Danger in mind

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 03 January 2006 13:12.

Today’s Telegraph alerted me to a survey of leading scientific thinkers conducted by The Edge website.

John Brockman, the New York-based literary agent and publisher of The Edge website posed the question: what is your dangerous idea? in reference to a controversial book by the philosopher Daniel Dennett that argued that Darwinism was a universal acid that ate through virtually all traditional beliefs.

Brockman received 116 responses to his challenge from Nobel laureates, futurists and creative thinkers. These were among them

This one from Craig Venter, Genomics Researcher and Founder & President, J. Craig Venter Science Foundation, is a real breath of fresh air:-

From our initial analysis of the sequence of the human genome, particularly with the much smaller than expected number of human genes, the genetic determinists seemed to have clearly suffered a setback. After all, those looking for one gene for each human trait and disease couldn’t possibly be accommodated with as few as twenty-odd thousand genes when hundreds of thousands were anticipated. Deciphering the genetic basis of human behavior has been a complex and largely unsatisfying endeavor due to the limitations of the existing tools of genetic trait analysis particularly with complex traits involving multiple genes.

All this will soon undergo a revolutionary transformation. The rate of change of DNA sequencing technology is continuing at an exponential pace. We are approaching the time when we will go from having a few human genome sequences to complex databases containing first tens, to hundreds of thousands, of complete genomes, then millions. Within a decade we will begin rapidly accumulating the complete genetic code of humans along with the phenotypic repertoire of the same individuals. By performing multifactorial analysis of the DNA sequence variations, together with the comprehensive phenotypic information gleaned from every branch of human investigatory discipline, for the first time in history, we will be able to provide answers to quantitatively questions of what is genetic versus what is due to the environment. This is already taking place in cancer research where we can measure the differences in genetic mutations inherited from our parents versus those acquired over our lives from environmental damage. This good news will help transform the treatment of cancer by allowing us to know which proteins need to be targeted.

However, when these new powerful computers and databases are used to help us analyze who we are as humans, will society at large, largely ignorant and afraid of science, be ready for the answers we are likely to get?

For example, we know from experiments on fruit flies that there are genes that control many behaviors, including sexual activity. We sequenced the dog genome a couple of years ago and now an additional breed has had its genome decoded. The canine world offers a unique look into the genetic basis of behavior. The large number of distinct dog breeds originated from the wolf genome by selective breeding, yet each breed retains only subsets of the wolf behavior spectrum. We know that there is a genetic basis not only of the appearance of the breeds with 30-fold difference in weight and 6-fold in height but in their inherited actions. For example border collies can use the power of their stare to herd sheep instead of freezing them in place prior to devouring them.

We attribute behaviors in other mammalian species to genes and genetics but when it comes to humans we seem to like the notion that we are all created equal, or that each child is a “blank slate”. As we obtain the sequences of more and more mammalian genomes including more human sequences, together with basic observations and some common sense, we will be forced to turn away from the politically correct interpretations, as our new genomic tool sets provide the means to allow us to begin to sort out the reality about nature or nurture. In other words, we are at the threshold of a realistic biology of humankind.

It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc. We will find unique manifestations of human activity linked to genetics associated with isolated and/or inbred populations.

The danger rests with what we already know: that we are not all created equal. Further danger comes with our ability to quantify and measure the genetic side of the equation before we can fully understand the much more difficult task of evaluating environmental components of human existence. The genetic determinists will appear to be winning again, but we cannot let them forget the range of potential of human achievement with our limiting genetic repertoire.

The references to these evil “genetic determinists” are odd, though? Why the need for Ventnor to put himself on-side with the race unrealist side with this strawman?

Stephen Pinker weighs in with a more retrospective as well as predictive contribution:-

The year 2005 saw several public appearances of what will I predict will become the dangerous idea of the next decade: that groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments.

* In January, Harvard president Larry Summers caused a firestorm when he cited research showing that women and men have non-identical statistical distributions of cognitive abilities and life priorities.

