# A Future I Don't Want: A Rant by Connor



## Connor Bible (Mar 11, 2014)

Peter Lanza, the father of this boy Adam, was interviewed recently, and the things he said chilled me to the bone. *I wish that he was never born.* Those words have been echoing in my head since yesterday. I've been thinking long and hard, about human nature, our flaws, and what we can do to prevent another Adam. A terrifying vision of the future entered my mind. 




With prenatal genetic screening a reality, the concept of designer babies is slowly becoming a reality. Within a decade, parents will be able to choose the traits of their dream child. These "perfect children", born to wealthy and influential families, would come of age in a world where they are the subjects of envy by the Average Joe. They're harder, better, faster, stronger. Eventually, the Over-Children will become Over-Men and Women, and potentially reach positions of power and influence greater than their parents, like the Oval Office, for instance. Having been created and raised in a world rife with human error and fault, they would come to the conclusion that, in an effort to prevent tragedies like another Holocaust or Newtown massacre and to validate their own feelings of superiority, we the Average Joes will have to be subjugated (if not outright eliminated) by The Over-Party for the good of the Earth. UnThought, mindless and unquestioning complacency, is the order of the day. Thought and sexcrime are grave sins in the eyes of the Over-People, for it is free thought and sexual love that necessitated their takeover in the first place. When not being rounded up and slaughtered on a daily basis, the Average Joes are left to their own devices in the ghettos while the Over-People, the citizens of the State, live in luxury within the cities, living luxurious, but empty lives under the watchful eye of Thought Control, the night-walking Sex Squads and other bodies of the powers that be.

I apologize for the rambling. Apparently, I've been reading too much dystopian literature.


----------



## Oglooger (Mar 11, 2014)

Not if we kill these false "Aryans" first.
The earth is for those who were created through natural means and were lucky enough to pass the genetic casino, not these soulless false mutants.
Human Pride world wide.


----------



## exball (Mar 11, 2014)

Are you trying to write a book it something? I demand royalties.


----------



## Connor Bible (Mar 11, 2014)

Sorry. I have an overactive imagination and I'm a very deep thinker.


----------



## Andrew Noel Schaefer (Mar 11, 2014)

Then you come to the right place!


----------



## Connor Bible (Mar 11, 2014)

Thanks.

Does anyone think that a future like this is plausible?


----------



## Watcher (Mar 11, 2014)

This is starting to remind me of Star Trek's Eugenics War.

Basically in Star Trek's mythos. World War 3 occurred in the 20th century by a series of men called "Augments". Who were genetically superior in almost every way to common people, and who essentially became warlords who enslaved ordinary people. It took several years to eventually round up all the augments and even 300 years later it was illegal to genetically alter a person for any reason other than curing them of diseases or ailments. There's a lot of really good episodes of Star Trek that deal with this subject.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 11, 2014)

Cuddlebug beat me to the Star Trek Eugenics Wars reference. Want to be able to protect yourself from those who would oppress you? Make sure the right to keep and bear arms is never infringed. That's what the Second Amendment is all about.


----------



## Connor Bible (Mar 11, 2014)

I seriously doubt, in a society like I described, anyone not in the military, Thought Control, or the Sex Squads would even be allowed to _think_ about self-defense.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 11, 2014)

That's why it's important to keep self defense and firearms ownership an inalienable right NOW so that it will be our's still in the future.


----------



## A-Stump (Mar 11, 2014)

Nature values chaos. There is no room or lasting effect for 'perfection' in the world. You are also valuing the genetic structure over experience, conditioning, and cultural phenomena.


----------



## hm yeah (Mar 11, 2014)

I'm more concerned with trademarking/patenting genes and alleles like Monsanto has been doing for years.

edit: really clever wordfilter there, didn't see that coming


----------



## The Dude (Mar 11, 2014)

A-Stump said:


> Nature values chaos. There is no room or lasting effect for 'perfection' in the world. You are also valuing the genetic structure over experience, conditioning, and cultural phenomena.



If every living soul who was what we now consider "imperfect" were suddenly eliminated in a mass genocide by the people we genetically engineered to be what we now consider "perfect" the surviving "perfect" society would stagnate and fall.


