Trade agreements...

[jjj]

...how do you get over six billion people to live in perfect harmony? And doesn't one unharmonious, unscrupulous person have the potential to ruin everything?

Of course to change humankind for such an extent would require hundreds of years mass reformation and re-education. Now we are besieged by ambitions of evil and worked damn hard to entrench it.
It's as bad as an addiction.
Even if we manage it after 8oo years or so, we still would need to safeguard infringements with conventional security precautions, such as police and jails. But, eventually we would be able to weed out all evil, because it would become 'unpopular', like dictatorship & communism.

In time to come many philosophical fora are going to think of how to progress human living conditions and that about it what they'll dream up. Unless of course, as mentioned, scientific progress enables us tailor humankind. It will be hard for mighty power brokers to relinguish their grip. They are going plan how to procrastinate the process...

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I really, really don't think we can weed out all evil in mankind. The desire to do something for our own gain at he expense of others (as I would suppose we've defined evil) is part of what we are--otherwise, I rather doubt it would have started ever if it wasn't.

I also agree with 'Paca. On a small scale, your idea (and various others, such as pure democracy) is possible, but the larger the group, the more complex and unwieldy it would get. Therefore making it less and less functional and feasible.

[Alpaca]

Unless of course, as mentioned, scientific progress enables us tailor humankind.

Before I formulate any opinion on that statement, may I ask a clarifying question about it?

Are you merely listing that as a method of changing people, or are you outright advocating eugenics?

[jjj]

...really, really don't think we can weed out all evil in mankind.

Theoretically it's and stays feasible; it's rather than our addiction to negative actions is so deep ingrained that we just are unwilling and so, unable to decide on changing for the better. That's all there's to it! How come that I can am willing to do it and really mean it? Not meaning to 'un-humble myself... but my dearest aunt 'Tante Mieze', who mothered me the first 9 years of my life in Czechoslovakia, told me that I have not to thank her for anything, because I was sooo easily to raise and didn't cause problems at all! (i.e.,if I inherited devilish traits, she wouldn't have said the same). Thus, we all received divers amounts of pos/neg traits and therefore we all would require diverse levels of reformation of the sub conscience. Of course as things stand at the moment, I have no alternative that to join the mutual rip-off game.

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] The goals of various groups advocating eugenics have been to create healthier, more intelligent people, to save society's resources, and lessen human suffering.

If it is in that sense, I guess we have no option than to go for it, but please don't drag Hitler into it... won't you?  . This sick man was a bad philosopher of the past! That's why I don't want to read/ learn a thing from him; except how to avoid these sorts of philosophical monsters.

[Alpaca]

Alright, so while I would agree with you that a case can be made for general self-improvement, what do you think of the specific methods advocated by supporters of eugenics?

For instance, would you support "forcing" natural selection by eliminating those who can't shed their "negative traits" from the gene pool? Would you support genetic modification to "improve" people?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Hey, natural selection makes us more stupid because -it's now proven- smarter people have less children (or none at all). 

Instead of eugenics we could allow polygamy/polyandry for those with higher IQs (or tax incentives... ).

[Alpaca]

Yeah, well, the Russians are trying something like that...

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

I like to conduct a test case study on an isolated island with say, two couples having children there and live off the land (with regular shipments of basic, needed supplies) and no contact with other cultures, no radio, no Internet, not TV. If they teach their children how to reject their inherited, negative traits... they stand a good chance to gradually weed them out.

There's already something similiar on TV - it's called Big Brother...

Just kidding. Anyway, I don't think this "project" could work. For several reasons:

1. Inbreeding - basically, due to the fact that there are only two couples there, it could (and probably would) come to inbreeding eventually and genetic malformations during the years.

2. Isolation - this particular isolation may lead to "weeding-out" of some negative traits. But in case of a success, you'd probably want to "plant" these "pure" individuals back into society, you don't want a human being with no negative traits beeing isolated. Now imagine what a shock it would be to bring such an individual back into the social "jungle"... (ever saw the movie "Twins" with Schwarzenegger? You would probably get a similiar result, but without the happy end. It's enough to think about the girl, who has been raised by the wolfes, a reintegration into the society was impossible.)

3. "Regular shipment of basic, needed supplies" - how do you want to "weed-out" the negative traits, if you don't let the individuals make their own way through. If you give them everything they need to survive, they wouldn't be able to "earn" their living by themselves. You would spoil them. And I think that being spoiled could be seen as a negative trait.

