Challenge the validity of the Abolitionist directive

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 03:01 pm
@Abolitionist,
Abolitionist;41526 wrote:
involuntary suffering can only be abolished through a postulated redesign of the biological systems - and the right to seek happiness voluntarily should allow individuals to pursue this
This is your eugenics idea with prenatal screening, right?

Look at the major causes of morbidity and mortality in the world:

Cardiovascular diseases, cancer, infections, accidents, diabetes, nutritional disorders.... these are NOT genetic diseases. There are indeed genetic risk factors, but by and large they are acquired diseases, and there is no eugenics program that is going to help.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 03:26 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Rights aren't inherently protected by anything other than people who recognize when rights are being encroached.

Oh spare me. :nonooo:

I'm not out to refute or challenge. I'm out to have a conversation.

It's from his song "My Back Pages". It refers to how much he thought he knew when he was a young, idealistic crusader.



Some innocent bystanders died when we entered Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s to interrupt their ethnic warfare. The Rwandan genocide ended because a Ugandan-backed Tutsi army came in and drove the Hutu militias out of the country, and innocents died in that case too. Do you get the point? The point is that if the goal is to intervene in oppression and suffering, and the only way to do it is with warfare, then some innocents may die in pursuit of a greater good. I can't stand Bush, and I have never supported the Iraq war, but I do understand that it could be rationalized that way.

Yes I have. In fact that's the only area of philosophy that I've studied academically.

I'm not the abolitionist Smile

Laws don't come from ethical directives, though. Laws come from lawmakers who have their individual beliefs and constituencies, and in the end laws are compromises.

I'm not trying to justify laws. I'm saying that your "directive" is innate and uniformly understood whether you spell it out for us or not.

That's not what I said at all. Read it again. Look up the word picayune if you need to.

Send me a private message.

I practice infectious diseases and tropical medicine as a profession, (though I do general adult hospital medicine and medical education half the time), and as part of that I practice clinical medicine, research, and I have policy responsibilities.

Typing on here is procrastination -- I've got a day off, my son is in day care today, and I have to mop the floors, finish some clinic notes, buy some diapers, and go to the gym.

Yes. I'm on a national committee with the IDSA, and if you're still hanging around here when we have our press conference in October or November you can find out all about it. I'm on two institutional committees at the medical center where I'm on faculty, and since I can't travel overseas these days (with a baby at home) I'm doing quality improvement and patient safety research with a goal of implementing new policy.

Why must you test the rationale? Why can't you use historical controls? Look at the crimes of history and extract from that the unacceptable versus the acceptable. Distill out the common denominators and you arrive first at your directive and ultimately at a shared sense of custodianship for other humans.


since you are not interested in debating the validity, I'm going to move on, we can discuss these other issues in different topics

I want to focus this topic on the validity of the ethical directive

thanks for your insight and criticism as well as support

Aedes wrote:
This is your eugenics idea with prenatal screening, right?

Look at the major causes of morbidity and mortality in the world:

Cardiovascular diseases, cancer, infections, accidents, diabetes, nutritional disorders.... these are NOT genetic diseases. There are indeed genetic risk factors, but by and large they are acquired diseases, and there is no eugenics program that is going to help.


let's discuss this elsewhere, and you're right that we don't have the ability to eliminate these diseases through screening right now

screening is just one aspect of the many things we can do and will be more valuable as our understanding and abilities increase
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2009 04:51 pm
@Abolitionist,
Well, then this is clearly distinct from preference utilitarianism, but I feel that the concepts are still in their infancy. Know that no set of axioms will be universally agreed upon, you would have to force this on some people(anarchists, libertarians ect.) so it would have a potentially dystopian effect.

I would suggest a system by which violation of your axioms can be quantified. Say, violation of the axiom against involuntary death, would be 10 points while violations in respect to suffering aside from death are worth between 1 and 9....you must essentially quantify suffering as best you can. Some may argue that

For instance, a man who murders a homeless man will have most likely not invoked any suffering, depending on the method of execution. Suffering requires life. On the other hand, the man who kills a child may invoke great suffering, thus a more serious punishment would be in order. In this sense you mist quantify the worth of people, this is quite difficult and many would very much disagree with any attempt to do this, but since this is so hypothetical, I will ignore the practical difficulties. I would suggest trying to hide the unit values of various citizens from the citizens and officials to be released on a need to know basis, such as in a death.

Know that in order for one to legitimately put forth a set of axioms one must make a very hefty argument(amounting to a rather large tome, if you want to get a quality argument such as a professional might give) and also that most of the people on here are not qualified in the sense that they do not have degrees in philosophy. That wouldn't necessarily qualify you, such qualifications are superficial and the only reason to involve them is if you are planning to present the argument for said axioms to people who do not understand it or have enough difficulty understanding it that they would not put in the effort unless you had credentials. I am not sure who you are planning on presenting this to or what you plan to do with it. I will look at your website.

