The Glade 4.0

Not sure what you're talking about because he doesn't make ANY statement to the purpose of our bodies, other than to state that there doesn't seem to be one. We've come to be through a series of random mutations and the only one that helps us get ahead is the one that happened inside of our skulls. Every other part of us is weak and lacking compared to many other species. Muscle density when compared to chimps, visual acuity when compared to birds/mantis shrimp, death by choking when compared to aquatic life... the list goes on.

Engineers design things to serve a purpose. If he wants to criticize the engineering of the human body, he should know and speak to that purpose.. but he can't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Every part of the human body serves (or served) a purpose. And frequently, they could have served that purpose better with better design. (See shared respiration/ingestion pathways.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

DE:
That's supposing human beings have a purpose, he doesn't speak under that pretense. His main point is just that we're very underdeveloped as beings. Certainly not the pinnacle of what we could be. The only thing that keeps us alive is that we're intelligent, social animals.

Every design has compromises of size, weight, and space. More importantly,the human body is not a collection of individual parts. The entire body is deisgned for the life experience of humans, and it is beyond the capacity of human scientists to criticize the design as suitable for that purpose.



Then there is no way to criticize the human body's design.



His point isn't that we're "underdeveloped" at all. There is no such thing as the "pinnacle of what we could be", either. Saying that "the only thing keeping us alive is that we're intelligent and social" is tautological. Duh. The only thing keeping lions alive is the fact that they're a predator that can eat gazelles and wildebeasts and such. They're not the "pinnacle of what they could be" either.

What he's saying is that individual qualities of the human body seem inadequate or poorl;y designed from the perspective of an engineer. The problem with that perspective is that engineers design objects around highly specialized purposes. The human body is designed to support the life and all the life experiences of an intelligent social animal. Engineers and physicists are not qualified to state what is or isn't a good design for that. No one is. Human knowledge is nowhere near being able to do that.

We can correct individual problems like Down Syndrome (which, all semantic quibbling aside, is a form of damage - there is a default range of qualities that a healthy adult has, and Down Syndrome prevents that from developing while offering no offsetting advantage; it is a significant impediment to the quality of life for those that suffer from it) but as far as understanding the purpose the body serves well enough to say things like "we're nowhere near the pinnacle of where we could be", no, no one can make an assessment in that regard.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

While I agree in principle I'd like to point out one particular (if nitpicky) flaw in the argument you're making.

It could be that a non-reproductive, disadvantaged individual could still serve an evolutionary purpose. Example: A sterile drone in a bee hive still contributes to the hive as a whole despite being 'inferior' to other types of bee. I've seen some theories that indicate that other 'maladaptive' could be advantageous to a group as a whole, and thus contribute to the overall survival of a population. One example might be bi-polar disorder--while its generally maladaptive and can lead to high risk behaviors or suicides and would seem to be the sort of thing (since its genetically passed) would quickly filter out of the genepool. But these people are also often the most creative individuals and could contribute to the society in a greater fashion that promotes the overall health of the population that includes that trait in its genetic pool.Similarly Asbergers and autism could be similarly advantageous to the group as a whole.

It COULD be that downs syndrome occupies a similar place in social structure of per-technological human development that we have not observed. Many parents of those with Downs have indicated that such individuals are the most universally kind and loving individuals. Perhaps that too serves a role.

Yes, it could be. It could also be that we'll be invaded by aliens from the planet Snorzak half an hour from now.

Pure speculation isn't a reason to leave Down's Syndrome alone. As for Autism and Asberger's and Bi-Polar.. I haven't seen too much evidence that they're the "most creative" individuals, mainly because "Creativity" is very broad and hard to quantify. I HAVE, however, seen a great deal of self-justification from those communities, both in direct experience and through reading.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've seen this as well. I remember watching a show on the Deaf community, where a pair of deaf parents were actually debating about not correcting their child's deafness because it would exclude them from the community.

I'm not saying they're strong odds DE. And 'serving an evolutionary purpose' The fact is that genetic evolution for humans is becoming a thing of the past--eventually technological evolution (not just genetics, but in how we manipulate the environment) will totally overtake biological (natural) means of adaptation.

GMO, Gene Therapy, terraforming, etc will become the future of humanity. Khross's Luddite stance notwithstanding, the genie is out of the bottle.

This irrationally enraged me.

If I was that kid, I would hate my parents forever. You intentionally deprived me of one of my primary senses so I could be part of your bullshit "community"? Seriously, **** you.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That's a pretty broad claim.

Judeo-Christian beliefs generally hold that illness, suffering, and death are a consequence of sin, and not a part of God's perfect original plan. Though there are some sects that reject any kind of medical treatment on the grounds that we shouldn't interfere with God's plan, most Judeo-Christian people have no issue with non-divine intervention of this sort. There's no particular logical reason for drawing a line at genetic therapy. Messing with the DNA molecule to treat, let's say, harlequin icthyosis is no more or less sacrilegious than messing around with someone's brain to treat Parkinson's. The DNA molecule is no more or less holy and divinely inspired than other part of your body.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

That doesn't mean it's going to "take over our evolution". Lots of people would prefer not to have their DNA played with. We may also find there are unintended consequences to excessive **** around with it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, it was a pretty incredible story.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but any parents who does not do their best for their children's future seems somewhat twisted.

As parents, we do our best to set our children up to succeed, if you had that chance at conception, why would you actively chose to set them up to fail? I would lay down every moral code I have and break every law to ensure the survival and happiness of my child. Maybe I'm just of low charecter but to do anything else would go against my instincts.

Oh, I'm quite certain I'm no Luddite.

_________________

Except that's precisely the position you're advocating. You think you're taking an enlightened stance about the human condition, but all you're doing is advocating ignorance. The path to becoming an enlightened species that wields its technology responsibly does not lie in pretending that technology doesn't exist or that we're somehow too barbaric to utilize it.

Of course, this point is largely moot because it's not the Professors of the Humanities that are holding the keys to God's sandbox.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

No, but they are likely the ones with the owner's manual.

Depends which ones you mean.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm neither pretending the technology does not exist nor advocating suspension of research into these technologies. I have a dog in the Gene Therapy fight; it's likely the only thing that will make a normal lifespan a reality for me.

I want more research and knowledge before we start practical human applications. I want less margin of error, and amazingly, I want some sort of regulatory (likely NGO) controls for this. I don't fear the technology; I fear what our governments will do with it.

The pursuit of knowledge is always a positive goal, because knowledge is by itself always valuable. The risks lie in what individuals do with that knowledge, and I fear we do not know enough to deploy or implement this knowledge, yet. I doubt we will in my lifetime, and that's fine.

_________________

I trust folks to do the right thing, right up to when there's a monetary profit to be made. At that point, there are some, perhaps even a majority, that will continue doing the right thing, but there are also those who will be motivated more by greed than altruism. Those are the folk that I don't want playing with this and there's no way to legally separate the acts of those two camps.

So, until the least of us has the courage and moral conviction to do the right thing while under pressure to satisfy personal profit, I'm thinking there's plenty of reason to avoid it.

Religious take on this: Does the devil whisper in folks ears? I'm thinking he does, whether he's a red demon or a green dollar bill. I don't see much difference between the two, probably 'cause I'm not religious.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.