----------



## Ouija Board (Mar 11, 2014)

This reminds me of the movie Gattacca where genetically engineered people were superior to "God children" and had the better jobs, money, etc while the God children were treated as second class citizens.


----------



## Connor Bible (Mar 11, 2014)

At least they didn't crowd them into ghettos or practice genocide, like in my vision of the future.


----------



## Oglooger (Mar 11, 2014)

We as God Children should rule over.
Why should our creations defy us?


----------



## Carlson (Mar 12, 2014)

Dude, we already get hysteria over vaccinations to the point where almost entirely eliminated diseases are returning to wreak havoc because one guy published a falsified report that got stupid parents in a tizzy. Socialized healthcare causes millions of Americans to panic and attempt to shoot minorities on reflex.

Genetic engineering of children would last for less than one generation before mass protests result in it becoming a rarity.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 12, 2014)

Connor said:


> At least they didn't crowd them into ghettos or practice genocide, like in my vision of the future.



So, basically Über-Nazis.


----------



## Payday (Mar 13, 2014)

This is why we must stop the rich from becoming this rich. A socialist future is a safe future. If we ever see the day that a eugenics child is made they'll be thrown into a river and their parents burned on a religious symbol!

Seriously though my thoughts are normally about preventing your vision of dystopia.


----------



## bradsternum (Mar 14, 2014)

CWCKIForums: Some of us are not as autistic as all of us.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 14, 2014)

The situation of genetic superiority already exists.  People who have inherited traits of intelligence, athletic ability, beauty etc. already have an advantage in a competitive society.

Also, forced euthanasia (in Nazi Germany) and forced sterilization (pretty much most of the Western world) of people who had inherited mental illness was conducted throughout the 20th century, and civilization made a moral correction away from that practice.  So it's not predetermined that "average joes" are going to be slaughtered in the future regardless of whether or not designer babies become reality.

If you have a child you hope for him to be the smartest, handsomest, most talented possible.  You take the time to read to him and make him wear orthodontics and send him to sports camps etc., so why wouldn't you also try to give him good genes?  At its base level, that's the foundation of how we choose our mates.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 14, 2014)

Holdek said:


> The situation of genetic superiority already exists.  People who have inherited traits of intelligence, athletic ability, beauty etc. already have an advantage in a competitive society.



This is inherent though. What he means is the ability to say, alter a person's genes while they're in the womb so they come out looking like this


Spoiler











With the intelligence of this


Spoiler










Who can do math problems like this


Spoiler










At the age of 8

Like I used the Star Trek example for a very specific reason because of how the episode trailer I linked has Khan Noonien Sing, who is the villain and is an augment. The character is a natural leader, he's intelligent and understands 20th century literature better than Kirk does, he can overtake 10 men in physical combat, and women are naturally drawn to him and don't understand why. Yet because of all this he feels so superior to everyone in almost every way he feels the need to subject themselves to his wishes entirely because he's still a human being. Khan's first inclination upon learning he's in the 23rd century is how he is going to take it over and bend people to his will. And his plan at the end is so foolproof 



Spoiler



the only reason it's foiled is because the person who set it up for him betrays him.



Like today nobody is perfect. Even the most intelligent people are likely frail physically or have massive gaps in their knowledge. Like a person who can recite calculus off the top of his head probably has problems with women, or cannot play sports.

This isn't so much an argument as to who is better than others as much as people creating others that are superior in every single way you can think of. And this will one day become a potential subject of debate as to whether this technology is worth researching due to the inherent problems that people cause when they feel superior to each other.

This also opens up a potentially tragic alternative in that having a society of perfect people could kill art entirely.

There's an episode of the Twilight Zone that features a premise where people at a certain age are forced to undergo a surgery that makes them look beautiful. The main character in the episode points out famous artists that had physical disabilities that allowed them new perspectives and inspired them in different ways. And that if everyone is the same there's no need to be subversive or to make anything original. That there is no beauty without ugliness.






This sort of thing also has the same problems as Eugenics in that it promotes racism and bigotry to others based on things they are born with.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 14, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> ...What he means is the ability to say, alter a person's genes while they're in the womb so they come out looking like this
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



Wouldn't that be good, though?