I am not sure why you would choose a forum as a place to present this challenge, unless you hope that someone will have a need for $300 which would be nowhere near enough to pay a prominent academic to write something up on this subject. I suppose it is meant to be some kind of stimulant to the discussion...but why put forth an idea which is not your own? If you don't fully understand it, which is possible I don't know you and you don't know the people you are asking to write for you, then it might fall apart quickly if you were to present it and were asked the wrong questions.

I think I will look into this 'movement' a bit. Sounds interesting.

"In the present world, turning a blind eye through the ignorance of bliss can lead to the subversion of world progress."-Abolitionist

Are you aware of the pleasure machine thought experiment? I would assume not. I don't think you are aware of the number of people who would violently object to the propositions you are putting forth. Here are some links which should give you a gist of the philosophical opposition you face. The Experience Machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Murray Rothbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anarcho-primitivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, any anarchist or libertarian would attack your ideology.

That being said, I sympathize to a certain degree with your intent. Just don't make the mistake of thinking most people will. I have asked people many times: Were there some set of laws and perfect machines which would enforce them and were it ensured that if you followed them they would ensure the best possible life experience for you and ensure the survival of humanity indefinitely, would you submit to these machines and follow the laws? They all told me no. I was a little surprised at first, I was very interested in utilitarianism. Now I sympathize with the anarchists and libertarians more often than not. Not that utilitarian axioms aren't fun to play around with and Utopian dreams(which this is even with the technology, as for some it would be a Dystopian nightmare. Any system by which a population is controlled is tyrannous) aren't interesting.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 05:15 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
Well, then this is clearly distinct from preference utilitarianism, but I feel that the concepts are still in their infancy. Know that no set of axioms will be universally agreed upon, you would have to force this on some people(anarchists, libertarians ect.) so it would have a potentially dystopian effect.


AB : nothing is universally agreed upon but we still have methods of determining laws for public policy that effects everyone, and some people do not have the capacity to understand laws.

The best you can possible do is to allow for open rational debate of the rationales behind public policy in an ongoing manner - in a way that all citizens can debate through reasonable means.

Zetetic11235 wrote:
I would suggest a system by which violation of your axioms can be quantified. Say, violation of the axiom against involuntary death, would be 10 points while violations in respect to suffering aside from death are worth between 1 and 9....you must essentially quantify suffering as best you can. Some may argue that


i agree that we should prioritize rights, but first we should define the ethical directive - it's a good idea to start another thread about how to prioritize

Zetetic11235 wrote:
For instance, a man who murders a homeless man will have most likely not invoked any suffering, depending on the method of execution. Suffering requires life. On the other hand, the man who kills a child may invoke great suffering, thus a more serious punishment would be in order. In this sense you mist quantify the worth of people, this is quite difficult and many would very much disagree with any attempt to do this, but since this is so hypothetical, I will ignore the practical difficulties. I would suggest trying to hide the unit values of various citizens from the citizens and officials to be released on a need to know basis, such as in a death.


I think that the purpose of laws is to prevent the infringement of rights - and that punishment is not for the purpose of retribution

if we begin to calculate a hedonic value system whereby rights are relative to this calculation we can justify any number of attrocities - like torturing in order to ensure that no one has any militarily useful information even when we have no evidence that they do

Zetetic11235 wrote:
Know that in order for one to legitimately put forth a set of axioms one must make a very hefty argument(amounting to a rather large tome, if you want to get a quality argument such as a professional might give) and also that most of the people on here are not qualified in the sense that they do not have degrees in philosophy. That wouldn't necessarily qualify you, such qualifications are superficial and the only reason to involve them is if you are planning to present the argument for said axioms to people who do not understand it or have enough difficulty understanding it that they would not put in the effort unless you had credentials. I am not sure who you are planning on presenting this to or what you plan to do with it. I will look at your website.


my idea here is to create the set of axioms through open debate rather than to be right, i entirely expect someone to put forth a better set eventually

Zetetic11235 wrote:
I am not sure why you would choose a forum as a place to present this challenge, unless you hope that someone will have a need for $300 which would be nowhere near enough to pay a prominent academic to write something up on this subject. I suppose it is meant to be some kind of stimulant to the discussion...but why put forth an idea which is not your own?


a forum is a place for open debate and the purpose is to inspire open debate aimed at determining our leviathan rather than allow for corrupt or biased experts/leaders to do it for us. The idea is my own.

