DisclaimerDisclaimerThis webpage relates to new business models on the the frontiers of automated Sociometry.
No promises or guarantees are expressed or implied. Only speculation. All statements made here in must stand or fall on their own merits, and are presented to stimulate interest and aid in the formulation, for each reader, of an opinion of their own, freely expressible.
Get Involved: Enter the Virtual (pre-)Incubator here on FoolQuest.com
Bioethics
on the frontiers of automated
Sociometry?
Pro-Life doctrine is premised upon a reverence for human life in the abstract, but somehow arrives therefrom to a mandate for the conservation of individual human zygotes. But that is exactly the opposite of what happens in the natural selection process by which only a tiny minority of zygotes survive even into noticeable pregnancy at all. Indeed likewise with in vitro fertilization, only one viable zygote among many is selected, and the rest simply discarded unless salvaged for other adaptive purposes such as stem cell research wherein "potential life" unless technologically purposed towards ever saving actual lives, otherwise simply weaned out much as in nature. In truth then, Pro-Life doctrine simply abhors abortion as an extension of irresponsible Fundamentalist scriptural prohibition upon Onanism, in antirational maladaptive willful disregard. of the ever very real dangers of exponential population increase, After all, by no coincidence is anti-abortion sentiment linked to opposition to birth control to begin with. Perhaps instead if human life as some sort of generality is sincerely embraced as a value, doctrine and practice might unfold somewhat indeed perhaps even as with Eugenics, being our case in point:
The simple idea of Eugenics is that we ought to as much for our own humanity as we do for livestock, in regards to breeding to maintain and improve the gene pools and species. And there are more problems with Eugenics than the unpleasant historical detail that Racists continue to abuse the science. After all, serious Eugenicists prize good genes in every ethnic or ancestral geographic "racial" group, and with every strategic recourse and no particular compunctions in regards to interbreeding which Racism taboos as Miscegenation. Racial purity so-called, often so ostensibly heath conscious, is only a clarion call to inbreeding. Another problem is the lingering specter of various abuses internationally. But the fundamental distortion that has so perniciously and mass murderously undermined Eugenics in practice from the beginning, is that animal husbandry deals, in painstaking care, with the screening, selection and pairing of individual breeders, while Racist pseudoscientific Eugenics has blithely sought to deal with vast human populations in grandiose over simplified broad strokes.
After all, a concept so readily debunked, 'race,' so-called, stands as prime example of a a deliberately ambiguous and slippery weasel word, sheer doublespeak, in so far as the word 'race' is so blithely employed actually to suggest species, while evading open and explicit commitment to such blistering absurdity, belief and atrocity.
Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a real life Dr. Samuel Lann, selectively and occasionally even incestuously breeding improved human beings, to accentuate desired characteristics, just as with live-stock, in the laboratory. Only, at most, failed Fascist breeding communities. Perhaps that's why extreme or specialized, let alone even nigh superhuman, characteristics emerge, and rarely, only perhaps from severe natural selection, but never Eugenically, no matter the monstrous Draconian measures that have forever blackened the history of Eugenics. The fundamental distortion that has so perniciously and mass murderously undermined Eugenics in practice from the beginning, is that animal husbandry deals, in painstaking care, with the screening, selection and pairing of individual breeders, whereas Racist pseudoscientific Eugenics has blithely sought to deal with vast human populations in grandiose over simplified broad strokes. The issue of incestuously pairings of livestock, are subject to stringent culling, certainly unthinkable with human babies, but routine with in vitro fertilization, where in only healthiest zygotes are selected for implantation. Not to mention that the option of artificial insemination would obviate any need of such awkwardness as incestuous physical congress.
Both the Sociological Epistemological Methodology and the social technology behind Eugenics in practice have been primitive in the extreme, just outrageously bad science. Particularly when Social Darwinism (denounced by Charles Darwin himself, espousing, instead the survival advantages of decent human cooperation) offered the criteria for breeding selection. Bad Eugenic Social Darwinist Sociological Epistemological Methodology has fostered the dubious assumption that individual personal failure in society is genetic, ignoring how life experience of interpersonal association brings about the transmittal of acquired characteristics of personality including intelligence, behavior, and circumstance, and how social advancement has on many occasions uplifted even the most wretched of individuals. That is why the importance of good parenting, beyond just more selective procreation, is now also increasingly emphasized.
Indeed, it has even been alleged, as a matter of history, by vehement opposition to Eugenics, that Eugenics has only gone underground via the precepts of planned parenthood, in the advancement of a not very secret conspiratorial strategy that there is a better chance of talking poor people out of breeding by appealing to their compassionate concern for a good economically stable environment for raising children, than in continuing in honestly seeking to persuade them not to breed voluntarily because of their alleged genetically inferior intelligence!
