Eliminate all diversity through genetic manipulation?

[Nephtys]

Biological diversity in itself is a defense mechanism. If one of your race dies, the damage is localized. In a more 'perfected', yet genetically more symmetrical society, one death may not happen often. But millions could die at once. Also, biological similarity would tend to limit diversity extremely. Right now, many subcultures are defined by physical traits.

Scientists have their own little culture, as do morons, rednecks, artists, athletics, nerds, and musicians. Many traits that contribute (mental ability for scientists, physical ability for athletics, etc) are physical. Our culture would surely change after a few generations of such a popualtion of highly similar individuals.

[Perinquus]

The world would still be a mighty boring place if everyone were the same though, not to mention stagnant culturally and scientifically.

Ancient Egypt was probably the most conservative, stable, and culturally stagnant civilisation to have ever existed.
It was also the most long-lived, and arguably the most successful.
China also exhibits these traits.

Where's the negative in stagnation if there's no external cultures/civilisations to be a threat?

These civilizations existed for thousands of years, and remained pre-industrial. Western civilization's history is much more brief, yet it is the civilization which gave the world parliamentary democracy, the scientific method, machine printing, the industrial revolution, etc. etc.

Actually, you're making my point for me. Stability does not necessarily equal progress.

[Perinquus]

Such extreme similarity would limit cultural diversity (which is almost a tautology: lack of diversity will create lack of diversity), but I still see no evidence whatsoever for the cessation of scientific progress that you speak of. Are you seriously suggesting that a society filled with Einsteins would be scientifically useless?

Hardly. But they would all take the same approach to any new dilemma or problem. A lot of our advancement has come from people stiking off in unprecedented directions. Differing with each other. Einstein was not the only scientist. Teller, Fermi, Heisenberg, Szilard, et al. made their own contributions. Eliminate diversity and you will eliminate a lot of that. I hate to resort to platitudes, but as Jefferson said: "a little revolution, now and then, is a healthy thing". For the best overall situation, there needs to be a lot of different people out there, trying a lot of different ways of tackling problems. The best way will then ultimately win out. It's another kind of natural selection. If everyone is following the same basic patterns, I just don't think you will get the same level of innovation. Yes, I realize you will eliminate a lot of the retrograde nonsense from the foolish (just think of no more fundies ruining scientific education), but you will also not get a lot of the mavericks out there following their own flashes of genius.

Having society consist of entirely intelligent paragons would have a lot of advantages. I wouldn't deny it for a minute. But on the balance, I think diversity works better. The proof of this, I think, is that diversity is what we have. If uniform superintelligence worked better, I think that nature would have selected for that via natural selection.

[Darth Wong]

These civilizations existed for thousands of years, and remained pre-industrial. Western civilization's history is much more brief, yet it is the civilization which gave the world parliamentary democracy, the scientific method, machine printing, the industrial revolution, etc. etc.

Actually, western supremacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas European cultural conflicts date back much farther, to a period where the Chinese were easily kicking their asses in terms of progress and beyond. It is an incredible false-cause fallacy for you to credit European ethnic diversity for its recent progress.

[Darth Wong]

Such extreme similarity would limit cultural diversity (which is almost a tautology: lack of diversity will create lack of diversity), but I still see no evidence whatsoever for the cessation of scientific progress that you speak of. Are you seriously suggesting that a society filled with Einsteins would be scientifically useless?

Hardly. But they would all take the same approach to any new dilemma or problem.

Please present your reasoning for this conclusion.

[Perinquus]

Where's the negative in stagnation if there's no external cultures/civilisations to be a threat?

I almost missed this. The negaative is in the lack of scientific progress that made daily life a back breaking drudgery of hard labor, and life itself a short, poorly understood ordeal, entirely subject to the whims of nature and pitifully short. Lifespans which plateaued in the 30s were the result of such stagnation. Can you seriously contend that life in the modern world is not immensely better, by any measureable standard? Yet this advancement has been characteristic of one of the most dynamic, unstable civilizations in human history.

[Perinquus]

These civilizations existed for thousands of years, and remained pre-industrial. Western civilization's history is much more brief, yet it is the civilization which gave the world parliamentary democracy, the scientific method, machine printing, the industrial revolution, etc. etc.

Actually, western supremacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas European cultural conflicts date back much farther, to a period where the Chinese were easily kicking their asses in terms of progress and beyond. It is an incredible false-cause fallacy for you to credit European ethnic diversity for its recent progress.

I don't credit European ethnic diversity. I credit the diversity of thought created by a continent full of competing, rival cultures, rather than one monolithic, regulated, dominant one. But I suspect strongly that overwhelming genetic similarity would lead to a strongly monolithic culture. Partly because such a culture would have to exist in the first place, in order to eliminate genetic diversity. Genetically similar peoples might still produce radically different outcomes if they had radically different cultures. But why should we assume they would? That is not part of the original topic. And, in fact, the OT simply stated that the goal was to "eliminate diversity", so why should we assume cultural diversity gets eliminated along with genetic diversity. It would be a hell of a lot harder, in practical terms, to eliminate genetic diversity than it would to eliminate cultural diversity. So once diversity is eliminated, where are your unique innovators going to come from?