Academics are largely self interested and cannot be trusted to do such an activity even for pay

so you are trying to debate the validity of debating the ethical directive rather than debating it = on grounds that it will not make an impact?

unfortunately as experts do what they do for pay and other self serving motivational factors - citizens should not rely on experts to think for them

I've spoken with many academics, some in very prominent positions who confess that there is no open forum for debate aimed at determining public policy - experts simply write up something and pitch it to leaders and leaders accept what they already value

I've tried to pitch the idea that we should create an international forum for ethical debate through the unversity system - in order to create credible conclusions

however, most academics have no motivation to start something like this because they want to be 'experts' and have their opinions qualified through their status rather than let ethics be determined through open debate essentially putting them out of a job...

however, I'm still working on establishing an international ethical forum for debate which would create credible conclusions and be accessible to all citizens within reason - many of the crusty experts would like to prevent this

I recently wrote a letter to Nick Bostrom about this and he basically blew me off with apathy. You can see that the Transhumanist declaration is created by a few experts rather than through open rational debate - those with power create the rules, and we need to fight this practice
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 05:43 pm
@Abolitionist,
those in power should only be referees for open rational debate that is accessible to all citizens within reason

once citizens demonstrate that they understand the relevant concepts and can follow the rules and etiquette of the forum - they should have as much credibility and input as anyone in a position of authority

to accomplish this we must first set a precedent while working to implement a larger inclusion of participants
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 01:59 am
@Abolitionist,
There are several topics that I am unsure about related to the removal of psychic suffering:

Would it be possible that given that there is no suffering, there would be a total lack of empathy in everyone effectively creating a total self centered outlook, in which one is concerned solely with one's own pleasure? Can this be worked around?

How do we retain the useful aspects of the tendency to worry such as cautiousness?

What is the difference between addiction to a substance and motivation through the reward of greater bliss? i.e. how is this system of motivation, which is necessarily in the hands of the few, going to avoid problems with abuse of power and manipulation of the public?

The answer to these should clarify what the directive should be a bit.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2009 02:47 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
There are several topics that I am unsure about related to the removal of psychic suffering:

Would it be possible that given that there is no suffering, there would be a total lack of empathy in everyone effectively creating a total self centered outlook, in which one is concerned solely with one's own pleasure? Can this be worked around?

How do we retain the useful aspects of the tendency to worry such as cautiousness?

What is the difference between addiction to a substance and motivation through the reward of greater bliss? i.e. how is this system of motivation, which is necessarily in the hands of the few, going to avoid problems with abuse of power and manipulation of the public?

The answer to these should clarify what the directive should be a bit.


we don't have the ability to eliminate suffering or redesign human beings yet, there is alot to learn so I can only give examples of potential directions for research and ways to combat corruption, but really there is no definite answer at this point

until we can develop our understanding it's impossible to put forth a 10 point plan about how to proceed so in the interim we should pursue research and focus on what we can do now

deciding how to change human biology as we become more knowledgeable

these concerns appear to express a concern for the rights of individuals and their longterm well being as well as the well being of future generations

so I think these concerns should be taken seriously when considering policy decisions in line with the ethical directive

I think your concerns support the ethical directive

Is this a satisfactory answer?

I should add that determining validity or truthfulness or soundness depends on well defined rules

I'd be happy to consider your ideas about how we should decide whether or not the prime ethical directive is valid.

By valid, I mean specifically : that it should be adopted as the guiding principle by which we evaluate prospective public policy.

Zetetic11235 wrote:
Would it be possible that given that there is no suffering, there would be a total lack of empathy in everyone effectively creating a total self centered outlook, in which one is concerned solely with one's own pleasure? Can this be worked around?


If there truly wasn't any suffering, we wouldn't need to be concerned with the suffering of others, only mindful of laws and rules meant to guard against the infringement of rights that harm longevity and the pursuit of voluntary happiness, as well as mindful of directives that prevent the creation of involuntary suffering

can we achieve this kind of sensitivity without suffering? potentially yes.

how can I say that? - by the rationale that we cannot say it is impossible though I don't think it's likely anytime soon

however, we could still potentially empathize with the happiness of others allowing for collaboration

Ok, I just bumped the prize up to $30k (US) - in 3-4 years that will only be enough to buy a nice dinner so get it fast Wink

but really think about how much better it would be to have an open forum for debate aimed at determining public policy that is open to all citizens within reason, where we openly debate on an ongoing basis;

1. the rules for debate and determining validity
2. the ethical directive(s) used to evaluate potential policies
3. the policies themselves

or you can have the decider giving your freedoms away to big business and private Israeli spy firms...

don't think Obama will change the basic rules of Washingtonian ethics...

he isn't saying anything about the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, his own birth record, or putting fresh new faces into Washington

you'll find the same old Neocons and Rahm the cruel (whose daddy is a thug)
 
MuseEvolution
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 10:59 am
@Abolitionist,
I've skipped over a lot in the middle of this thread.