* In March, developmental biologist Armand Leroi published an op-ed in the New York Times rebutting the conventional wisdom that race does not exist. (The conventional wisdom is coming to be known as Lewontin’s Fallacy: that because most genes may be found in all human groups, the groups don’t differ at all. But patterns of correlation among genes do differ between groups, and different clusters of correlated genes correspond well to the major races labeled by common sense. )

* In June, the Times reported a forthcoming study by physicist Greg Cochran, anthropologist Jason Hardy, and population geneticist Henry Harpending proposing that Ashkenazi Jews have been biologically selected for high intelligence, and that their well-documented genetic diseases are a by-product of this evolutionary history.

* In September, political scientist Charles Murray published an article in Commentary reiterating his argument from The Bell Curve that average racial differences in intelligence are intractable and partly genetic.

Whether or not these hypotheses hold up (the evidence for gender differences is reasonably good, for ethnic and racial differences much less so), they are widely perceived to be dangerous. Summers was subjected to months of vilification, and proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence, and comparisons to Nazis. Large swaths of the intellectual landscape have been reengineered to try to rule these hypotheses out a priori (race does not exist, intelligence does not exist, the mind is a blank slate inscribed by parents). The underlying fear, that reports of group differences will fuel bigotry, is not, of course, groundless.

The intellectual tools to defuse the danger are available. “Is” does not imply “ought. ” Group differences, when they exist, pertain to the average or variance of a statistical distribution, rather than to individual men and women. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that all groups are indistinguishable. Yet many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points, to say nothing of the wider world community.

Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously. Perhaps geneticists will forbear performing these tests, but one shouldn’t count on it. The tests could very well emerge as by-products of research in biomedicine, genealogy, and deep history which no one wants to stop.

The human genomic revolution has spawned an enormous amount of commentary about the possible perils of cloning and human genetic enhancement. I suspect that these are red herrings. When people realize that cloning is just forgoing a genetically mixed child for a twin of one parent, and is not the resurrection of the soul or a source of replacement organs, no one will want to do it. Likewise, when they realize that most genes have costs as well as benefits (they may raise a child’s IQ but also predispose him to genetic disease), “designer babies” will lose whatever appeal they have. But the prospect of genetic tests of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely and more incendiary, and is one that the current intellectual community is ill-equipped to deal with.

Among the other respondees thusfar - interesting for different reasons - are Greg Cochrane, Jared Diamond, Susan Blackmore, Matt Ridley, Eric Kandel.

Overall, fascinating and much of it provocative.

Secure in the knowledge that Mr Brockman will not trouble me for my dangerous idea, I have no recourse but to utilise this website for the greater understanding of the future of mankind - and invite all our readers who, similarly, will not be approached by Mr Brockman to do the same.

My idea? No surprise really ... and it’s political, of course, and not scientific:-

If no political resolution is fashioned within the next three decades, the peoples of the West will be pushed to the point of taking up arms to re-secure their living space.

Tags: Science & Technology

Comments:

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:19 | #

Pinker’s conclusion, that nobody will want to clone or produce designer babies is precisely wrong and a good thing too. There are plenty of good reasons for cloning, for example the many happy and successful men or women who want children but have never found a satisfactory spouse, or who wait too long to have them biologically, or who want lots of kids but the wife has a career or whose spouse is infertile.

Similarly, if high IQ in one genetic manifestation correlates with partioculalr diseases, it will be perfectly possible to tweak the genetic code to produce both high IQ AND blockers for the diseases; once this is possible people will want to do it. More excitingly, it should also be possible to find genetic patterns that produce an intelligence above that which can occur naturally—designing Stapledon’s “Second Men” in the laboratory.

Provided world fertility is put on a steady downward path, and races GW approves of have most of the money, the artificial creation of humanity should remove any need for warfare. In any case, it will be difficult to determine what race the new “Second Men” are, since they will not resemble any existing pattern.

Exciting and glorious prospects, provided we control world population and control the Luddites on both sides of the political spectrum.

Posted by Edgar Mice Burrows on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:16 | #

Finally, Mr. Hutchinson has said what we all have been thinking: we are living in an Olaf Stapledon novel. I fear, though, that it is not the one he thinks, but possibly Star Maker or that one about the superintelligent dog.

Posted by Geoff Beck (aka Leslie) on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:16 | #

> happy and successful men or women who want children but have never found a satisfactory spouse

Welcome to the real world, how about trying stoicism, endurance, and patience instead of resorting to a ghoulish practice like cloning?

