FloatingEgg

I’ve recently become interested in paradise engineering, eugenics, and Transhumanism. I am a layman however, so I don’t claim any sort of in-depth knowledge regarding these concepts

The concept that I find great difficulty wrapping my head around is the future possibility of removing emotions that might be considered negative, such as anger, depression, sadness etc. Assuming this kind of alteration was possible, and that at some later date, these types of conditions were implemented prior to the birth of a child, and globally, would it still be possible for someone down the line to possess the genetic traits previously thought removed?

I’m under the assumption with this question, that globally, for an extended period of time, this kind of artificial selection was a success. I’m not speaking about first, second, or third generation lines. I’m speaking about a world of human beings utterly devoid of the emotions we frequently wrestle with, without traces of the generations that actually began the process. Is it possible for someone like “us” to make an appearance somewhere down the line, without any kind of technological involvement?

I suppose that I’m questioning the certainty aspect of genetics, and if it’s completely fool proof. Of course, maybe it’s silly to assume that anything is fool proof, but I’m just interested to know how a society of blissful beings would deal with an aberration (us), and if it would even be possible for our particular weaknesses (negative emotions) to get past the barrier of mass eugenics.

tronvillain

I don't think many people would really want to give up the "negative" emotions. I know that I wouldn't. Perhaps not experience them to certain extremes, but not give them up.

FloatingEgg

The popular view is that contrast is necessary for pleasure to perform as well as it does. I'm not sure I'm in agreement with that, but that's really a whole other topic.

I'm more interested in how concrete the role of genetics is, and if genetic engineering is fool proof, or should I say "will be fool proof."

If any of you are interested in Hedonism, or how paradise engineering is invisioned, take a look at this website: <a href="http://www.bltc.com/" target="_blank">http://www.bltc.com/</a>

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: jsimmons ]</p>

echidna

If someone comes along and grabs my wallet or hits my wife, personally I want to feel angry about it. I don’t see why I should be striving to feel happy about it.

FloatingEgg

I think the idea is that if everyone is in a state of bliss they wouldn't do something like steal your wallet, so there wouldn't be a reason to become angry.

flatland

I think its rather strange to even think of removing one facet of an emotion. Take happiness and sadness, for instance. Can you draw a definitive line at which you cease to be happy and become sad? If so, what are you when you are at that point? Is sadness just a lack of happiness, and conversely, is happiness just a lack of sadness? Emotions seem like a spectrum, and it seems nonsensical to decide that at one certain point you are not happy. You may not be AS happy as you have been previously, but does that necessarily make you positively sad? Or perhaps you postulate a state of bliss, where everyone is constantly experiencing the utmost in all positive emotions, with no ability to feel anything less. In that case, I propose that humanity would soon go extinct, because nobody would have any reason to do anything at all but sit and experience.

Essentially, emotion seems far too subjective a state to be meaningfully discussed as you have put it forward.

FloatingEgg

I never claimed to support this hedonistic ideology. I was in fact asking a science question, but everyone seems to want to have a discussion about the ethical ramifications of removing negative emotions.

echidna

The problem is that literal selflessness is inconsistent with consciousness. Each person has an individual consciousness so as such a conscious act of selflessness is impossible. Individuals are selfish by definition. Of course whether that selfishness can include consideration for others is very important, but I don’t see how one can biologically remove self-interest (such that people no longer covet each others wallets) without also tampering with that same sense of self.

This is effectively what Huxley’s Soma achieved in Brave New World, a zombie-like blissful state of existence. Judging by the widespread addiction to narcotics, it’s a popular choice, but not necessarily suited to everyone.

While personality traits are still very poorly understood in terms of genetics, it’s safe to say that no single gene is responsible for the ability so feel emotions. Indeed loosely based on better understood physical characteristics, it is likely to be a very complex combination of genes. The trouble in manipulating a set of genes for a single desired characteristic, is that all the other features controlled by these same genes are likely to be adversely affected.

But given the present lack of genetic understanding, maybe the better approach at this stage is simply the use of mind-altering drugs. MDMA (Ecstasy) for instance, is generally associated with many positive emotions.

Though can I just say that if transmuting the human race into the Brady Bunch is truly mankind’s future paradise, then please, kill me now.

flatland

I wasn't discussing the ethical ramifications, but questioning the possibility of removing emotions. But never mind that.

If we were able to remove emotions, I would say that the possibility of re-emergence of emotions would depend on the specific method used to eliminate them in the first place. If we simply prevent the expression of the emotion-controlling genes, then the procedure would have to be repeated on every child at birth, and negative emotions would never be truly gone from humanity, just never utilized. An emotional appendix, if you will. However, if we could somehow dig into the genome itself and alter it such that those genes simply were not there, or altered the genes themselves so that negative emotions did not appear, then I would say that the only way for emotions to re-emerge would be for them to mutate back in at a later date.

Just thinking about the specifics and ramifications of such a procedure gives me a headache.

FloatingEgg

It's the Hedonistic Imperative's position that the process would not be so complicated, as shown with this reaction to a similar objection:

Regardless if it's possible, and the Hedonistic Imperative is quite convincing in its claims, my question doesn't necessarily have to be as specific as the removal of negative emotions.

It seems that people are getting caught up in the concept, so I'll simplify it a little.

Scenario:

Assume that, for whatever the reason, an undesirable hair pigment is removed from the human genetic code. Let's say that we want to phase out all blond haired people, and after several hundred years, we've been successful at doing just that.

What are the chances that a blond haired person would be born? In other words, is the Eugenic removal of the blond pigment infallible?