I don't personally believe that eliminating involuntary suffering would be a positive action to take. In many cases, it is involuntary suffering that strengthens our bodies, spirits, resolve, and our social identity. Without that adversity we would be quite pathetic things (and a case may be made to suggest that's a direction the US is slowly turning in).
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 02:20 pm
@MuseEvolution,
MuseEvolution wrote:
I've skipped over a lot in the middle of this thread.

I don't personally believe that eliminating involuntary suffering would be a positive action to take. In many cases, it is involuntary suffering that strengthens our bodies, spirits, resolve, and our social identity. Without that adversity we would be quite pathetic things (and a case may be made to suggest that's a direction the US is slowly turning in).


you are confusing the means with the desired ends

if we simply removed involuntary suffering all at once then yes, we would be zombies without other considerations to keep us functioning

we're talking about an ethical directive that will allow for a gradual redesign of human nature that will take a long time and be accomplished through voluntary means

we're not talking about removing your ability to function

what's more, these values you describe : what makes them good? do you not value them because they are believed to make life better by eliminating suffering, improving happiness, and allowing you to continue living?

it's tempting to rationalize our present condition by saying these things are needed - but there are other possibilities

natural design is hardly optimal from the subjective perspective of sentient
beings

why do you want to be strong?

loving these observed strengths is like loving your car more than your own well being

however, it's difficult not to think in terms of social norms

I'm sorry but I'm sick and tired of that argument, no matter how many times we refute it and show that functionality is necessary for longevity, the improvement of voluntary happiness, and the elimination of involuntary suffering - the transient and downstream social values keep coming back

because people want to rationalize their present situation rather than do anything about it - because they don't believe that they actually have the power to improve their lives by changing their design (political design and genetic design)

it's easier to click the remote than work on ethics or genetics - and for the masses these things are not easily accessible

so they start to rationalize about how their suffering is really good in the social sense for some abstract reason that they are unwilling to delineate or qualify

I can't tell you how many times I've had this specific debate and people just get blank and refuse to think anymore - instead turning to convenient comforts

I can't fathom why genetics is not the most important thing on everyone's mind - it is the fundamental design of our experience.

We even rationalize to say that it's 50/50 genes and environment - what a crock of ****! This might be true within some abstract norm of human variation - but that's impossible to quantify.

Look at the difference between a worm and a human - what is it? it's all genetics!

A fruit fly has an entirely different experience from a human being - simply because it's designed differently.

----------

Those that want to rationalize their genes are just like religious fanatics and are holding back the human race from accomplishing it's universal and inherent values.

-----------

To be here and now, WHILE working progressively for the future!

You can have your rationalization while actually working towards changing our political and genetic realities - the realities that shape our world.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:03 pm
@Abolitionist,
Abolitionist wrote:
I can't fathom why genetics is not the most important thing on everyone's mind - it is the fundamental design of our experience.
Of our experience? No it's not.

And even when you take into consideration things that probably have a genetic basis, actual genetic associations can only be identified in a tiny minority of cases. Look at intelligence, for instance. Numerous genetic markers associate with intelligence. But the STRONGEST genetic predictor of intelligence only accounts for one quarter of one IQ point, and only exists in 1-2% of subjects tested, which means that intelligence is a highly complex, polygenic trait that is modulated both by a nearly infinite number of genetic variants AND by environmental exposures and experiences.

Even strong genetic associations, like HLA-B27 and HLA-DR4 with some autoimmune diseases, do not a priori predict that someone will get a disease at all (let alone which one). In other words, HLA-B27 may be found in most people with ankylosing spondylitis, but when you turn it around you find that HLA-B27 is NOT a guarantee that ankylosing spondylitis will arise. Some protective genotypes, like CCR5 deficiency in long-term nonprogressors with HIV, may have critical physiologic consequences that we have not identified (and may not be able to identify at all). And some protective genotypes (like sickle cell heterozygosity versus malaria) comes at a price of a severe disease in heterozygotes, so any advantage or disadvantage of the genotype is wholly dependent on environmental conditions.

Quote:
Those that want to rationalize their genes are just like religious fanatics and are holding back the human race from accomplishing it's universal and inherent values.
And those who obsess about genetic determinism need to study genetics instead of science fiction.

