Eliminate all diversity through genetic manipulation?

[Frank Hipper]

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 Ottoman Empire made use of European technology to great effect throughout the 19th century, and most particularly in WWI.
Their collapse was centuries in the making, and attributable as much to internal forces (if not moreso), than to external. Not to mention the fact that Turkey exists today, in reasonably recognisable form.

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.

The Inca were never culturally stagnant, they were a vibrant and extremely young civilisation barely more than a century old when Pizzaro landed.
Isolation and unforseeable invasions do not equate to stagnation.

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.

You can only prepare for the most likely occurances: in the case of the Inca the existance of the Spaniards was more than unlikely; it was literally unthought of.
This hypothetical human civilisation would assumedly incorporate the knowledge of current civilisation; if we are aware of the ridiculously remote possibility of alien contact, why would this genetically manipulated future civilisation forget it?

[Frank Hipper]

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.

Not only do we this minute live in that exact circumstance, but it begs the question of how do you prepare for the unknowable?

[That NOS Guy]

Not only do we this minute live in that exact circumstance, but it begs the question of how do you prepare for the unknowable?

Be flexible, what else can you do? To really be flexible there has to be a multiplicty of views and considerations in effect.

Not to try and get into the nature vs. nurture argument but when you have a society where everyone is pretty much the same, you're going to have issues on viewpoints.

[Frank Hipper]

Not only do we this minute live in that exact circumstance, but it begs the question of how do you prepare for the unknowable?

Be flexible, what else can you do? To really be flexible there has to be a multiplicty of views and considerations in effect.

Not to try and get into the nature vs. nurture argument but when you have a society where everyone is pretty much the same, you're going to have issues on viewpoints.

How flexible are we now with diversity?
Enough?
How can you possibly assume that what you consider to be flexible would stand a snowball's chance in hell of being adequate when the threat can't even be imagined?

Something that's bothering me is that several people are claiming stagnation will result when everyone looks similar, is of the same race, and of similar intelligence...I haven't seen anything resembling evidence for this occurance other than opinions.

Why would this scenario limit viewpoints, why would this produce stagnation.
Is outward appearance, health, sexuality, basic IQ etc. all that modifies behavior and molds societies?

[Darth Raptor]

Natural evolution has hit a brick wall in the case of human beings. If we're to continue to advance physically, we'll need to embrace eugenics to some extent. The only question is to WHAT extent. People become uncomfortable with manipulating the human genome when you delve into subjective topics like aesthetics, but from a purely practical standpoint, it's in everyone's best interest to make everyone as fit and intelligent as possible.

[Zero]

If there were no such thing as ethnic diversity, how would we know who to hate?

What I wonder is, if such an event occured, would people self-segregate into new groupings based on other things, like personality, wealth, how they dress, all that good shit?

And I do wonder what we'd all be made to look like... personally, I wouldn't mind a bunch of white people ruling the world, since I find white women attractive, but I sure as hell would miss me.

So far, every negative response in this thread seems to be based on the premise that ethnic diversity is good, without ever really explaining why.. at best, ethnic diversity only matters because adaptive traits for different areas of the world cause different traits to become dominant. Really, the only reason diversity is good NOW is because there are different ethnicities in the world, and acceptance of them is the only way not to needlessly cause them pain.

[wolveraptor]

Actually, there'd be nothing that would significantly hinder the human race's development and survival in this scenario (excluding, of course, disease) but it'd be a massive waste of time, and would make the world rather boring.

[Zero]

Actually, there'd be nothing that would significantly hinder the human race's development and survival in this scenario (excluding, of course, disease) but it'd be a massive waste of time, and would make the world rather boring.

Actually, there would be nothing new at all to stop the human race from advancing, besides the things we already have now. The OP says nothing of destroying genetic diversity, which is something that is necessary. It just talks of making us all look the same, and giving us all the same intelligence level. People would have less incentive to hate each other, when every man looked like a relative.

I'd say this could have practical benefits, one of which is eliminating racism, and the other of which is making the world a more boring place. I don't want to have the deal with some fucktard salesman constantly trying to lead me to the low-price section because he has preconcieved notions of who I am and what I can afford based on what race I am. Fuck that...