More over, even barring chance mutation, detrimental effects of which perhaps some day soon individually manageable via enhanced teratothanasia, reproductive success or failure is still not the sole determinant of the state of the gene pool. Because the gene pool does not tend to homogenize itself. Smaller gene pools are in continual formation by pairing and grouping in society. And this may have become a more important determining factor in Natural Selection of the human species than survival and reproductive success, especially in the First World where real Darwinian struggle has become so rare. Even in the unlikely event, if, to the horror of the Eugenicists, human reproductive success where to be somehow guaranteed and even required universally, pairing and grouping would still vastly impact gene pooling. The question arises, what will be more prudent and effective, the eradication or the management of undesirable genes? And Positive Eugenics by bribery and conscription, or motivated by common desires and mutual attraction?
Many individuals posses both good and bad characteristics. As is well understood both by Animal Husbandry and Social Science, the challenge is to emphasize and transmit or express desirable characteristics, and to de-emphasize and to inhibit transmission or expression of undesirable characteristics, from the very same creatures and people. And this is often a factor of association generally, including procreative pairing.For example, ex-convicts or recovering addicts may often have a better chance of avoiding relapse and improving themselves by associating with people who bring out their best and avoiding people who tempt or provoke their worst. Likewise, anyone can have healthier children with a partner who's genes help emphasize desired characteristics without bringing in the same defective recessive genes. Thus, most everyone is a candidate for simultaneous Positive and Negative Eugenics! Because in the genetic compatibility of complex multi-gene effects in inheritance, no less than for compatibility of comprehensive personality profiles, important dissimilarities are no less crucial than essential similarities, all of which can only be carefully matched by means of sophisticated Combinatorial Optimization. And that is the only possible method of simultaneous Positive and Negative Eugenics! The only way to pick and choose -to select some and reject other- characteristics of the same individual for procreative transmission.
Thus, the notion of good and bad breeding stock is is unmasked as antiquated superstition. And a more sophisticated hypothesis, that of good and bad matches, genetic and otherwise, becomes testable. So a true ethical and sophisticated Eugenics for the new Millennium, that can be embraced by Humanism, might best consider such management through matching instead of classic Negative Eugenics, and Positive Eugenics by mutual attraction rather than bribery or conscription. Because pairing and pooling, bonding with other people and joining social groups, are a pursuit that mammals including humans are naturally interested in, even without bribery or coercion. Thus, pertinent matching services may even prove marketable, especially free of charge, perhaps publicly or advertising supported. So, perhaps it is pairing and pooling, with individual attention, that a more meaningful Eugenics ought to investigate and develop.
Thus a new Eugenics will be equipped to advance a policy of prudent management in preservation of genetic and cultural diversity to fall back upon, if need be. In this way, mistakes in human Eugenics, such as we have seen in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, will not be grand and irrevocable, but measured and reversible. Because the gene pool will remain complete rather than becoming even more narrow and inbred than it already is. Well managed, healthy, biodiverse, carefully and selectively remixed rather than being permanently edited. Such a new Eugenics could inclusively foster the best matches, which is workable and progressive, rather than exclusively preferencing good from bad, which is dangerous, explosive, repressive, problematical and a failure in every way and at every level.
And this brings us to new business models on the frontiers of automated Sociometry and the prospect of web based sophisticated personality profiling and compatibility matching free services, for a range of applications, also to improve local area social networks and their connection to the larger social network, including dating often in the context of well matched close knit social circles which may in turn manifest as procreation within a gene pool.
automated Sociometry may soon function to match people by characteristics of personality even for "near perfect" compatibility. For all manner of tasks and affiliations, including ideal matches for domestic and child rearing partnership. Also for preference of physical characteristics, as applicable to the kind of relationship desired. Such matching would have no need of regard as to which characteristics are deemed genetic or cultural. Except in so far as changes, including those from using the technology over time, tautologically speaking acquired characteristics, are to be tracked as and even prognosticated from longitudinal data via ongoing profiling.Nor has heredity afterwards been considered. But perhaps it should be. If there is any interest, genetic profiling and matching could even be developed and integrated for those who would want it or might be curious. Among other things, being all things to all people, ever more advanced automated Sociometry conceivably may even become an important tool in the rehabilitation of Eugenics, if such will ever be important to anyone in particular.
Alas, I anticipate that both the card-carrying Eugenicists and the flaming Anti-Eugenicists will be equally offended, and ignore this essay quite completely! Which, arguably, may even be for the best, bearing in mind both the chronic mischief of opposing lunatic extremes and the danger of running off half cocked from speculation such as is here presented. Ultimately, individual willful choice and demand on the Free Market of an Open Society should determine the success or failure of all such ideas in practice.
Copyright © 2000 - 2021 Aaron Agassi
aaronagassi@comcast.net
Return to Entrepreneurial Brainstorming index
If any of this interests you, please add a link to it on your own page
BOARD
CONTACT:
if
its private