SUBJ1

I think that reading (and hopefully understanding) The Selfish Gene should be a prerequisite to taking part in this discussion. Failure to do may give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually Bob, I get the "impression" that people don't know what they are talking about when they can't debate it in fewer words than a book, particularly a book they haven't written.

Oh look...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

...you had meme-twins! How cute!

Why don't we start here since this is the most important of theses, of the most important of all books, in the most authoritative of all wikis. Let's see, should I start with the section "Wha?!?" or the section "Attempt of explanation"?

Thank you for clarifying that. Or something.

You call this a debate? So far all I see is ignorant verbal wanking on your part, and good-faith attempts to explain things on the part of others. It is obvious that you are unaware of the extent of your ignorance, and are expecting others to spoon-feed you stuff you can easily grasp. News flash: teaching is hard work, something people get paid to do. You seem to think Bob will gladly do it for free in your case, in return for your insinuation that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Some things cannot be conveyed in a few pithy sentences, more so if the reader has not taken the trouble to come up to speed with what's previously been laid out. Suggesting that you read "The Selfish Gene" is actually a way of saving you time, the time you might otherwise have to spend sifting through Dawkins's sources.

"As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others."

Obviously, we are not all that way. How do you explain me? I prefer my "memetic" offspring who I have chosen, not an ancestral heirloom.

"This is why eugenics is counter to genetic evolution. I would gladly give my life for my children - my genetic offspring - and would make sacrifices for my tribe - my close genetic cousins. However expecting me to give up genetic survival for the sake of... of what? Some vague concept in the "improvement" of humanity?"

Let's take the extreme example of genetic engineering. Do you like absolutely everything about your genes? Say you had omniscient knowledge of your genome and your wife's genome, and you could combine germ cells, > select every gene, and control the entire process. Would you change nothing?

I prefer to make changes and choices in the world which actually confronts me. I do not think you appreciate the magnitude of a genome, nor the complexities of its expression.

Say you had omiscient knowledge of every grain of sand on your own private beach, and could select the size and shape of each one so that spectacular castles would spontaneously form from the typical range of wave action. Would you do so?

Yes. (I asked you (or Jack) first, though.)

It would seem that your point is back to, "you can't get any closer to intended results from selective breeding". I'm probably missing something again.

I would rather have cute babies form, because they are safer than meth.

No sane human would refuse safe genetic engineering for themselves or their unborn children, which shows that the "I want my genes to spread" argument against eugenics is nonsense.

"No sane human would refuse safe genetic engineering for themselves or their unborn children" begs the question, "is genetic engineering safe?"

We, as a species, do not yet have enough data for an informed opinion about that.

"I want my genes to spread." is not an "argument against eugenics" but rather a set of primordial urges built into biology. Going against those urges will take some serious police power of the state. Centrally planned bureaucratic control of human breeding? Who wishes for that again? Who thinks they can gather the authority to make it stick?

Of course genetic engineering is safe. It's just a matter of finding a safe way to do it.

Sex is an urge and the society expects us to control it, for males having children is rather irrelevant.

The Chinese do, and they manage it with heavy fines.

Genetic engineering is safe? There is no possible way we can know that. One more time, I do not think you appreciate the magnitude of a genome, nor the complexities of its expression. Throw in environmental/ecological interactions, and analysis is even less tractable. Taking risky, quite possibly far-reaching, steps based on unreliable projections is foolishness, to put it politely.

Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

"Males having children is rather irrelevant" ?? Bull. Not socially, not emotionally, and in most modern societies not financially.

Sex is one urge. Procreation is another, related but different.

Are you suggesting that we, wherever "we" are, should willingly adopt the Chinese model? Are you aware of the human suffering, the opportunities for authoritarian abuse there?

Central planning and micromanagement have a bad name, and for good reason. Tell us about the farming you've done, the livestock you keep, the children you have raised... I'll save myself some typing, and say "I didn't think so" right here.

Genetic engineering is safe. We can fall back to cloning.

"Bull." So do adopting parents get treated differently? No.

People in developed nations have far less children. Having children is attractive, but there is no "urge" beyond cultural. Humans don't even understand the mechanism to make children out of the box.

I am not suggesting that we adopt Chinese socialism, just pointing out that smacking a big fine on people who do criminal things does discourage them a lot. It is called enforcement.

If it's bad it's micromanagement, if it's good it's regulation.

Your saying so does not make genetic engineering safe. "We can always just fall back to cloning" is nothing but baseless hand-waving.

What type of regime will it be that criminalizes having babies?

Your saying so does not make genetic engineering safe. "We can always just fall back to cloning" is nothing but baseless hand-waving. What it does is it displays you are in denial. It is not at all an unreasonable assumption that there can be safe genetic engineering besides eugenics.

A regime that practices democracy, bringing many advantages.

Modified genes have already escaped into the wild, with effects that will not be known for a while. Even if you limit the discussion to engineering the human genome, there is still a risk of undesirable side effects. Assume it could be made safe; safe for what proportion of the population? How soon? At what cost?

I think you meant a regime that proclaims democracy. Plenty of examples of how that can go. Advantages to a small circle of friends, perhaps. Perhaps you believe you will be one of the select few?

Details aren't really significant. This exercise was designed to show that genetic engineering is desirable. If it becomes safe and available to a couple they will gladly use it. This will not leave their urges untreated and turn them into anarchists. In the light that eugenics is low-tech genetic engineering, why should a poorer couple reject eugenics?

What kind of benefits you think an Eugenics Party could deal out? Remember, Japanese pornography is not based on reality.