is currently the established practice in many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom). There is a rich bioethical literature on these issues (see e.g. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eugenics/), and it involves many complex moral considerations that cannot be captured in a single word or a slogan. I would be in favor of some uses and against others. Broadly speaking, I’m favorable to wide parental choice in these matters, including for some applications that would qualify as “enhancements” rather than “therapies”—to the extent that this distinction makes sense.

Looks like the mods are right. It is pathetic that you find eugenics so repulsive. To post it on a sub where most people are rethinking everything about society and expect support is naive.

While Eugenics did mean achieving Genetic superiority by forced breeding, I see it referred to by Genetic manipulation as well lately. We really need another word for it, but I can't think of an all-encompassing word that isn't Eugenics. It's also worth pointing out that Gene editing is not completely unlike Normal Eugenics. People might not be able to afford genetic modification, nor will it be guaranteed that those already alive can get modified or put in new bodies. If that ends up being a reality, then Gene modification will potentially be just as immoral as Eugenics, meaning they will be equivalent.

​

The future is not set in stone, nor is any form of utopia guaranteed. We must all advocate for the best possible world if we want to see what we want.

Ok, I get that your mad at him, but remember he was 22 when he wrote that article, and remember that this email was sent in 1995, a year prior the Bell Curve came out and started discussion on this again. It was in the vogue.

That's a good question! Don't let the mods catch you asking it! Apparently it's not ok to discuss this shit on r/singularity

According to Nick Bostrom, the inability to spout racist bullshit in academic circles without repercussions is preventing such discussions... somehow...

"A total fabrication" ;)

if it were available via govt subsidies, would it be ethical for parents to increase their child’s empathy or intelligence

[deleted]