Cuddlebug said:


> ...Even the most intelligent people are likely frail physically or have massive gaps in their knowledge. Like a person who can recite calculus off the top of his head probably has problems with women, or cannot play sports.



This isn't really true, though.  Sure, by odds of probability it's rarer that one individual is superior in several traits than just one, but there's nothing to suggest that an individual starts out with a cap of points that must be balanced among various abilities.  And the fact is that large swaths of humanity don't even have _one_ great skill.

We've already largely done away with cultural attitudes that being born into nobility, or a Hindu caste, or money, or a certain race, entitles one to feel that their rights and concerns are elevated above others, so I'm unpersuaded that we need to preemptively declare that we will be bereft of moral agency in our attitudes about this hypothetical future development.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 14, 2014)

Holdek said:


> Wouldn't that be good, though?


Would you enjoy a future where inorder to run for office you must have been genetically altered? Because your charisma cannot match a person who hadn't been. A future where you cannot become a scientist because the organization you are trying to join only hires augments because "normals" cannot compete mentally? A future where you're not allowed to breed with an "augment" because you might "taint" the genepool with your "normal" genes? These are all things that occur now with things like race and human history is full of instances of this occurring. The only issue if what if this occurs with a needle as opposed to something a person cannot change.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 14, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> ...The only issue if what if this occurs with a needle as opposed to something a person cannot change.


Really, the only difference is whether a particular genetic makeup occurs because one sperm beats the other or if it's done with a needle.  I don't see the sperm race as being any more virtuous.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 14, 2014)

Holdek said:


> Really, the only difference is whether a particular genetic makeup occurs because one sperm beats the other or if it's done with a needle.  I don't see the sperm race as being any more virtuous.


Right but there are inherent flaws with human beings. I mentioned a few above. There are no selectively "perfect" people who have the greatest body, have untapped knowlege and can do things like learn languages on a weekly basis or study calculus in their spare time while having the natural hand-eye coordination to kill a person in Counter Strike with a pistol as soon as his head comes into view.

There are individuals that can do these things but at the expense of something. Like I mention the learned languages bit because I knew a psychology teacher who met a person who knew 37 languages, and could learn a new language and speak it fluently in a week. But it was caused by a specific mental disorder that greatly increased his capacity to retain specific kinds of knowledge, but he couldn't say remember his mother's name. Or what the color orange was, or what a "cat" was. He could say the cat perfectly clearly and string it together in a sentence but he would forget what a cat was in a week.

Now imagine if you could cut that gene out for that mental disorder, remove all the negative aspects, and put it into your neighbors child down the street for 5 million dollars. We can clone sheep now and implant genes from fish into plants in order to make them glow. It is within the realm of possibility for this to happen to humans.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 14, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> Right but there are inherent flaws with human beings. I mentioned a few above. There are no selectively "perfect" people who have the greatest body, have untapped knowlege and can do things like learn languages on a weekly basis or study calculus in their spare time while having the natural hand-eye coordination to kill a person in Counter Strike with a pistol as soon as his head comes into view.
> 
> There are individuals that can do these things but at the expense of something. Like I mention the learned languages bit because I knew a psychology teacher who met a person who knew 37 languages, and could learn a new language and speak it fluently in a week. But it was caused by a specific mental disorder that greatly increased his capacity to retain specific kinds of knowledge, but he couldn't say remember his mother's name. Or what the color orange was, or what a "cat" was. He could say the cat perfectly clearly and string it together in a sentence but he would forget what a cat was in a week.
> 
> Now imagine if you could cut that gene out for that mental disorder, remove all the negative aspects, and put it into your neighbors child down the street for 5 million dollars....


This is just one circumstance of a guy with a mental disorder.  Again, there's no biological requirement that just because you are born with a great language ability that it has to be offset by an inability somewhere else.  There are polymaths throughout history.  Leonardo DaVinci was valued and admired for excellence in numerous fields but he wasn't worshiped as a god.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 14, 2014)

Holdek said:


> This is just one circumstance of a guy with a mental disorder.  Again, there's no biological requirement that just because you are born with a great language ability that it has to be offset by an inability somewhere else.  There are polymaths throughout history.  Leonardo DaVinci was valued and admired for excellence in numerous fields but he wasn't worshiped as a god.