Anyway, I think it best such people die without offspring. Of course I think it best that respectable conservatives, in general, die without offspring - considering their lack of backbone. Jellyfish humans, really.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:37 | #

What is ghoulish about cloning?

It occurs naturally with every instance of identical twins.

As for population growth, well, that’s going to be the biggie for man in this eon.

The references to these evil “genetic determinists” are odd, though? Why the need for Ventnor to put himself on-side with the race unrealist side with this strawman?

Indeed. I’d like to see Venter name one or two of these “genetic determinists.”

I’m glad I read Venter’s piece. Until now I was conflating him with that jackass, the one who headed the government’s wing of the HGP. I was mystified by “his” 180 until I followed the link and saw the picture - different guy. I’m too lazy for a Google, what’s that bespectacled lisping jackass’ name?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:04 | #

The references to these evil “genetic determinists” are odd, though? Why the need for Ventnor to put himself on-side with the race unrealist side with this strawman?

Venter is Jewish.

He declared that race is an invalid construct based on the compelling data represented by a single human genome: his.

Paraphrasing Harry Harpending’s response to this mendacity: “Even my 7 year old could see through that…”

Posted by Geoff Beck (aka Leslie) on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:12 | #

> It occurs naturally with every instance of identical twins.

That is a simpleton’s remark, Svi.

Posted by Phil on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:15 | #

Venter is Jewish.

What??????

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:28 | #

James,

I guess the point with Venter, as with Pinker, is that whatever his own EGI or politics, he has a prior, professional obligation to scientific integrity. No matter how much the liberal mind struggles against the revelations of modern genetics, the Game of Facts is lost and the truth belongs to the right. Liberalism has to accomodate human difference, and Darwin too. The political debate will change accordingly. One sure victim will be egalitarianism of human potential, another blue-skies, self-authoring theoretics. That, in plain English, is the Marxist and traditional liberal versions of Man ko’d.

This is big stuff. Of course, the wheels are still turning and will go on turning for a year or three yet. But the scientifically demonstrable truth is coming to us. The time for lies as a foundation of public policy will have to end.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:25 | #

He declared that race is an invalid construct based on the compelling data represented by a single human genome

So, I actually wasn’t conflating the two, rather they both said the same thing? (The jackass - whatshisname? Francis or Frank or something? - I was referring to said as much)

It’s amazing to me how these guys can disingenuously spew squid-ink everywhere, knowing full well they’re deceiving people with strawman arguments like “this proves there are no discrete human races.”

I guess it’s easy to tell yourself you’re telling “white lies” for the “greater good” when funding is on the line and your head is buried firmly in the political sand.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:28 | #

Venter is Jewish.

What??????

Yeah, that’s about as far from the Cohen Modal Haplotype as it gets (within the European races anyways).

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:34 | #

Geoff, cloning-as-reproduction seems to me to be very much in line with EGI.

How is it ghoulish for, say, an infertile couple to have children this way? How is it any more ghoulish than IVF or adoption (adoption is far less in line with EGI than cloning, isn’t it?).

What’s ghoulish about cloning? I think there’s a traditionalist argument to be made against cloning, but I don’t think that’s sufficient reason to veto the idea.

Posted by Phil on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:35 | #

No I have seen other examples. One girl at University was blue eyed blonde and one hundred percent Jewish (she wasn’t Mischlinge). She was exquisitely good looking.

I remember being especially shocked when she said she was Jewish. Her surname was “Morris”. (chuckle)

Posted by Phil on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:36 | #

No I have seen other examples.

I meant to say that I have seen more extreme examples.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:40 | #

Also, I’m not seeing the simpleton connection; identical twinning is natural, accidental cloning, and no one considers that ghoulish.

How does the introduction of intent make its occurrence ghoulish?

