Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 9:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 4:27 am
Because, we have a target to achieve, we will try to find out why and prevent future fetal anomalies and the other reasons from happening in the future AS BEST AS WE CAN.

As best we can ? Eugenics might work to prevent deformities. Better yet, we could sterilize everyone. That would do the trick!

Or perhaps you didn't mean what you clearly wrote.

Yes, as best as we can, I wrote often, 'it must be foolproof without side effects and dire consequences to humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:06 am
Yes, as best as we can, I wrote often, 'it must be foolproof without side effects and dire consequences to humanity.

There's the rub. There are always side effects and consequences to any attempt to control human behavior -- especially sexual behavior. Free contraception? Conservatives will holler. Almost everyone thinks abortions are a bad thing, and it would be great to reduce their frequency. The questionis: are the cures worse than the disease?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 5:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:06 am
Yes, as best as we can, I wrote often, 'it must be foolproof without side effects and dire consequences to humanity.

There's the rub. There are always side effects and consequences to any attempt to control human behavior -- especially sexual behavior. Free contraception? Conservatives will holler. Almost everyone thinks abortion is a bad thing, and it would be great to reduce their frequency. The question is: are the cures worse than the disease?

You are thinking on a frozen basis.
I have written elsewhere, I am not proposing changes now or within the next 50 years, but rather what we can do within the next 50-100 years or more taking into account of the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, technology improvements in many fields that is going forward.

Given the evident improvements over the last 500 years, 100 years, the improvements I proposed are very possible over the next 100 years or > especially we now have advanced knowledge of Genomics, expanding on knowledge of the Connectome [brain wirings], the sudden exponential in AI and IT technology plus other advancements.

Since evolution emerged, it is evident as inferred, all living things are 'programmed' [adapted] with an inherent' to do better' towards the future algorithm. Species that went out of alignment naturally did not and will not survive long.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 6:25 am
You are thinking on a frozen basis.
I have written elsewhere, I am not proposing changes now or within the next 50 years, but rather what we can do within the next 50-100 years or more taking into account of the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, technology improvements in many fields that is going forward.

Given the evident improvements over the last 500 years, 100 years, the improvements I proposed are very possible over the next 100 years or > especially we now have advanced knowledge of Genomics, expanding on knowledge of the Connectome [brain wirings], the sudden exponential in AI and IT technology plus other advancements.

Since evolution emerged, it is evident as inferred, all living things are 'programmed' [adapted] with an inherent' to do better' towards the future algorithm. Species that went out of alignment naturally did not and will not survive long.

Who knows what will happen in 100 years? Certainly neither you nor I.

You don't appear to understand evolution. Genetic transmission is random, as are mutations. Living things may or may not be "programmed". But they are certainly not programmed to do better.

Perhaps you are unaware that species go extinct; individuals choose not to have children. Besides, aborting defective fetuses probably enhances descendent leaving success. It preserves more scarce resources to support those children likely to produce descendents.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2024 10:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 6:25 am
You are thinking on a frozen basis.
I have written elsewhere, I am not proposing changes now or within the next 50 years, but rather what we can do within the next 50-100 years or more taking into account of the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, technology improvements in many fields that is going forward.

Given the evident improvements over the last 500 years, 100 years, the improvements I proposed are very possible over the next 100 years or > especially we now have advanced knowledge of Genomics, expanding on knowledge of the Connectome [brain wirings], the sudden exponential in AI and IT technology plus other advancements.

Since evolution emerged, it is evident as inferred, all living things are 'programmed' [adapted] with an inherent' to do better' towards the future algorithm. Species that went out of alignment naturally did not and will not survive long.

Who knows what will happen in 100 years? Certainly neither you nor I.

You don't appear to understand evolution. Genetic transmission is random, as are mutations. Living things may or may not be "programmed". But they are certainly not programmed to do better.

Perhaps you are unaware that species go extinct; individuals choose not to have children. Besides, aborting defective fetuses probably enhances descendent leaving success. It preserves more scarce resources to support those children likely to produce descendents.

I don't understand evolution?? or is it you who do not understand the mechanisms of evolution. I took an external course in Genetics with MIT[x].

• program [Google-Oxford]
  1. a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim.

All species at present and even those that are extinct had survived for a period of millions or hundreds of thousands of years.
The obvious inference from the above is they must be "programmed" via evolution with a neural 'survival' algorithm that drive them to strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable.
This organic 'program' in humans is hardwired in the DNA as human nature.