Right but what I am saying is, imagine if there wasn't a requirement to be offset by something else. Imagine if you could piece together a person's genetics to the point where there were no required offsets. It could not happen naturally but imagine if you strung together a genetic code that was essentially a "perfect" person with absolutely no offsets and injected that into an embryo. And imagine you could purchase this for a large price tag only a rich parent could afford.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 14, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> Right but what I am saying is, imagine if there wasn't a requirement to be offset by something else. Imagine if you could piece together a person's genetics to the point where there were no required offsets. It could not happen naturally but imagine if you strung together a genetic code that was essentially a "perfect" person with absolutely no offsets and injected that into an embryo. And imagine you could purchase this for a large price tag only a rich parent could afford.


That's my point.  Abilities aren't necessarily offset _now_.  There are smart athletes and handsome geniuses being born today without any kind of artificial genetic manipulation going on. 

Access to genetic customization being based on lots of money is a legitimate social concern.  But so is the fact that some people are born to wealthier parents than others which affords them better education opportunities, development environments, better career connections, etc.


----------



## BT 075 (Mar 14, 2014)

I honestly don't see the big deal? Some children are born with horrific coI nditions, with brittle bones, a skin that feels like it's on fire constantly, or the inability to communicate. Some have genetic defects that can be passed on from generation to generation. Things like heart conditions that kill the men of one family for several generations in a row at the age of fifty, give or take a few years. All these things I have seen happen and read about and it's horrific. 

Am I saying these people should not have been born? No. It has nothing to do with eugenism or nazism. But genetic testing and embryo selecting can create healthier offspring for people who would otherwise not have been so lucky, and can be used to eliminate certain diseases and issues from the human genepool. It's not about creating "super people", it's about simply creating people who are healthier then they would be without the scientific options we now have.

It's like what Holdek said: those of us who have children want those children to have the chance to enjoy life to the fullest, and be as succesful in life as they wish to be, within the bounderies of reason. We all would rather have Chad Thundercock for a son then a Wizard. 

I don't foresee a future of superhumans, rather I expect a future in which a lot of diseases and genetic defects can be eliminated from existance. I myself might carry a defect involving the arteries of my heart. I'll likely make it to fifty, sixty, maybe even seventy regardless, but that's about it. If science will one day allow my sons and daughters to have children who do not carry said gene (provided they do), why would I object a little genetic engineering that will make the lives of my grandchildren happier?

You seem to focus on some sort of dystopian doom scenario, Connor. And imaginative as it may be, I don't think there's much reason for any of us to fear. In the end all I expect is improvement. We have two options here, one is to embrace advancement the other is to reject it. Either way, science isn't asleep and technology marches on. Maybe a hundred years from now, long after I'm dead and buried, my great-great-grandchildren will be born healthy, strong and intelligent with zero chances of ever developing cancer or heart disease. If so, I for one would be thankful for science to have made this possible.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 14, 2014)

TheOneMrBlonde said:


> This is why we must stop the rich from becoming this rich. A socialist future is a safe future. If we ever see the day that a eugenics child is made they'll be thrown into a river and their parents burned on a religious symbol!
> 
> Seriously though my thoughts are normally about preventing your vision of dystopia.



Socialism is my EXACT vision of dystopia.


----------



## A-Stump (Mar 14, 2014)

Believe it or not but the most valued of human traits aren't born of genetics. You could remove all genetic quirks and still be left with someone who is cowardly, introverted, or foolish. 

You also seem quick to forget just how unforgiving your fellow human can be. If there was some sort of modified wunderkid, there'd be ten more religious or social extremists waiting to splatter him across the room with a homemade bomb. 

The true dystopia will be social in nature rather than born of a mad scientist's dream. 

Here in the United States we have a prison system which is profitable for third parties. These third parties have and still lobby for harsher punishments for mediocre offenses. This is why a guy trafficking in marijuana can get a dime and someone who kills another guy can get up to two years minimum. We have a system currently designed to imprison the common man and hold them in bondage so these corrupt motherfuckers can collect and keep on collecting. 