The problem with genetics that you don't seem to get is that:

1) Genetic regulation is just as important as genetic sequence, and gene regulation is highly susceptible to environmental triggers

2) Only a small proportion of our DNA actually encodes anything at all

3) There is no way to know what a certain gene product will do in vivo, and in fact some gene products have vastly different functions in different tissues, under different conditions, and in different stages of embryonic development

4) The majority of what we know about genetic associations with outcomes are specifically association studies -- and an association might mean that a genotype is simply a marker of some unidentified determinant, but not causal unto itself. Look up linkage disequilibrium for more info.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:08 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Of our experience? No it's not.


can you qualify this? or are you just stating an opinion? what other determination besides genes responding to environment can you identify?

Aedes wrote:
And even when you take into consideration things that probably have a genetic basis, actual genetic associations can only be identified in a tiny minority of cases. Look at intelligence, for instance. Numerous genetic markers associate with intelligence. But the STRONGEST genetic predictor of intelligence only accounts for one quarter of one IQ point, and only exists in 1-2% of subjects tested, which means that intelligence is a highly complex, polygenic trait that is modulated both by a nearly infinite number of genetic variants AND by environmental exposures and experiences.


you're talking about relative differences in variation among a group of beings that are already over 99% similar - and IQ is not even well defined

we don't know how our genes work as they are very complicated - this doesn't mean that some mystical force outside of genes responding to environment is at play here (like free will)

trying willing away genetic diseases! or changing your genes by a thought experiment yes if you change environmental variables genes will express differently, but how they will express themselves is written in your DNA at a point in the conception process

Aedes wrote:
Even strong genetic associations, like HLA-B27 and HLA-DR4 with some autoimmune diseases, do not a priori predict that someone will get a disease at all (let alone which one). In other words, HLA-B27 may be found in most people with ankylosing spondylitis, but when you turn it around you find that HLA-B27 is NOT a guarantee that ankylosing spondylitis will arise. Some protective genotypes, like CCR5 deficiency in long-term nonprogressors with HIV, may have critical physiologic consequences that we have not identified. And some protective genotypes (like sickle cell heterozygosity versus malaria) comes at a price of a severe disease in heterozygotes, so any advantage or disadvantage of the genotype is wholly dependent on environmental conditions.


of course it's complicated and not all single gene based

Aedes wrote:
And those who obsess about genetic determinism need to study genetics instead of science fiction.


now you're trying to interject a social norm (not obsessing) and your unqualified opinions about genetics by associating me with science fiction

when you haven't used any specific examples and are jumping to conclusions about what I know and am referring to

look, if you can say I'm dreaming about something prove it - otherwise stop being a punk

some people believe that they can meditate their way out of genetic diseases, when we've already identified a multitude of single genetic options that cause disease in every instance

or that environment or free will can change their genes

environment does cause interact with our genes, but look at how differently a fruit flys genes are in respect to environment than a humans genes are!

we can demonstrate the principles of genetics in simpler organisms - like worms

you can clearly tell how something will develope in response to a controlled environment - just because we don't understand all the complexities about human genes doesn't mean that the principles of genetics are not well demonstrated.

you have fruit fly genes, you get a fruit fly

you have human genes, you get a human

DO YOU understand Aeges?

STOP RATIONALIZING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS BEYOND YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTROL!

I have never made the claim that we fully understand the complexities of the human genome. In fact on my website I make the policiy recommendations that we avoid genetic engineering until we know more - and that we should only screen for known bad genes and unreasonable predisposition towards disease in the present. I also say that genetic screening technologies are still indevelopment.;

The Abolitionist Society :: View topic - Mandatory pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

I never said we could just abolish all involuntary suffering right this very moment or that we can change our design right now.

You guys are looking for reasons to invalidate the ethical directive using your assumptions about the means it would necessitate.
 
MuseEvolution
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:36 pm
@Abolitionist,
Woah... This suddenly has become very confusing to me, particularly because of the veritable deluge of Abolitionist's posts.

I'll comment on what I can follow from above...

In our childhood, we come into contact with various bacteria and viruses. Our body's natural (genetically determined) response to this is to create an immune system to fend off such things in the future. In such a way we are made stronger, but for that strength to come about we must suffer.

Similarly, we often come into conflict with various argumentative people throughout our lives, and often they will use put-downs and abusive language. In response, our psyche's become strengthened against such use of language, and we learn to shrug it off. In such a way our suffering leads to strength which will help protect us in the future.

In both of these cases, suffering ultimately leads to a beneficial strength. If that (involuntary) suffering never took place, we would have no protection whatsoever from outside influences.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:37 pm
@Abolitionist,
Abolitionist wrote:
I have never made the claim that we fully understand the complexities of the human genome.
The complexities of the human genome cannot be fully understood, because it interacts so heavily with non-genetic factors. The degree of chaos here is so great that even the SAME point mutation results in vastly different diseases in different people.