4. Genetics - you throw around the term genetics a lot. By that I mean inherited traits. The parents must have some negative traits, won't their children inherit them?

5. Isolation II - "No contact to other cultures" - IMO, thanks to an interaction between different cultures, people are able to form opinions, become individuals and maybe even "weed-out" some of their negative traits. Every culture has its positive and negative sides. If you live in only one culture, without contact to different people than those thinking like you, you lose the possibility of improving yourself. You'll just have the opinion your parents "planted" in your head, no chance of self-improvement, no chance of loosing your "negative traits."

6. Boredom - The two couples and their children would eventually get bored or start getting on their nerves, as it's oftenly the case when you get a small group of people isolated. Think about the negative traits they would develop in that case. IMO, they would eventually start "killing" each other, both physically and mentally.

Hey, natural selection makes us more stupid because -it's now proven- smarter people have less children (or none at all). 

You saw the movie "Idiocracy", haven't you?

[jjj]

For instance, would you support "forcing" natural selection by eliminating those who can't shed their "negative traits" from the gene pool? Would you support genetic modification to "improve" people?

Although this would huge moral implication, I would endorse most necessary steps to get the best result for humankind. Now that scientists know the genetic code it's only a matter of time until they start manipulating it to heal people. One day it might it will become possible to cure a person with inherited criminal (or homosexual) traits. Since every trait has its markers, they are then identified and deactivated: just like a computer program.

...an isolated island with say, two couples

Yes, I agree this 'fairytale' is too complicated. Also it would take several generations to effectively weed out all negative traits; even with the best reformation program, because our evil traits are too deep ingrained. It took millennia to perfect their negativity. I give up! Yet, I still insist that I am willing and able to dismantle them... right now! Sadly, in the present (nasty) ideological climate I still need to apply them as defense weapon or I'll be 'processed' by sordid capitalist monsters and the 40 robbers!   

I guess for now there's little hope to cleanse masses of people The only feasible way would be to get a sizable amount of people to do it. They still would need to live on an island in a neutral environment (as described) for several generation. They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline. Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule. (Punishment?) Yes, we are already all sizzling in capitalist hell!!
In German we used to say: 'Wie man sich bettet so schlaeft man!' (One sleeps as one makes/ prepares one's bed!)

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

One day it might it will become possible to cure a person with inherited criminal (or homosexual) traits

Are you trying to say that it's equal to be homosexual and a criminal??!!

Homosexuality isn't an illness, it's not something we would cure!!! At this moment, you sounded like a "religious" nutjob. I hope it's just a misunderstanding......

____________________________________________________________

On a sidenote, I'm still a little confused about the use of words like "reforming, "re-educating" and especially "cleansing" humankind. But I slowly start to understand what you mean.

I'm a slightly in conflict with the idea of bringing people under isolation to "improve" them. I gave you the reasons why above. Now, there's one more reason, why I think it couldn't work:

They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline.

We've seen things like that happening before, with various sects, religious groups, serious nutjobs, etc. How do you want to make sure that the one offering "philosophical guidance" does not get corrupted by the power? Even the most philosophically and psychologically "pure" people can get corrupted, when they realise they have power over people.

[jjj]

Are you trying to say that it's equal to be homosexual and a criminal??!!

No, one is the one and the other is of course the other, yet they all can be identified in the genetic code.

Homosexuality isn't an illness, 

You are entitled to your opinion. Nature's laws allow us to interpret their implied meaning on almost anything and so, we are free to enjoy our interpretations. It's not for me to decide/ argue whose interpretation is more/ less logically correct (without the need to take moral/religious consideration into account). The fact that the truth is independent of public opinion, allows us to air our opinions, without the need to enter into competition on who is right/wrong and just stay 'cool brothers' and forget all about 'warm brother's ambitions  .

We've seen things like that happening before, with various sects, religious groups, serious nutjobs, etc.

I have seen it, too. The difference here is that it's not to do with religion, sects etc, but neutral philosophical aspirations to rid humankind of inherited/ acquired negative traits and foster the positive ones.

How do you want to make sure that the one offering "philosophical guidance" does not get corrupted by the power? Even the most philosophically and psychologically "pure" people can get corrupted, when they realise they have power over people.

By supervising the process democratically; i.e. by a group of dedicated, philosophically qualified individuals (l.e. not by one person or a dictator).
The very fact that we overly concerned with corruption and other threats unwittingly discloses our deep-rooted association with negative traits. Once we get rid of our negative consideration we will be free to only worry about the positive ones and its benefits!

