Curse

Dreamsmith · Jun 16, 2005, 08:07 PM // 20:07

I wouldn't mind a true philosopher-king, but the problem is, they're as nonexistent and unattainable as Nietzsche's overman. In the crowning irony for the materialist Nietzsche, his overman is nothing more than a Platonic ideal, haunting him from its realm of non-existence.

As for eugenics, putting that much power into any government without a true philosopher-king (who will never exist) is a bad idea. It's also, oddly enough, at odds with the evolutionary ideas that gave rise to the whole idea of eugenics. It's genetic diversity and natural selection that give rise to evolution, eugenics seeks to curb genetic diversity and has no faith in natural selection, instead replacing it with a guided approach -- rather than throwing all the genes out there and seeing what succeeds, it makes presuppositions about what is best and then aims for for that goal. Lacking diversity and a true, unbiased selection mechanism, it's almost guarenteed to produce substandard results.

Besides, genetic engineering promises to obsolete the whole idea. Why worry about only letting "the right genes" breed when you can just twiddle the chromosomes to correct any problems, or add any features you didn't get naturally? These days, arguing for eugenics like arguing for better vacuum tubes. Sure, better vacuum tubes might make your vacuum tube-based computer more reliable, but why bother advancing vacuum tube technology at all when there are better alternatives? We're not going to weed out bad genes through breeding. We'll just live with them for now, and fix them when we have the technology.

BrandonIT · Jun 16, 2005, 08:29 PM // 20:29

I've never enjoyed the idea of tampering with genetics.

DarrenJasper · Jun 16, 2005, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalt2

If you knew and understood more of what you speak of you might "get" that what I said had NOTHING to do with scientific progress but with the human tendency to abuse, misuse and take for granted "power" See if you develop a means for there to be "selection" then that means there has to be somebody or something that does the selecting and THAT creates power. So when you talk about "creating" a superior "race" or "class" of people who decides who gets to move on and who gets left behind, who makes the determination of who is better or who is not "suitable". Will the criteria be success or wealth, or looks, maybe intelligence, perhaps wisdom either way eventually it will break down into who has enough money or influence or both.

That's why we'd have to raise fanatical ideologues

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamsmith

One assumes by "Nietzschean" you're refering to the TV series Andromeda, since selective breeding has nothing to do with the philosopher Nietzsche's idea of the overman. Nietzsche considered people who took that interpretation of his works to be idiots. The overman does not transcend man biologically. Man becomes overman by a process of self-overcoming, and in all respects of which Nietzsche writes, it's a process in which man changes how he thinks and feels and wills, and has nothing whatsoever to do with his genetic makeup. Via eugenics, you could make a different kind of man, but such a man would be no closer to Nietzsche's overman than the average man today. Nietzsche is unconcerned with genetics and breeding, he's concerned with mental development. To him, the gulf between Plato and the average man is greater than the gulf between the average man and a chimpanzee. The overman has nothing to do with biological evolution, the overman is not a new biological species. The overman does not strive to improve the human, but to overcome him. Eugenics is the antithesis of real Nietzschean thought.

For humanity to truly transcend in a Nietzschean manner, it would require a memetic, not a genetic change.

I never watched that show was it good?

I'm going back over all my books now

Heron Fensbanel · Jun 16, 2005, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

I never watched that show was it good?

It was until this last season. Yikes.

Dreamsmith · Jun 16, 2005, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Actually, I didn't see much beyond the first season. I liked what I saw, but I immediately cringed at the whole "Nietzschean" thing, particularly when the show's principle Nietzschean was a grim-faced dude. I mean, come on, this is Nietzsche:

"The day is lost to us in which a measure has not been danced, and false is every 'truth' that hasn't been accompanied by laughter."

and my favorite:

"I would only believe in a God who would dance. And when I met my Devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: he was the Spirit of Gravity -- through him, all things fall.
"It is not by wrath that we kill but by laughter. Come, let us slay the Spirit of Gravity!"

So what do we get for our Nietzschean on Andromeda? Tyr, a grayface thoroughly in the grips of the Spirit of Gravity. And the whole Nietzschean race is based on the same misintepretation of Nietzsche that Nietzsche himself scorned. It's like in every way, he was the opposite of what a true Nietzschean would be...

Scaper-X · Jun 16, 2005, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Principa Discordia

[SPLIT] Eugenics Discussion

Oh my. Look what I inadvertantly started.

*plays a bit of Prodigy, "Firestarter"*
-- Scaper-X