Sickle cell anemia is caused by a single amino acid substitution in the beta chain of hemoglobin. All people with HbSS (true sickle cell anemia) have this genotype. Yet some live until their 40s and 50s, raise families, have good lives, and some die in childhood.

If there is THIS much phenotypic variability arising from a single point mutation, then what can you make out of complex polygenic traits that are caused by errors in gene regulation rather than in the somatic gene proper?

Quote:
I also say that genetic screening technologies are still indevelopment.
At a level FAR different than what you seem to be hopeful of.

Quote:
I never said we could just abolish all involuntary suffering right this very moment or that we can change our design right now.
Will we one day prevent our genes from mutating? If so, how will we evolve to accomodate changing conditions?

And if we cannot prevent our genes from mutating, then how will you abolish involuntary suffering that arises from genetic errors?

[quote]You guys are looking for reasons to invalidate the ethical directive based upon your assumptions about the means it would necessitate.[/quote]Remember me? I'm not challenging the ethical directive because I dismiss its importance. The life or death of this genetics idea of yours does not at all compromise your directive and that's not my mission.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:44 pm
@MuseEvolution,
MuseEvolution wrote:
Woah... This suddenly has become very confusing to me, particularly because of the veritable deluge of Abolitionist's posts.

I'll comment on what I can follow from above...

In our childhood, we come into contact with various bacteria and viruses. Our body's natural (genetically determined) response to this is to create an immune system to fend off such things in the future. In such a way we are made stronger, but for that strength to come about we must suffer.

Similarly, we often come into conflict with various argumentative people throughout our lives, and often they will use put-downs and abusive language. In response, our psyche's become strengthened against such use of language, and we learn to shrug it off. In such a way our suffering leads to strength which will help protect us in the future.

In both of these cases, suffering ultimately leads to a beneficial strength. If that (involuntary) suffering never took place, we would have no protection whatsoever from outside influences.


ok, this is learning

why does learning necessitate suffering? it's true that with our present design this is the case, but why must it remain so?

a computer learns new information and doesn't suffer

as does our immune system, you don't hear those cells complaining do you?

how to accomplish a redesign of human nature whereby suffering is not part of learning is not known at this point, all we can do is point to known possibilities for future research

but again, this doesn't mean that the ethical directive is invalid, just that we are limited in how far we can advance towards abolition at this point
 
MuseEvolution
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:00 pm
@Abolitionist,
It's not learning, it's adaptation. Computer's can't complain unless they're programmed to, in which case they're certainly not feeling any discomfort, they're just following code.


Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary wrote:

sufferverbsuffren, from Anglo-French suffrir, from Vulgar Latin *sufferire, from Latin sufferre, from sub- up + ferre to bear - more at sub-, bear Date: 13th century transitive verb
1 a: to submit to or be forced to endure <suffer martyrdom> b: to feel keenly : labor under <suffer thirst>
2: undergo , experience
3: to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable
4: to allow especially by reason of indifference <the eagle suffers little birds to sing - Shakespeare>

intransitive verb
1: to endure death, pain, or distress
2: to sustain loss or damage
3: to be subject to disability or handicap


By definition, suffering does not require complaint. Therefore there is no need for me to hear complaints from my immune system in order to say that it suffers.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:06 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
The complexities of the human genome cannot be fully understood, because it interacts so heavily with non-genetic factors. The degree of chaos here is so great that even the SAME point mutation results in vastly different diseases in different people.


i agree, we cannot fully understand the complexities right now (our abilities are limited), but this will not necessarily be the case in the future. Our abilities are progressing rapidly. Continued screening after birth will still be prudent to ensure that harmful mutations do not arise - and we'll likely have many surprises.

Aedes wrote:
Sickle cell anemia is caused by a single amino acid substitution in the beta chain of hemoglobin. All people with HbSS (true sickle cell anemia) have this genotype. Yet some live until their 40s and 50s, raise families, have good lives, and some die in childhood.


Yes, it's clear that there are other factors at work in the case of sickle cell anemia than just the single amino acid substitution (using your information). However, if it limits the lifespan and causes health problems why shouldn't we screen for this possibility when able. I don't know specifically about the feasibility of testing for sickle cell anemia or how this substitution is caused, but from the ethical standpoint, if we can remove it - why shouldn't we? Does it confer some other identified benefits? Would anyone choose to take on this substitution voluntarily?