[Perinquus]

Such extreme similarity would limit cultural diversity (which is almost a tautology: lack of diversity will create lack of diversity), but I still see no evidence whatsoever for the cessation of scientific progress that you speak of. Are you seriously suggesting that a society filled with Einsteins would be scientifically useless?

Hardly. But they would all take the same approach to any new dilemma or problem.

Please present your reasoning for this conclusion.

My reasoning is that people of identical genetic patterns will have a tremendous similarity in their basic personalities. These personalities, as I said, will be differentiated to various degrees by their different experiences. But heredity counts for a lot. And I guess it just depends on which you give more weight -- nature or nurture.

[Darth Wong]

Hardly. But they would all take the same approach to any new dilemma or problem.

Please present your reasoning for this conclusion.

My reasoning is that people of identical genetic patterns will have a tremendous similarity in their basic personalities. These personalities, as I said, will be differentiated to various degrees by their different experiences. But heredity counts for a lot. And I guess it just depends on which you give more weight -- nature or nurture.

So similar personality traits will result in people always taking the same approach to any given problem? Nope, I'm still not seeing any justification for your claim; just a repackaging of it.

[Darth Wong]

I don't credit European ethnic diversity. I credit the diversity of thought created by a continent full of competing, rival cultures,

A situation which also existed during Europe's period of stagnation relative to China, thus disproving your claim that it grants innate superiority of progress.

[Perinquus]

Please present your reasoning for this conclusion.

My reasoning is that people of identical genetic patterns will have a tremendous similarity in their basic personalities. These personalities, as I said, will be differentiated to various degrees by their different experiences. But heredity counts for a lot. And I guess it just depends on which you give more weight -- nature or nurture.

So similar personality traits will result in people always taking the same approach to any given problem? Nope, I'm still not seeing any justification for your claim; just a repackaging of it.

Since there is, in fact, no empirical data for genetically identical (even twins are not really identical) people it boils down to neither one of us being able to provide concrete evidence to prove our points. And just for the record, I never asserted that people would always take "the same" approach to every problem -- merely that overwhelming genetic similarity would make people take more similar approaches (thought after all, is a product of brain chemisty, and how much variation can you get when everyone's brain chemistry is the same?), would make them less varied in their responses to various challenges. And diversity seems to be a key ingredient of progress.

[Darth Wong]

Since there is, in fact, no empirical data for genetically identical (even twins are not really identical) people it boils down to neither one of us being able to provide concrete evidence to prove our points.

Correct, but since you are the one stating that A will cause B, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me to prove my "not necessarily" retort.

And just for the record, I never asserted that people would always take "the same" approach to every problem -- merely that overwhelming genetic similarity would make people take more similar approaches (thought after all, is a product of brain chemisty, and how much variation can you get when everyone's brain chemistry is the same?), would make them less varied in their responses to various challenges. And diversity seems to be a key ingredient of progress.

Yet again, restatement of your conclusion as a premise.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So does advancement just come in spurts, more by chance than innane superiority? It seems like many civilizations have contributed a lot, but some seem to, at certain points, do a lot quickly.

[Darth Wong]

So does advancement just come in spurts, more by chance than innane superiority? It seems like many civilizations have contributed a lot, but some seem to, at certain points, do a lot quickly.

Scientific advancement is arguably a matter of critical mass. As Newton said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants, and I can see farther". It takes a certain foundation of pre-existing research to provide the environment in which certain great leaps forward can occur.

[Perinquus]

I don't credit European ethnic diversity. I credit the diversity of thought created by a continent full of competing, rival cultures,

A situation which also existed during Europe's period of stagnation relative to China, thus disproving your claim that it grants innate superiority of progress.

Hardly. When Europe was dominated by a single culture -- the Roman empire -- it was not stagnant relative to China, it was comparable: Europe experienced technological development no more and no less rapidly, overall. China had paper and gunpowder, Europe had the arch and the alphabet; it balanced out. After Rome's fall, political turmoil and the collapse of the pre-existing civilization temporarily retarded European development. Then, starting in the late middle ages, things began to change. To take one example: political systems -- in diverse, post-Roman Europe, where no one power dominated everyone, English-style parliamentary democracy (or constitutional monarchy earlier on) could evolve and compete with republican Venice and Switzerland, autocratic France, and Spain, and chaotic Germany and Italy, and eventually become dominant among these competing systems. In unified China, a relatively small ruling elite, under the autocratic emperor, could railroad China in its entirety onto one given path, and stifle any competing developments. In more diverse system, natural selection takes place. In monolithic systems, you have cultures existing in isolation. The same thing happens then that tends to happen in nature: things that evolve in competition with other things tend to be more adaptable, and thus more dominant than things which evolve in isolation.

