[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by csuree

for the record i like science very much.....at around 12 years old until high school i dreamt of becoming a scientist, who would discover a cheap sustainable energy-source which does not pollute....but entering high school this dream was shattered: everyone teased me my parents would say that your aspiration wouldn't bring money home.. how could you sustain a family with archeology, paleontology astronomy, geology, or nuclear physics.(these were my dreams to become).

It's not the first time I've heard a story like that, and it makes me very upset. There's more to life than making tons of money. Rich scientists are more the exception than the norm, but who cares? If your dream is to advance humanity and turn science fiction into reality, what does it matter whether you make $40K a year instead of $400K?

You don't need to be a genius to be in science, either. There are countless scientists who don't know their math, their statistics, and who don't even understand the core principles behind the techniques that they're using. I've worked with many of them, and while I strive to understand everything that I do to the fullest, I'm sure that some would group me into that category too. Still, these people work hard and they can still produce good data. Even if they're not the ones to come up with the breakthrough, their data can push someone else to make the necessary connections.

None of this is directed specifically at you, csuree. There is an anti-science sentiment in America at the moment, and I'm really remarking on my frustrations with that. Your comments just give me a good excuse to go off on it

Originally Posted by csuree

returning to the topic. genetic engineering: removing diseases and mutations could end the suffering of many people don't forget that. i brings us closer to being ideal but what i was referring to was to enhance genes so parents would have children who were smart beautiful and talented in many aspects of life. this was i referring to when i said "making everyone the same". in a world where everyone is a genius no one is ugly and everyone is talented ther would be no real meaning of music arts and creativity. i think this kind of society would become dull and monotone.

This discussion is actually more philosophical than scientific. What is "smart"? What is "beautiful"? There is no single definition. There are different types of intelligence, and there are different types of beauty. Even within those types, many are open to interpretation. For example, if we both scoured the internet and came up with a photo of the most beautiful woman we could find, I guarantee we would have chosen different people. More to the point, the woman you chose might not even be attractive to me in the slightest, and the woman I chose might not be attractive to you. Thus, you have nothing to fear regarding diversity!

Originally Posted by csuree

i never met identical twins before (i hope i will meet 2 pretty girls one day - but that is for another topic )

Originally Posted by csuree

an about the ideal human developing superiority complex: i think it is presumable that if a so called meta-human realizes that he is stronger smarter and more better than anyone lese in his/her group it is causality that he will feel this way. he/she wil need to go through a traumatic exp to not become one so he/she could decide that , won't use his/her abilities against people. but because our modern world is rotten to its core and around 50% of the population is thinkin only of advancing their own goals even if someone is suffering near them i think that these meta-human will also be like that. not all of them but most of them.

Are you superimposing your own thought process here, or just applying the perceived attitudes of people around you? What makes you so sure that a superiority complex would form? While many people are very self-centered, plenty can advance their own goals and still help others at the same time. It's not all-or-nothing.

As to using abilities against people, I ask you again to consider superstar athletes, the incredibly intelligent, and other very talented people. These people may not be engineered, but they have something that many other people don't have. It was random, but they're performing on a level that would probably match genetic engineering. Why aren't these people out to bring humanity to an end? Why are they using their talents for productive purposes?

There's no right answer to that question, actually. The point is that they're being productive, yet they're arguably superior to the majority of people in at least one way. Why wouldn't an engineered human be the same?

Originally Posted by csuree

and you know when a species becomes more advanced than the predecessor it will eliminate somehow the less evolved one. (example cro-magnon vs neanderthals, you know who survived. and in the animal kingdom it is the same).

You're referring to evolution and competition. Modern human society has pretty much removed those factors. It's not a concern.

Originally Posted by csuree

because us humans are basically operatimg by natural laws (combined with our social ones) it is a fact that in time the more advanced humans will somehow shake off the less evolved ones.

It's not a fact at all. We like to talk about evolution as being a process toward perfection, but it's really just a process that selects members who are best adapted to a current environment.

I'll tell you what the course of evolution chooses in our society: those who have the most children. In developed countries, the trend is that the people who are more affluent - those who have higher education, better-paying jobs, and so on - have less children. Those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum tend to have far more children. I'm going to guess that you would not call the poor and uneducated "evolved' compared with the wealthy and educated!

But again I'll say that evolution is really not a factor in modern society, thanks to medicine and civil engineering. Genetic defects and other disease conditions that would have been snuffed out very quickly in nature can survive and even reproduce within our society. We're no longer on an evolutionary course dictated by nature. Anyone saying otherwise is probably leading up to some racist ideology, and desires to claim superiority over another group of people.

Originally Posted by csuree

about professional athletes, models and famous people....they are surrounded by a mountain of people but has any one of them said that they are 100% happy or that they have a full-filling life. i know from good sources that the most beautiful of women are 80% of the time the loneliest ones too..

I didn't ask if they were happy. You initially made the statement that nobody would want to befriend someone who was superior to them in every way. Well, just because we don't have genetically engineered humans now doesn't mean that we're all equal. Some people are superior or inferior to others in certain aspects of life. Is it not true that a person who is inferior to one person in many aspects can still be their friend and get along with them?