Aedes wrote:
If there is THIS much phenotypic variability arising from a single point mutation, then what can you make out of complex polygenic traits that are caused by errors in gene regulation rather than in the somatic gene proper?


we already have identified genetic options that give strong predisposition towards disease and as our understanding increases our ability to do so will increase as well

gene regulation is also controlled by our design interacting with environmental variables and can be learned about and understood with time

Aedes wrote:
At a level FAR different than what you seem to be hopeful of.


seem? why should hope be inherently limited from the start? caution is different from lack of hope or optimism about the future

Aedes wrote:
Will we one day prevent our genes from mutating? If so, how will we evolve to accomodate changing conditions?

And if we cannot prevent our genes from mutating, then how will you abolish involuntary suffering that arises from genetic errors?


it's possible that we may be able to prevent our genes from mutating in the future and learn to create changes to our design through controlled science

I would also point to the example of how the hypervariable aspect of antibodies does not create suffering regardless of random mutation.

Again I can only point to possibilities without making a definite 10-point plan to Abolition.

Aedes wrote:
Remember me? I'm not challenging the ethical directive because I dismiss its importance. The life or death of this genetics idea of yours does not at all compromise your directive and that's not my mission.


I agree, it's possible that we may find other ways of accomplishing the directive than through genetic engineering.

MuseEvolution wrote:
It's not learning, it's adaptation. Computer's can't complain unless they're programmed to, in which case they're certainly not feeling any discomfort, they're just following code.

By definition, suffering does not require complaint. Therefore there is no need for me to hear complaints from my immune system in order to say that it suffers.


interesting distinctions

currently I have no reason to believe that the immune system is capable of suffering (but to be sure it would be prudent to first define what you mean by suffering) there certainly isn't the capacity for self awareness or emotional pain or pleasure - at least no reason to believe that there is

yes, inability to complain doesn't mean that computers are not suffering - but reason do we have to believe that they do?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:25 pm
@Abolitionist,
Abolitionist wrote:
i agree, we cannot fully understand the complexities right now (our abilities are limited), but this will not necessarily be the case in the future. Our abilities are progressing rapidly. Continued screening after birth will still be prudent to ensure that harmful mutations do not arise - and we'll likely have many surprises.
Assuming many things about our use of research and clinical funding, though. Public health and research money is very much finite, and in my mind there are far higher yield avenues for public health than to screen for ALL possible genetic causes of suffering.

Quote:
However, if it limits the lifespan and causes health problems why shouldn't we screen for this possibility when able.
We already screen for it in all African American newborns. It's easy to screen for -- just a hemoglobin electrophoresis (it's a test of the protein, not the gene itself). Genetic engineering has been tried by various means, but it's not in clinical practice.

Quote:
if we can remove it - why shouldn't we? Does it confer some other identified benefits? Would anyone choose to take on this substitution voluntarily?
Yes. The sickle cell gene in heterozygotes is HUGELY advantageous in areas with high transmission rates of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. In fact linkage analysis has shown that the sickle cell genotype has independently arisen in Africa 5 separate times in the last 10,000 years, which not surprisingly corresponds to the appearance of P. falciparum. (My former research mentor did some of this work on the age of the P. falciparum species)

Since P. falciparum malaria is the leading cause of death in African children, since Sachs and Spielman's analysis has shown that it is the single most important impediment to economic development in Africa, and since it infects as much as 3/4 of a billion people per year, we would NOT want to eliminate the sickle cell gene from that population until we deal with the far worse problem of malaria.

Quote:
gene regulation is also controlled by our design interacting with environmental variables and can be learned about and understood with time
True, but remember that single gene products can serve many many roles, and because of that the modification of a diseased gene may cause wholly unanticipated effects elsewhere in the body (including lack of viability). And unless you think it's ethical to do this experiment on humans (which would put people at risk of involuntary suffering and death), then we cannot know the consequences of such decisions. And even once we start intervening in a rare genotype, we might never know what is an effect of our intervention as opposed to something else unrelated.

Quote:
it's possible that we may be able to prevent our genes from mutating in the future and learn to create changes to our design through controlled science
Remember the economic burden of doing this. If there is some sort of major climate change, economic depression, war, disaster, whatever, then the technical capability of doing this might be beyond what can be afforded. And if there is a sudden climate change or something, then you might not be able to make the currentgeneration survive long enough to help the next one.

Quote:
I would also point to the example of how the hypervariable aspect of antibodies does not create suffering regardless of random mutation.
The hypervariable region of antibodies is not a product of mutation!!

Hypervariable regions are caused by rearrangements of the V, D, and J genes irrespective of mutation!! This happens in the lymphoid progenitor cells early in life, and does NOT happen in the germline cells (sperm, ova) and zygotes. This is an ENORMOUS difference, wholly divorced from the concept of mutation. The VDJ rearrangements can generate billions of different antigen specificity -- but this capability is independent of mutation.

Very important for you to know this!