[Perinquus]

Since there is, in fact, no empirical data for genetically identical (even twins are not really identical) people it boils down to neither one of us being able to provide concrete evidence to prove our points.

Correct, but since you are the one stating that A will cause B, the onus is on you to prove it, not on me to prove my "not necessarily" retort.

Is it? Am I the one who is stating that a contrary to fact situation would be better, or are you? I am defending the status quo -- genetic diversity. You are the one saying a population of genetically similar geniuses would probably be better. Well, if it were, why didn't nature select for that via natural selection? It seems to me that you are attempting to put the burden of proof on me, when it really belongs on your side of the argument.

[Frank Hipper]

These civilizations existed for thousands of years, and remained pre-industrial. Western civilization's history is much more brief, yet it is the civilization which gave the world parliamentary democracy, the scientific method, machine printing, the industrial revolution, etc. etc.

Actually, you're making my point for me. Stability does not necessarily equal progress.

The entire world was pre-industrial when Egypt was Egypt.
China overcame a cultural bigotry towards the west and industrialised a hundred years after the west, yet it remains Chinese.

None of that shows how cultural stagnation impedes scientific progress. Nor does that disprove how culturally stagnant civilisations achieve advances such as writing, gunpowder, the arch, medicine, type face printing, naval architecture, astronomy, mathmatics etc., etc.

Stagnant culture is not stagnated advancement in science and technology.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Through the miracle of hypothetical genetic manipulation, all humans will be of the same race, level of health, intelligence, and appearance. The genetic playing field will be perfectly leveled, no more Star-Bellied Sneetches.

Would you be for it? Why?

If not, why?

(edit) This scenario is for an exploration of people's thoughts on the moral and ethical ramifications, assume medical perfection to exclude any nasty surprises from nature.

Oooh, you nearly ripped off one of my ideas. But let me add an additional comment to it:

In my society that I created on a similar basis, I eliminated the last category you seem to have thought which can cause discrimination. Sex. Everyone would be a hermaphrodite, as in Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness. It also included a further distinction from your's, however--everyone was genetically engineered mentally so that perfect communism was a feasable governmental system.

[Junghalli]

Where's the negative in stagnation if there's no external cultures/civilisations to be a threat?

History is full of societies that thought they faced no real threat, stagnated, and then got run over by more dynamic civilizations. Just because we don't know about other civilizations doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist (yes, I do believe aliens exist, the sheer number of sunlike stars in the galaxy suggests to me that it's highly probable).

[Frank Hipper]

Where's the negative in stagnation if there's no external cultures/civilisations to be a threat?

History is full of societies that thought they faced no real threat, stagnated, and then got run over by more dynamic civilizations.

Examples?

[Chmee]

Tempting benefits, but ultimately I wouldn't want it. Genius isn't just a function of brain structure, it's also a consequence of personality developed through childhood. Would Stephen Hawking have the same insights into the universe if he had Lance Armstrong's body? We can't know but I suspect not. The child prodigy, the loner who contemplates the world in a different manner than those around her and arrives at unique insights, you lose that in this world of Generic Humans, no matter how 'bright' their genetic brain design is.

[Junghalli]

Examples?

The Ottoman Empire: started out with a considerable technological leg-up on Europeans but never bothered to industrialize and copy European technological advances until they were so far behind it was pretty much too late.

The Inca: they were in pretty much the same position we're in now; they didn't believe any civilizations existed that could threaten them. They called their empire "The Four Corners" because they thought they controlled most of the planet. Until they became acquainted with the Spanish that is.

Admittedly running around worried about an impending alien invasion is crazy, but assuming that no external threat will ever materialize doesn't strike me as the smartest assumption either.

[Xero Cool Down]

Not clones, just no gross variations; no huge noses and receding chins, for example. Or, everyone having huge noses and receding chins...

Think of everyone looking enough alike to have a family resemblance.

How completely and utterly boring.

I imagine the parents of children with horrible genetic defects wouldn't mind that kind of boredom.

Probably not, but I assume Frank didn't start the topic to see what would happen if eliminate horrible genetic defects were eliminated, just any diversity in the population as far as looks and intelligence goes.

[Xero Cool Down]

Here's an interestin question that isn't part of the original post. Even if everyone looked the same and had the same level of intelligence, would humans still self segregate into groups and discriminate against others? I assume that wealth would still be a big factor.

[That NOS Guy]

Where's the negative in stagnation if there's no external cultures/civilisations to be a threat?

Because when something does come along you'd be rather hapless against it if it's superior. Look at the ultimate fates of the dynastys of Egypt and China, outclassed by a newcomer to the region. If humanity become all the same, let's say out standard hypothetical alien race comes along and starts a war. I'm not saying that will happen, but as this is an exercise in theory bear with me.

Sometimes civilizations rise and fall based on their diversity.