A lot of you might not care because you don't do anything wrong. Well, the law has a mighty funny way of changing itself to throw you right in the clink. Never trust law enforcement, never trust the legal system. It's all a web of deceit.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 15, 2014)

People often point to the movie _Idiocracy_ and lament about how our society is going to end up.  I think we'll be able to stake out a ground somewhere between that and _Gattaca_.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 15, 2014)

Holdek said:


> People often point to the movie _Idiocracy_ and lament about how our society is going to end up.  I think we'll be able to stake out a ground somewhere between that and _Gattaca_.



I'd like to see something more along the lines of a cross between Mad Max and The Postman.


----------



## An Ounce of Vagina (Mar 15, 2014)

Genetic technology is really no different then any other technology that changed human society. I'm sure there were ancient Luddites warning about the evils of say, fire and the wheel.


----------



## Connor Bible (Mar 15, 2014)

The Dude said:


> I'd like to see something more along the lines of a cross between Mad Max and The Postman.


Mine's pure Orwell.


----------



## Hasharin (Mar 15, 2014)

The Dude said:


> Socialism is my EXACT vision of dystopia.


Production organised in order to fullfil human needs instead of making profits for a minority of society. Worse than fuckin' Orwell indeed.


----------



## Bgheff (Mar 15, 2014)

I see nothing wrong with this.  I do think the thought process the normal humans will be exterminated to be a bit silly though.  If you have the money I see no issue with making sure your child gets the very best shot at their genetics.


----------



## The Dude (Mar 16, 2014)

Hasharin said:


> Production organised in order to fullfil human needs instead of making profits for a minority of society. Worse than fuckin' Orwell indeed.



And who dictates the "needs" of the people? What about individual freedom and liberties? Also, please point to a socialist country in history that didn't have a totalitarian government and where the people were not completely oppressed. Speaking of Orwell, the society in 1984 can very easily be classified as socialist. Socialism is stagnation and oppression. People who cry for socialism are simply bitter have-nots who are deeply jealous of the haves.


----------



## Carlson (Mar 16, 2014)

The Dude said:


> And who dictates the "needs" of the people? What about individual freedom and liberties? Also, please point to a socialist country in history that didn't have a totalitarian government and where the people were not completely oppressed. Speaking of Orwell, the society in 1984 can very easily be classified as socialist. Socialism is stagnation and oppression. People who cry for socialism are simply bitter have-nots who are deeply jealous of the haves.



You have noticed how much modern capitalist countries are influenced by socialism, right?


----------



## Hasharin (Mar 17, 2014)

The Dude said:
			
		

> And who dictates the "needs" of the people?


Well, people, I guess.



			
				The Dude said:
			
		

> What about individual freedom and liberties?


But did I negate freedom, individual or otherwise? On the contrary, I became a communist because of my love of freedom. Of course under capitalism, we have some peculiar kind of freedom. The same that existed in Athenian or Roman republic (or early American), that is, freedom for the slave owners.
Under socialism/communism, the free development of each individual will be enabled. People, in free association with others, will be under control over conditions of their existence, not subjugated by them.  They will also run everyday affairs themselves, with decisions being made by those affected (and _government of persons_ being replaced by _the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production_).



			
				The Dude said:
			
		

> Also, please point to a socialist country in history that didn't have a totalitarian government and where the people were not completely oppressed.


You got me here. I can't, since there were no socialist countries. In fact the question itself is badly phrased, because it implies that socialism can be achieved in one country. It's not true. There can be no socialist/communist island in the sea of capitalism. In the reality of the global market, all countries are dependent on what happens in the others. Workers can take control of the means of production, etc., etc., but if their revolution will not spread across the borders, soon the fact that they can't produce themselves everything what they need will force them to trade with someone outside. So, they will keep commodity production- i.e. production of goods not according to needs but in order to sell them for profit. It implies accumulation of capital. Thus all the muck of the old society gets restored and it's not much of a stretch to talk about capitalism here.