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

I have seen it, too. The difference here is that it's not to do with religion, sects etc, but neutral philosophical aspirations to rid humankind of inherited/ acquired negative traits and foster the positive ones.

How can a philosophy be neutral? IMO, every philosophy is based on some personal experience, thus it is impossible to make it objective and neutral. Even you must admit, that even your philosophy is your personal view of things, thus not neutral at all.

And btw, every religion is a philosophy in it's own way, and every group can say that their philosophy is the right/best for humankind.

By supervising the process democratically; i.e. by a group of dedicated, philosophically qualified individuals (l.e. not by one person or a dictator).

Once again the question arises, how will you make sure thos people remain dedicated and democratic all the way through the "experiment".  Who will we control them not to make a little chess game out of the whole thing? (I know I might be pedant on this all thing, but that's because I'm very sceptic about it working in reality.)

And how do you want to find philosophically qualified personell, if you personally are not familiar with other philosophies than your own? If they would be philosophically qualified in your eyes, wouldn't that mean that they would imply only the philosophy you give them? Which would bring to a "dictatorship of thought", with only one idea floating around, and no possible forming of personal opinion (also connected to the isolation).


All in all, this whole idea of your "experiment" makes me think of a "big brother watching you" system. It almost makes it feel like you would like to make a little ant farm, just replacing the ants with humans.

[ivor]

Homosexuality isn't an illness, 

You are entitled to your opinion.

Your stepping over the line here jjj!  While you may be entitled to your "opinion" no matter how wrong it is, homophobia is your problem.  If you would like to discuss you homophobia problem please do so at another forum.  Consider this a warning.

Also, your "genetic superiority" reeks of Hitler and Eugenics no matter how many times you say it doesn't.  It's diversity that makes humans great.  As great as we are no one is smart enough to be able to say what traits are "superior" and what traits are "inferior."  To even discuss it make me cringe!   

[jjj]

 

Even you must admit, that even your philosophy is your personal view of things, thus not neutral at all.

Well, the moment we 'democratically' agree that this view is logically correct, it then can be viewed as 'the nearest to the truth'... until we are able to amend it. In that sense I consider it to be 'neutral' or pure truth.

And btw, every religion is a philosophy in its own way, and every group can say that their philosophy is the right/best for humankind.

Sure, there are countless misinterpretations of nature's laws, but somewhere we have drew the line and start to believe that our insight is correct and for it's when my insight works; i.e. delivers the desired (positive) benefit/ result!

...how will you make sure those people remain dedicated and democratic all the way through the "experiment". And how do you want to find philosophically qualified personell, if you personally are not familiar with other philosophies than your own? If they would be philosophically qualified in your eyes, wouldn't that mean that they would imply only the philosophy you give them? Which would bring to a "dictatorship of thought", with only one idea floating around, and no possible forming of personal opinion (also connected to the isolation).

That comes with philosophical maturity. Established/ hard-gained principles of insight remain fairly stable and so, one is able to rely on them. If this group has been co-operating for years and so, established a number of such (mutually acknowledged) philosophical guidelines, then reliable co-operation can be secured.
I wished I draw a caricature of people carrying various sized sacks ( with neg traits) on their backs... Because, we all possess divers levels of neg traits. Ideally this group of dedicated, supervising body should possess the will and ability to rid themselves of their inherited/ acquired neg traits. Most-likely this will be people with lesser neg traits, I think.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

That comes with philosophical maturity.

How do you obtain philosophical maturity with only one particular philosophy (democratically decided to be the real thing, but some might not consider it as such) being available? You can't form your opinion, thus there's no way to talk about maturity, IMO.

'the nearest to the truth'

Do you really think there's such thing as the (absolute) "truth"? Purely hypothetically: you claim one thing, the majority of people agree on that thing. Fine, you call that the truth. You plant this truth into this society. But, you'll have thousands, even millions of people disagreeing with this opinion. You have to "repress" them in order not to destroy the whole "pureness" of your society, you have built thanks to your "truth".  Now, this repression is a negative trait.
So is, IMO, trying to bring one single philosophy to a number of people, isolating them and thus not allowing them to consider other truths.


I was also wondering (a question I've put several times, but you haven't answered it at all), how will you in your little artificial perfect society cope with isolation and genetic malformations?


EDIT: I almost missed this

As great as we are no one is smart enough to be able to say what traits are "superior" and what traits are "inferior."

I fully agree on this....