| > You are very wrong in terms of both their message, and their purposes. They repeatedly refer to evolution's goals, but evolution has no goals. They are wrong, and I am citing the standard scientific references to evolutionary theory. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.... Quote: "One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive" The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive. > In fact, considering they're both respected professors ... While trying to engage in scientific debate, avoid this common logical error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > They consider this a "rise" in terms of what we, right now, consider to be better or worse. But that's wrong -- we cannot possibly know what nature has in store for us in the future. And no evolutionary process, natural or unnatural, can or should be described as a "rise". When applied to human beings, this smacks of eugenics, of engineering the "defects" out of people. It assumes that we understand nature better than we do, or that we can outwit nature, or that we can implement eugenic projects without destroying society. We keep proving that we can't do that. > In similar ways, rewriting our genetic code or making other changes to humanity can be considered an advancement from humanity's point of view. So it is a eugenic proposal. All the worse for us. Eugenics suffers from many serious defects, one being that we can't outwit nature, another being that implementing eugenic plans inevitably falls apart for practical and political reasons. Relating it to evolution is simply a way to give it a pseudoscientific gloss and put a respectable patina on a dangerous social idea. |
They're speaking metaphorically.
"The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive."
Like where? Where do they specifically say that?
"While trying to engage in scientific debate, avoid this common logical error:"
I wasn't arguing from authority. I did not say "they are authorities, believe what they say". I said that, since they are respected professors, you might want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you really believe that there is no chance that you are wrong and that you are misunderstanding them, and if the fact that they are both respected professors has zero relevance on whether you should at least try to see whether you might have misjudged them?
"But that's wrong -- we cannot possibly know what nature has in store for us in the future"
I'm just pointing out that you are now yourself talking as if "nature" had goals and purposes, exactly the behaviour you found troubling in their writings.
As for the rest of your post, I can't say I disagree with the facts, only with your opinions. Yes, we are discussing here things like changing people's genes, and yes, that means it is eugenics. No, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
More importantly to Bostrom's point, it doesn't matter what we think - people will start doing things like this in the (near?) future, we'd better be prepared for it.