Yes, genetic mutations are random, but there is no denial there is fundamental program [not subjected to mutation] that drives survival-till-the-inevitable in all species.
The term 'species' itself is evident there is an inherent organic program within the nervous system that drives survival to sustain the species.

Nature strives to operate on the basis of large numbers to avoid any consequence of genetic mutations that are negative.

As I had stated, those that vary from the 'program' are due to various reasons, e.g. damage to the DNA, the neural wirings, nurturing factors due to environmental conditions, but that does not obviate the existence of the 'program' that is inherent in ALL humans. A damaged car does not obviate the existence of that things as a 'car'; it the the same with any known object or thing.

Who knows what will happen in 100 years? Certainly neither you nor I.

Hume's problem of induction aside, it is so obvious we can learn from trends in history.

Can't you see the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI, intelligences, technology at present as compared to say 500 or 100 years ago?
10 years ago, we did not have that sort of AI [LLMs] we have at present.

Do you make it a point to keep up with the changes in the critical fields of knowledge and technology? plus the possibilities of various positive potential that could benefit humanity and also informed of the potential negatives.

Neither evolution nor genetics has a "long term aim". Neither do they have a short term aim or any other kind of aim or purpose.

I'm surprised your course in genetics didn't so inform you.

In addition, evolutionary forces do not promote survival of the species. If they did, male lions would not kill existing lion cubs when they wrest control of the pride from other males. Instead, since members of the same species compete for the same scarce resources, fierce competition often exists.

I'll leave you to your delusions. Go in peace.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 4:04 am Neither evolution nor genetics has a "long term aim". Neither do they have a short term aim or any other kind of aim or purpose.

I'm surprised your course in genetics didn't so inform you.

Where did I state that?

I stated the species is driven by an inherent organic algorithm within the nervous system to survive until the inevitable.
Even if species has gone extinct, this does not obviate or preclude its existence in the period [millions or 100K of years] the species had or is still surviving.

In addition, evolutionary forces do not promote survival of the species. If they did, male lions would not kill existing lion cubs when they wrest control of the pride from other males. Instead, since members of the same species compete for the same scarce resources, fierce competition often exists.

I'll leave you to your delusions. Go in peace.

Why do male lions kill existing lion cubs? they do that to produce more lion clubs [so to preserve the survival of the species].
Such killings did not happen to all the lion prides, else there would not have been so many lions in Africa and elsewhere, till humans started to reduce their numbers via various activities.
If they succeeded, it meant the other males had been weakened by old age or otherwise, such that the winning males being stronger will produce healthier cubs to continue the species.

So, who is deluded?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 4:53 am Why do male lions kill existing lion cubs? they do that to produce more lion clubs [so to preserve the survival of the species].
Such killings did not happen to all the lion prides, else there would not have been so many lions in Africa and elsewhere, till humans started to reduce their numbers via various activities.
If they succeeded, it meant the other males had been weakened by old age or otherwise, such that the winning males being stronger will produce healthier cubs to continue the species.

So, who is deluded?

You are deluded. The winning .males are younger and therefore stronger. That hardly suggests they are genetically "fitter" than the deposed lions. Perhaps the deposed lions were stronger than their conquerors in their youth, and thus the cubs that inherit their genes would be stronger.

That's OK, though. Don't let facts disabuse you of the theories in which you are so invested.

^^^ boom

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 4:53 am Why do male lions kill existing lion cubs? they do that to produce more lion clubs [so to preserve the survival of the species].

That doesn't make sense.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 2:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 4:53 am Why do male lions kill existing lion cubs? they do that to produce more lion clubs [so to preserve the survival of the species].
Such killings did not happen to all the lion prides, else there would not have been so many lions in Africa and elsewhere, till humans started to reduce their numbers via various activities.
If they succeeded, it meant the other males had been weakened by old age or otherwise, such that the winning males being stronger will produce healthier cubs to continue the species.

So, who is deluded?

You are deluded. The winning .males are younger and therefore stronger. That hardly suggests they are genetically "fitter" than the deposed lions. Perhaps the deposed lions were stronger than their conquerors in their youth, and thus the cubs that inherit their genes would be stronger.

That's OK, though. Don't let facts disabuse you of the theories in which you are so invested.

You are not thinking deeper and wider.