All these "socialist" countries were/are totally opposite of what true socialist/communist stands for. Even more, they were actually extreme expression of the capitalism's tendency towards increased state control over society, militarism and general barbarism. Expropriation of the private owners indeed took place, but capitalist social relations and all basic elements of capitalism remained intact. Workers were still wage laborers, exploited by the state (it doesn't make a diffference whether you work for private or a state owned company) and had no control over production and affairs of the whole society.

Laissez-faire and Stalinism are IMO two opposite extremes of capitalism.



			
				The Dude said:
			
		

> Speaking of Orwell, the society in 1984 can very easily be classified as socialist.



As I have explained, it can't, and actually Orwell himself considered himself to be socialist to the end (and text of the book itself suggests similarity between Oceania and what was before, and was inspired by Jack London's _The Iron Heel_, a clearly anti-capitalist novel). Though his political views were still shitty and confused.


----------



## Carlson (Mar 17, 2014)

> On the contrary, I became a communist because of my love of freedom.



Oh, this will be lovely.


----------



## exball (Mar 17, 2014)

Communism really only ever works on paper. Human nature fucks it up.


----------



## Hasharin (Mar 17, 2014)

exball said:


> Communism really only ever works on paper. Human nature fucks it up.


Homo sapiens has lived in class societes for only a really short period compared to its whole history. They can hardly be an expression of human nature.


----------



## Carlson (Mar 17, 2014)

Hasharin said:


> Homo sapiens has lived in class societes for only a really short period compared to its whole history. They can hardly be an expression of human nature.



So how, exactly, do you prevent people in a communist society from attempting to profit, or attempting to get more than they already have?


----------



## Hasharin (Mar 17, 2014)

Carlson said:


> So how, exactly, do you prevent people in a communist society from attempting to profit, or attempting to get more than they already have?


Why would they want to do that if the commune already provided them with everything for working 20 hours a week? (or even less, who knows)

Also, how would they profit without money?


----------



## Oglooger (Mar 17, 2014)

So how, exactly, do you prevent people in a communist society from attempting to profit, or attempting to get more than they already have?
Heavy regulations and forced sharings of your profit to the bums.
to maintain equality, bring evreyone down to the lowest denominator


----------



## BT 075 (Mar 17, 2014)

Communism and National-Socialism is what you get when you have a few dudes who want to make the world a better place, put them in a pub and have them get drunk. Suddenly they figure out how to fix everything. Such brilliant ideas they have! My father, dear ol' Satan Sr., used to be a businessman. He has been to many countries on business trips. Most of them have been in the German speaking world. One day he told me he visited Munich. He walked by a pub that was frequented by Lenin and his revolutionairy buds in the early 1900s when the man lived there. They spent their days boozing it up, getting pissed and coming up with the solution to all of life's problems. In the early 1920s, young Hitler did the same. He had his failed lil' Beer Putsch revolution there. A pathetically short-lived coup attempt deriving it's very name from the alcohol that inspired the man. He's known to have been a teetotaler but that was only later, when he traded in his fondness for that fine German beer for an addiction to narcotics, or so the locals told my father.

Anyway, long story short: communism, national-socialism and other forms of fascism is what you get when you throw a bunch of drunk idealists devoid of any sense of reality in one room and have them discuss politics. It's shit, but those who believe in it are too high on their own ego and perceived superiority of their system to realise just how shitty it is. And then when they defend it, the defense is always the same: "It's never been tried before", "all those previous communist\socialist\fascist states were doing it wrong". Yeah, thanks but no thanks. It's not a coincidence that all Nazi's I've ever known have been borderline alcoholics and all Communists stoners. One has to be a bit of a retard to still believe these systems are workable after witnessing the events of the 20th century, and not be drunk out of your mind.

Mind you, I'm not defending capitalism here and I do believe the system in which we live right now is deeply and heavily flawed. However I do not believe communism is the solution. If anything, it will make matters worse. It always has in the past and I see no reason why it will be any different in the future. If anyone wants to believe otherwise, do as you please. Be my guest. If ever in the decades to come someone has the retarded idea to once more put into place such a system, history will simply repeat itself and leave that nation in ruins and the rights of it's citizens trampled.


----------



## Carlson (Mar 17, 2014)

To avoid derailing much further, I made a thread for communism and socialism here.


----------

