From: Kenneth Van Oost (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 13 Nov 2005 - 10:40:20 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Chase <email@example.com>
> This species self-determination as you present it
> sounds like a good thing for the most part, but be
> careful for it can have a dark side. Your allusion to
> the best genes in the last sentence verges dangerously
> close to eugenics with its quasi-scientific claptraps
> and ethical pitfalls.
<< Yes, I understand your concern, but the technologies that made
it possible for us to change the world, makes it also possible that we
change ourselves for the better. The technologies showed us how to
change the ways we moved, but nowadays we can change our body
and mind and soul in the directions we want.
For the first time in our history, helped therby by science, we master
our future. But, yes, would be be able to master the knowledge we
gather for our advantage !?
Moreover, why should we strive to change our ways of life, of our
being and of our thinking !?
We know all that intellectual apathy, immorality and criminal behaviour
aren 't heritable. Most kids do possess all the same potentials like their
folks. We can develop their inborn qualities if only we mean bussiness.
We have all the power of science at our disposal and there are still people
who want to use it altruistic. Modern civilation/ society didn 't kill all
of the intellectual culture/ of moral courage; virtue and daring.
There is still a fire burning !!
But the new ways of behaviour, of being, of thinking require the trans-
formation of modern life, it ain 't possible without a physical and mental
revolution. It ain 't keen to be convinced about a kind of revolution and
having the necessary scientific back-up to push thru' changes.
What is necessary, and above all, needed, is a change in the ways we
think. We neglected over the years the qualitive aspect of things,
quantity was the new slogan. Having thoughts and memes were more
important of the contents of those thoughts and memes.
It was more easier to study quantive motives than to understand why
one found something beautiful and another not.
It is hard to see eugenics not as the doctrine that dominated our thinking
for the last decades, we still believe in the general negative aspects where
I see a more positive qualitive need. That eugenics in the hands of the few
will lead to abuse, claptraps and pitfalls...no doubt about it !
So we need a revolution on the more individual forum, convincing people
that it is necessary to change for the better of themselves, for their kids
and for the future generations.
I can 't understand why someone should choose NOT to use the avaible
technology to avoid a disabled kid or to be sick in the near future of some
cancer if eugenics can give them a solution !?
Yes, it is all about the mind and how we think about these things. That
society, politican and religious aspects blind and will blind the ways, I
don 't doubt it, but it is, in the memetical contents and with the memetical
concept in hand that we can and will convince people to follow.
Naive !? Idealistic !? Ideological !? Self- deceptive !? Utopic !?
Maybe, one and all together, but I am an optimist !!
It is me against the meme....
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 13 Nov 2005 - 10:49:58 GMT