[Lusankya]

Well, even if it does make the entire world population more intelligent, I'm not for it: even the lowliest (and stupidest) telephone sanitiser has a place in the world.

Now, having filled in at the laundry of a nursing home, I have come to realise that there are jobs out there that you need to be stupid to enjoy. Trust me. There are people out there who think it's a challenge to sort laundry, when in reality the only problem is deciphering the stupid tags that nobody ever seems to label clearly. Putting everyone at an equal (high) intelligence will mean sentencing a goodly proportion of the world's population to a life of boredom and misery. Then, of course, there are some jobs where it's an advantage to be tall, and other jobs where it's an advantage to be short. Making everone physically identical will decrease efficiency in these jobs.

Then there are environmental matters to consider: Pale skin is more advantageous in polar areas because it reacts better to the sunlight that is weaker in those regions. Likewise, darker skin is more advantageous in warmer climates because it's more resistant to the sun. Making everyone physically the same will backtrack millions of years of natural adaption, causing other possible decreases in quality of life. Racial differences aren't just there to look pretty. They serve a practical purpose as well.

I don't quite see how everyone could end up exactly the same: there's the issue of nature verseus nurture. A GM human who grew up helping out on a station in Outback Australia is not going to be the same as a GM human who grew up in central London, no matter how much DNA they have in common. It's unlikely they would even look that similar - one would most likely have some kind of tan, while the other would have a pasty English look.

[Ford Prefect]

I have sudden flashbacks to Brave New World when considering this. Like Lusankya says, there are jobs that only the stupid can do happily. Would the smart engineer the stupid to make up the menial labour workforce?

[Darth Wong]

I have sudden flashbacks to Brave New World when considering this. Like Lusankya says, there are jobs that only the stupid can do happily. Would the smart engineer the stupid to make up the menial labour workforce?

There should be enough lazy unmotivated people to make up for the loss of stupid people.

[spikenigma]

I have sudden flashbacks to Brave New World when considering this. Like Lusankya says, there are jobs that only the stupid can do happily. Would the smart engineer the stupid to make up the menial labour workforce?

considering the unknown nature of intelligence and the whole nature/nurture debate itself. I'm sure there will be people of lower intelligence even if they have the capability for higher thinking.

For example, if the genetic manipulation specified in the OP, does the following to a person:

1. Allows them to grasp mathematics easier
2. Increased memory encoding and retrieval
3. Increased spacial awareness and abstract thinking

person x (with the manipulation) growing up in an closed-off environment where he is never taught to question the universe, never encouraged to read or think critically. Also, his entire formative years is concentrated on manual labour rather than any type of learning/scientific aquisition of knowledge. The likelyhood is that he'll carry this on through later life despite what his brain is capable of.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

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?

A society filled with people of generic high intelligence will be good for science and probably reduce YECs.

A society filled with Einsteins or any "one-type" of genius may well be detrimental. For example, Einstein himself did not really accept the randomness of quantum mechanics. If all scientists had thought patterns that were identical or very similar, they may all be unable to accept the randomness of the idea - a kind of mind block.

This brain block will in fact improve quantum mechanics by forcing high IQ people of different thought patterns to come up with more evidence for their ideas if it is limited to some of the group. But if the whole group thinks like Einstein, it might become a collective blind spot, greatly hindering if not freezing the quantum mechanics movement, which IIRC had practical applications and so on.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I had a brain fart and didn't realize that there was a Page 2 and 3 I hadn't read yet when I typed my response. Please and Thank you.

[Darth Wong]

A society filled with Einsteins or any "one-type" of genius may well be detrimental. For example, Einstein himself did not really accept the randomness of quantum mechanics. If all scientists had thought patterns that were identical or very similar, they may all be unable to accept the randomness of the idea - a kind of mind block.

This brain block will in fact improve quantum mechanics by forcing high IQ people of different thought patterns to come up with more evidence for their ideas if it is limited to some of the group. But if the whole group thinks like Einstein, it might become a collective blind spot, greatly hindering if not freezing the quantum mechanics movement, which IIRC had practical applications and so on.