Yes, the deposed lions were stronger in their youth and thus the cubs that inherit their genes would be stronger.
When they are older, they will be weaker than when they are at their youth, thus the same for the quality of their sperm, i.e. higher quality sperm when younger and lower quality when older which do affect the quality of the cubs produced.

Here is a clue to this general rule:

The perils of putting off fatherhood: why it poses risks ...
https://www.theguardian.com › science › oct › the-peril...
22 Oct 2023 — Older fathers are more likely, for instance, to have children with birth defects

Thus the cubs of the younger lion who deposed the older deposed male lion would be "more fitter" than the cubs of the older lion. It may be a small difference, but it can have great effects in nature over a longer run.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:24 am
You are not thinking deeper and wider.

Yes, the deposed lions were stronger in their youth and thus the cubs that inherit their genes would be stronger.
When they are older, they will be weaker than when they are at their youth, thus the same for the quality of their sperm, i.e. higher quality sperm when younger and lower quality when older which do affect the quality of the cubs produced.

Here is a clue to this general rule:

The perils of putting off fatherhood: why it poses risks ...
https://www.theguardian.com › science › oct › the-peril...
22 Oct 2023 — Older fathers are more likely, for instance, to have children with birth defects

Thus the cubs of the younger lion who deposed the older deposed male lion would be "more fitter" than the cubs of the older lion. It may be a small difference, but it can have great effects in nature over a longer run.

Once again, you are simply making up "facts" to support your silly theories. The link doesn't lead to the Guardian article, but I assume it was about humans, not lions. There is no reason to assume older male lions (who may be 10 years old) are likely to have defective sperm. In addition , most birth defects would be apparent by the time the cubs are ruthlessly killed.

Your understanding of evolution is defective -- not the sperm of 10 year old lions.

Also, your assumption that any behaviors must have evolutionary advantages demonstrates flawed thinking. The logical error is assuming the antecedent.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:24 am
You are not thinking deeper and wider.

Yes, the deposed lions were stronger in their youth and thus the cubs that inherit their genes would be stronger.
When they are older, they will be weaker than when they are at their youth, thus the same for the quality of their sperm, i.e. higher quality sperm when younger and lower quality when older which do affect the quality of the cubs produced.

Here is a clue to this general rule:

The perils of putting off fatherhood: why it poses risks ...
https://www.theguardian.com › science › oct › the-peril...
22 Oct 2023 — Older fathers are more likely, for instance, to have children with birth defects

Thus the cubs of the younger lion who deposed the older deposed male lion would be "more fitter" than the cubs of the older lion. It may be a small difference, but it can have great effects in nature over a longer run.

Once again, you are simply making up "facts" to support your silly theories. The link doesn't lead to the Guardian article, but I assume it was about humans, not lions. There is no reason to assume older male lions (who may be 10 years old) are likely to have defective sperm. In addition , most birth defects would be apparent by the time the cubs are ruthlessly killed.

Your understanding of evolution is defective -- not the sperm of 10 year old lions.

I stated it is clue, and that is a very natural thing with biological aging of sperm within the world animals.

Also, your assumption that any behaviors must have evolutionary advantages demonstrates flawed thinking. The logical error is assuming the antecedent.

Where did I say, "any" behaviors.
I qualified the "nature" hardwired elements that had survived for a long long time has evolutionary advantages, else it would have disappeared.

At some point in time, somebody who cares more than I possibly ever could, should get VA to explain what he thinks the logical force of a "clue" is supposed to be.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 3:05 am Where did I say, "any" behaviors.

It was implicit in your argument. Of course, people can make mistakes on such issues, but other people can note assumptions and necessary implications in what you write.

I qualified the "nature" hardwired elements that had survived for a long long time has evolutionary advantages, else it would have disappeared.

This is not the case. All that is required for long survival of a trait is that it did not fully undermine the species or those who carry it. It could be neutral or slightly negative in relation to individuals. Further given that ecosystems change, it's inexact to false that traits are simply positive or negative. Their positiveness or negativeness can shift over time. The value of the traits is not in them, but how they effect the relation between the organism and the environment. There could be benefits, for example, to having older lions procreating, in terms of, for example, what this does to cohesion in prides. This might lift up improve the survival rates of prides and offset any problems caused by some birth defects. IOW you are oversimplying these process to such a degree that it is misinterpretation.