And this is true of the T-cell receptor too, by the way.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:32 pm
@Abolitionist,
"I would also point to the example of how the hypervariable aspect of antibodies does
not create suffering regardless of random mutation."

-----
actually, that is not a very good example, because it is possible that random mutation might cause autoimmune disorders or some other health problems

Aedes wrote:
Assuming many things about our use of research and clinical funding, though. Public health and research money is very much finite, and in my mind there are far higher yield avenues for public health than to screen for ALL possible genetic causes of suffering.

We already screen for it in all African American newborns. It's easy to screen for -- just a hemoglobin electrophoresis (it's a test of the protein, not the gene itself). Genetic engineering has been tried by various means, but it's not in clinical practice.

Yes. The sickle cell gene in heterozygotes is HUGELY advantageous in areas with high transmission rates of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. In fact linkage analysis has shown that the sickle cell genotype has independently arisen in Africa 5 separate times in the last 10,000 years, which not surprisingly corresponds to the appearance of P. falciparum. (My former research mentor did some of this work on the age of the P. falciparum species)

Since P. falciparum malaria is the leading cause of death in African children, since Sachs and Spielman's analysis has shown that it is the single most important impediment to economic development in Africa, and since it infects as much as 3/4 of a billion people per year, we would NOT want to eliminate the sickle cell gene from that population until we deal with the far worse problem of malaria.

True, but remember that single gene products can serve many many roles, and because of that the modification of a diseased gene may cause wholly unanticipated effects elsewhere in the body (including lack of viability). And unless you think it's ethical to do this experiment on humans (which would put people at risk of involuntary suffering and death), then we cannot know the consequences of such decisions. And even once we start intervening in a rare genotype, we might never know what is an effect of our intervention as opposed to something else unrelated.

Remember the economic burden of doing this. If there is some sort of major climate change, economic depression, war, disaster, whatever, then the technical capability of doing this might be beyond what can be afforded. And if there is a sudden climate change or something, then you might not be able to make the currentgeneration survive long enough to help the next one.

The hypervariable region of antibodies is not a product of mutation!!

Hypervariable regions are caused by rearrangements of the V, D, and J genes irrespective of mutation!! This happens in the lymphoid progenitor cells early in life, and does NOT happen in the germline cells (sperm, ova) and zygotes. This is an ENORMOUS difference, wholly divorced from the concept of mutation. The VDJ rearrangements can generate billions of different antigen specificity -- but this capability is independent of mutation.

Very important for you to know this!

And this is true of the T-cell receptor too, by the way.


this is a good discussion but should be moved to a different topic as it will detract from the original topic

if you move it and tell me where it is, i'll continue to reply to it

but before you do, i'll respond to the mistake you see;

from - Antibody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ;

"The large and diverse population of antibodies is generated by random combinations of a set of gene segments that encode different antigen binding sites (or paratopes), followed by random mutations in this area of the antibody gene, which create further diversity.[2][5] Antibody genes also re-organize in a process called class switching that changes the base of the heavy chain to another, creating a different isotype of the antibody that retains the antigen specific variable region. This allows a single antibody to be used by several different parts of the immune system. Production of antibodies is the main function of the humoral immune system.[6]"
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:43 pm
@Abolitionist,
Abolitionist wrote:
actually, that is not a very good example, because it is possible that random mutation might cause autoimmune disorders or some other health problems
Molecular mimicry can also do it, though (not only with antibodies but also other aspects of the immune system). Look at rheumatic fever -- an autoimmune destruction of the heart valves caused by antigenic similarity between the streptococcal M-protein and native heart tissue. That's what you can get from a nearly innumerable level of diversity in our antibody generation.

I've got to run, I'll start a new thread tonight or tomorrow when I get a chance. You can start one as well and I'll move this over there.
 
Abolitionist
 
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:56 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Molecular mimicry can also do it, though (not only with antibodies but also other aspects of the immune system). Look at rheumatic fever -- an autoimmune destruction of the heart valves caused by antigenic similarity between the streptococcal M-protein and native heart tissue. That's what you can get from a nearly innumerable level of diversity in our antibody generation.

I've got to run, I'll start a new thread tonight or tomorrow when I get a chance. You can start one as well and I'll move this over there.


it's interesting and incredibly complex

autoimmune disorders are definately a problem with today's technology I know many who are suffering from them and are debilitated

I think that in some ways, we may be better off changing our biology so that we are less complex down the road, but no specific examples to be used for the present come to mind right now

makes me wonder if there is a potential way to remove specific antibodies or even turn the immune system against antibodies which cause autoimmune disorders

to buy time, we might be able to give the autoimmune disorders 'something to chew on' besides our needed parts by injecting antigens that would bind to those antibodies before they can do damage
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.66 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:09:01