This argument (which I've heard repeated but not justified many times in this thread) presumes that equal ability means equal behaviour, which is nonsense. By this logic, all of these people should get the same score on a math test in grade 10, because they will all make the same mistakes.

Genetics determines certain traits, but to presume that 100 people with identical genetics would all make the same mistakes in any given technical situation is fucking ridiculous. Unless you think that nature vs nurture is 100% nature and 0% nurture, this logic simply doesn't fly.

[Lusankya]

I have sudden flashbacks to Brave New World when considering this. Like Lusankya says, there are jobs that only the stupid can do happily. Would the smart engineer the stupid to make up the menial labour workforce?

There should be enough lazy unmotivated people to make up for the loss of stupid people.

You're equating the results with the potential. Lazy and unmotivated doesn't necessarily mean there is no need for those people to have intellectual stimulation. It simply means they choose not to apply themselves in what would seem to us to be the most beneficial manner for themselves. Just because they can't be arsed studying for class doesn't mean they won't be bored beyond reason in a menial labour job.

[Surlethe]

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.

Most definitely: people categorize, and there will be plenty of personality differences upon which to base discrimination. People just wouldn't categorize based on race or looks any longer.

[Surlethe]

Natural evolution has hit a brick wall in the case of human beings. If we're to continue to advance physically, we'll need to embrace eugenics to some extent. The only question is to WHAT extent. People become uncomfortable with manipulating the human genome when you delve into subjective topics like aesthetics, but from a purely practical standpoint, it's in everyone's best interest to make everyone as fit and intelligent as possible.

Why would we need to continue to "advance" physically through genetic manipulation? Fitness is a product of personality, not of genetics, and intelligence is also largely a product of upbringing.

[Junghalli]

People would have less incentive to hate each other, when every man looked like a relative.

LOL, no offense but I find that sentiment touchingly naive.
Human beings are naturally pack creatures, and we're basically programmed to be wary of people from other packs, because in our natural environment those are competitors who impinge upon our supplies of food, water, and other essentials.
Europeans, Asians, Africans and Native Americans were cheerfully hacking members of their own race to pieces in bloody wars long before they met each other. Take away one line of division and people will find others. Chinese, Arabs, and Americans would still be as culturally different as ever even if they look alike, unless you want to couple this race-erasing thing to a totalitarian world government that ruthlessly enforces a global standard of cultural uniformity.

[Junghalli]

This hypothetical human civilisation would assumedly incorporate the knowledge of current civilisation; if we are aware of the ridiculously remote possibility of alien contact, why would this genetically manipulated future civilisation forget it?

The alien point was my response to this.

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

It's a little stupid to blithely assume no external threat will ever be faced, even if we don't know of any now.
Let's say there's a planet 100 ly away which is inhabited by a primitive species. If the human race continues advancing those inhabitants will still be primitive by the time we get to their planet in a few centuries. But let's say we stop advancing and go stagnant. Two thousand years from now that planet has an industrial revolution. A few centuries later they come to Earth, which hasn't advanced, and do to us what the Conquistadors did to the Azteks. They can do that because we whistled away our time and didn't advance, secure in the knowledge that we were safe with no enemies, while they developed a dynamic technological civilization. See my point?
Note: I am not saying lack of genetic diversity will lead to stagnation, that's an issue I'm not touching on right now.

Natural evolution has hit a brick wall in the case of human beings. If we're to continue to advance physically, we'll need to embrace eugenics to some extent. The only question is to WHAT extent.

Why bother? Genetic superiority is way overrated. Seriously. We humans didn't become the dominant lifeform on this planet because we were naturally superior. In fact we're pathetically weak and fragile animals. We became the dominant lifeform by inventing tools which allowed us to transcend the limits of our own bodies, to the point where our natural abilities became basically irrelevant.

[wolveraptor]

You do realize that intelligence and brainsize is a factor of genes, don't you? So in a way, we are genetically superior.

If, in this scenario, only looks and intellect are predetermined, and personality is left to itself, it would be incredibly unfortunate if people realized they didn't like the way men/women looked. Of course, this is a rather trivial objection, but I still think the only trait worth changing is intelligence (mostly because standardizing looks is a tremendous waste of time).