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:52 | #

Venter’s “curriculum vitae” is here:

http://www.alejandria.cl/empresa/noticias/2003/docs/cv_craigventer.DOC

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:00 | #

“Provided world fertility is put on a steady downward path, and races GW approves of have most of the money, [...]” (—Martin; emphasis added)

Ouch! That was unfair, Martin. GW can defend himself of course, if he deems it necessary, but we others who agree with him were also stung by that gratuitous little barb. Not to make this a sermon, but I just can’t let that pass: none of us views himself as “approving” or “disapproving” of any race but only as questioning our own race’s being deliberately and carefully immigrationed out of existence. That’s it. There’s nothing wrong with that. We’re not trying to pass judgment on any race.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:14 | #

Phil, there are plenty of blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jews, especially in the more-distant provinces (like Texas). The last time I attended an American Jewish Committee function, I observed that about 50% of the Jews on the periphery of the action (where I was, of course) were blue-eyed. Having said that, I would be very surprised to learn that Venter is Jewish.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 03:27 | #

We?

> We’re not trying to pass judgment on any race.

Svi,

Of course, cloning is an area of controversy and I’m sure there is disagreements among WN’sts on this issue. However, I find it ghoulish, any sort of industrial process to produce our kind I find too Huxleyian.

Why not do it the old old fashioned way? Compatible males & female meet, court, and have children. Men not able to fulfill this process out to either change society to so they can breed, or not breed.

And, while we are at it, lets encourage the non-whites to use birth control, indulge in feminism, and become homosexual.

Oh the hate!

Posted by Mark Richardson on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:06 | #

I’m with Geoff on this one.

Our instincts to marry and have children are generally strongest in our 20s. One of the failings of the modern West is that middle-class women in particular have been encouraged to think of their 20s as a time for independent, single girl careerism.

By a person’s late 30s, not only is fertility in decline, but so too will be the “active hopefuleness” (the psychological receptiveness) to achieve love and parenthood. A kind of resigned fatalism often sets in.

Science might be able to extend the period of fertility (but very intrusively, expensively and unreliably to date). But it can’t give back the lost potential of youth.

I know a lot of pretty, feminine, single women in their late 30s, who have just been through too much with men to take active steps now to marry and have children. The option of cloning would make no difference to them, as they have passed the stage of accepting marriage and motherhood.

They needed a more stable family life in their girlhood, and more protection from exploitation in their late teens and early 20s. By their mid-30s they were dating men who themselves had given up.

You have to get the culture right.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:16 | #

Fred, I quite agree with you on the objective, but point out that the declining fertility that comes with wealth may shortly be counterbalanced by increased availability of artificial means. I regard genetic engineering as a means by which everybody’s objectives, mine (fewer, smarter people) yours and GW’s (race survival, if I can put it non-perjoratively that way) and Geoff’s (a firm preference for his own race) can all be achieved.

Indeed, if the “smart gene” hypothesis is correct, genetic engineering can also be used to retro-fit any Africans who lack it, thus solving most of the problems of the Third World (presumably once smart, and very quickly rich, they would settle down like good Italians to a 1.3 fertility rate.)

Geoff, if I may say so, in finding cloning “ghoulish” you’re in very good “respectable conservative” company—National Review, George W. Bush…. Personally I think it’s exciting because most of its likely uses would tend to further your general objectives as well as mine and those of MR as a whole.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:33 | #

Martin,

I said before that you can’t just increase African intelligence in isolation. The gargantuan task of creation confronts you. The body is genetically programmed to deliver from conception onwards a total package. Intelligence is one outcome only, and is dependent on many, many others.

In any case, regression to the mean may still operate since intelligence is likely to be product of many genes. The trolley would have to be pushed uphill for several generation and across the entire race. For example, Sikh IQ (100) emerged out of Indian IQ (81) through terrible persecution by the Turks for three centuries.

On the ethics of cloning I am, being one who came late to fatherhood through the exigency of IVF, always in favour of kids. But, clearly, Mark is right and a healthy culture beats all other means to this blessing. Furthermore, cloning as a mere means to extend individual choice - another triumph of the liberated New Man - is offensive to me on political grounds.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:53 | #

First, I retract my statement about Venter’s ethnicity. I was mistakenly left with the impression he was Jewish from some discussions about 4 years ago concerning the emerging businesses in the DNA fingerprinting business sector.

Second, while it is true that “the genome jocks” are both at the forefront of gathering the data and are therefore least able to remain in denial, they are also generally at the forefront of denial—repeatedly making politically comforting statements to the press while continuing to publish results that don’t support those statements. Harpending and other conscientious scientists excuse this as resulting from the need for funding under tremendous political pressures. It seems it would be just as easy for these guys to just remain silent.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:33 | #