This webpage relates to the CASA proposal.
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 Incubator
The Bioethics of
CASA?
The simple idea of Eugenics is
that we ought to as much for our own humanity as we do for live-stock,
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, with no particular compunctions in regards to
interbreeding as a strategic option.
No, the fundamental distortion that has undermined Eugenics in
practice, is that animal husbandry deals, in painstaking care,
with the screening, selection and pairing of individual breeders,
while Eugenics has blithely sought to deal with vast human
populations in grandiose over simplified broad strokes.
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a real life Dr.
Samuel Lan, selectively and occasionally even incestuously
breeding improved human beings, to accentuate desired
characteristics, just as with live-stock, in the laboratory.
Only, at best, failed Fascist breeding communities. Perhaps
that's why extreme or specialized nigh super human physical
characteristics emerge, and rarely, only from severe natural
selection, but never Eugenically, no matter the monstrous
Draconian measures that have forever blackened the history of
Eugenics.
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 the fact that 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 agenda 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 more narrow and inbred. 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 CASA, for Computer Assisted Social Activity.
The CASA system, when it comes Online is to offer web based
sophisticated personality profiling and compatibility matching
free services, for a range of applications, and also Social
Network Optimization Works to improve local area social networks,
and their
connection to the larger social network. This will
include dating often in the context of close knit social circles
which may in turn manifest as procreation within a gene pool.
CASA will seek to match people by
characteristics of personality 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. Matching is
irregardless as to which characteristics are deemed genetic or
cultural. Except in so far as changes, including those from using
CASA over time, tautologically speaking acquired characteristics, are to be tracked as and even
prognosticated from longitudinal data via ongoing CASA
Profiling.
Nor has heredity post CASA 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, CASA 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.
In further comment to the CASA proposal with Douglas P. Wilson dp-wilson@shaw.net visionary software engineer.
Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Aaron Agassi
agassi@erols.com
Please visit CASA creator Douglas Wilson's home page if you have not already done so.
Return to Entrepreneurial Brainstorming index
If any of this interests you, please add a link to it on your own page
BOARD