[Zero]

People would have less incentive to hate each other, when every man looked like a relative.

LOL, no offense but I find that sentiment touchingly naive.
Human beings are naturally pack creatures, and we're basically programmed to be wary of people from other packs, because in our natural environment those are competitors who impinge upon our supplies of food, water, and other essentials.
Europeans, Asians, Africans and Native Americans were cheerfully hacking members of their own race to pieces in bloody wars long before they met each other. Take away one line of division and people will find others. Chinese, Arabs, and Americans would still be as culturally different as ever even if they look alike, unless you want to couple this race-erasing thing to a totalitarian world government that ruthlessly enforces a global standard of cultural uniformity.

I said they'd have less incentive, not none. I know perfectly well that we'd still find reasons to hate each other. I just don't think we'd be quite as good at it.

[General Brock]

If there were no such thing as ethnic diversity, how would we know who to hate?

What I wonder is, if such an event occured, would people self-segregate into new groupings based on other things, like personality, wealth, how they dress, all that good shit?

And I do wonder what we'd all be made to look like... personally, I wouldn't mind a bunch of white people ruling the world, since I find white women attractive, but I sure as hell would miss me.

So far, every negative response in this thread seems to be based on the premise that ethnic diversity is good, without ever really explaining why.. at best, ethnic diversity only matters because adaptive traits for different areas of the world cause different traits to become dominant. Really, the only reason diversity is good NOW is because there are different ethnicities in the world, and acceptance of them is the only way not to needlessly cause them pain.

Glad I wasn't drinking coke when I read that first line. You beat me too it.

Ethnic diversity is a good thing because of the different approaches to problems and everyday living. For example, the world would be a sadder place without English fish and chips, but a world universally restricted to English cooking in general would not be so happy.

Ethnic traits aren't entirely dependent entirely on biological diversity, so I don't see a problem with the OP. In Kosovo, you probably couldn't tell the antagonists apart based on physical appearance, and a DNA analysis couldn't separate Serb from Albanian, but they have serious differences with each other.

People would almost certainly aggregate into groups; it seems to be human nature. A lot of people alreadly relate more to the clothing and music of a peer group than to race, for example hip-hop culture is predominally black in origin but universally enjoyed. The things that foster and ethnicity are so influenced by events in an environment that biological homogeny wouldn't impact greatly on ethnic diversity, nurture would almost certainly trump nature.

[Zero]

Bah. I guess I meant ethnic diversity only in terms of physical appearance. It's quite obvious from the OP that cultures themselves wouldn't change, only really certain aspects in people. Nature changes with genetics, the way we're taught to live doesn't. Although that being said, I can see why it's a dumbfuck comment to say that we wouldn't know who to hate. We would, it would just be less readily apparent if any given person you were dealing with was part of whatever culture/group/thingy that you had hatred for.

[General Brock]

Taking the OP at face value, every ideal condition met, I would have to say I would be all for it. Every positive universally applicable trait packed into every living body and naturally reproduceable with no conflict or loss would be a miracle. With nature taken care of we could take better care of the nurturing part, perhaps.

Realistically, no, I am not in favour of dissolving all the races, not without knowing for sure that the benefits and strengths of the existing biodiversity aren't lost. Such a program could be bogged down in acrimonious disputes over the perfect height, skin shade, amount of body hair, and what constitutes legitimate intelligence and emotional stability.

Humans already have less genetic diversity than chimpanzees, although we're the species in charge. It has been speculated that at an early time in history, the species was decimated by some disaster to account for this. Perhaps we have all that we need, or the disaster allowed a crucial element for mastery to become dominant. Perhaps we have lost something critical. Perhaps we can manufacture genes for new desireable characteristics, but where would that start and end...

People aren't chattle and cattle; I'm not entirely comfortable with people breeding for superficial social reasons, according to standards that aren't real. If people see in each other biological traits they want passed on in offspring, ie, they are honestly turned on by one another and who they actually are, then that seems a better way to go about perfecting humanity than an impersonal, across-the-board program.

I don't see how the ideal conditions for the imlementation of a perfect human program could be met, but if it could, I would be all for it.