What should we be worried about?

http://www.edge.org/responses/q2013

by bra-ket • 13 years ago

34 45 13 years ago

thebear2• 13 years ago

What I find interesting is how many respondents name worries that are in or related to their own profession or field of study. Note that the question is "What should we be worried about?" So now I am worried that nobody can see past the edges of their own little world anymore.

teh• 13 years ago

That was my first thought. But why ask people from different fields if you want a generic answer? I believe the implied question is "tell us something worrisome you know that the average person doesn't know".

thebear2• 13 years ago

Good point. I missed that way of interpreting the question, but it is probably how it was really meant.

StavrosK• 13 years ago

Exactly. Would it have been as interesting if they all said "global warming"?

bcoates• 13 years ago

Did a little Googling about issue #1, found this great response taking it apart: http://eastasiastudent.net/china/edge-org-chinese-eugenics-r...

isaacn• 13 years ago

Thanks for finding that link to the rebuttal. The original article certainly was sensationalizing every little point.

spitx6• 13 years ago

The critique is really porous and rife with contradictions. I won't even bother paring them down.

One example:

  The other thing that Miller totally glosses over (or is  
  just ignorant of) is that the one-child policy is a) very
  badly implemented in many places and b) has had all sorts
  of terrible side-effects (other than the top-heavy
  population issue). The first point is that the one-child
  policy is not evenly implemented, and is very vulnerable
  to corruption, loop-holes, mismanagement etc. etc.

"Very badly implemented" or implemented to allow for exceptions to the elites and the affluent, who can pay a nominal fee, for their multiple child transgressions.

EllaMentry• 13 years ago

The site appears to be having some issues: here is the Google Cache version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NHUs-7...

cinquemb2• 13 years ago

"Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation. After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness."

So raise the IQ (didn't the western world "invent" this notion?) of a population so they can be replaced by machines (after all, what use does a government have for highly intelligent people but to put them to work)? Because evidently, this is happening in the western world as noted BI, hollywood, and the technologists of our day.

In a couple generations (60+ years), I think humanity might not be constrained by resources on this planent alone… after all, I think Elon and his partners/competitors are going to want to achieve 10x in a fraction of that time…

coldtea6• 13 years ago

>So raise the IQ (didn't the western world "invent" this notion?) of a population so they can be replaced by machines (after all, what use does a government have for highly intelligent people but to put them to work)?

Em, the government is not (necessarily) some "enemy". The government is the representatives of the people and the country. So the use the government has for "highly intelligent people" is to strengthen the country.

cinquemb2• 13 years ago

I didn't mean for that to come across as the government as an "enemy" (I didn't mention an enemy of any sort).

>So the use the government has for "highly intelligent people" is to strengthen the country.

You wouldn't call that work (the effort applied to produce a deliverable or accomplish a task, which in this case is whatever it takes to "strengthen the country")?

michaelochurch• 13 years ago

Conclusion: "smart people" (I'm not debating that they are smart, merely criticizing the institution of "smart people" in this context) don't have any more of a clue than anyone else.

reaclmbs• 13 years ago

NNT calls them nerds. IQ tests invented by nerds so they could call each other intelligent.

spitx6• 13 years ago

  "When I learned about Chinese eugenics this summer, I was 
  astonished that its population policies had received so
  little attention. China makes no secret of its eugenic
  ambitions, in either its cultural history or its
  government policies."

So little attention indeed. Why is this so little known or debated in the West? We make a huge deal of the human rights abuses in the rest of the world every chance we get. Calling the amount of attention that this issue gets in Western public discourse, scant, is indeed overstating it. There is no discussion at all.

  "The most likely response, given Euro-American ideological
   biases, would be a bioethical panic that leads to
   criticism of Chinese population policy with the same
   self-righteous hypocrisy that we have shown in
   criticizing various Chinese socio-cultural policies."

Why do the Chinese get a pass in the respect that the Germans didn't? American film makers churn out documentaries and feature films about the Third Reich by the dozen every year. Yet I haven't seen even a single Frontline doc cover this.

Chinese execute thousands of their "lower classes" every year. This is nothing but the "cleansing" of the intellectually deficient and the ungainful.

At the very least Western intellectuals and universities should condemn this and refuse to collaborate or issue professorships and research positions to Chinese academics in a wholesale fashion (since, as the author put it, "there is a unusually close cooperation in China between government, academia, medicine, education, media, parents, and consumerism in promoting a utopian Han ethno-state.")

However we see nothing of that sort.

Western academics are quick to boycott their Israeli counterparts for the slightest infractions of voicing support for their Zionist state.

Where is the uproar here?

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distr...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/sep/12/boycott-i...

Edit: Clean-up

adamauckland• 13 years ago

I'm guessing because it's not our fight. I don't know your location, but guessing US? American film makers may churn out documentaries about the Third Reich, but many Germans don't really dwell on what happened (and why would they?)

In the same way that in Europe, we get a lot more objective news about the wars the US is waging in other countries around the world which probably don't get on Fox News or CNN.

I don't know if it's a good thing, but there seems to be an apathy towards human rights in Asia from the West. It's like child-labour-sweatshops are almost a joke.

Swizec• 13 years ago

It's simple really, Germany was at our doorstep, for many of us it was inside our house. My great grandmother was in a work camp, my friend's father fought in WW2 and was later imprisoned in Germany for a time.

Germany was real. China ... well China is over there, they make cheap things for us and in return we don't poke at their internal policies. Imagine a Chinese embargo on the Western world, we'd die.

dmm• 13 years ago

They would die too. They need us as much as we need them. Employment is a huge issue in China. The unemployment that would result from the loss of US demand would cause a breakdown of social order.

wisty2• 13 years ago

Also, China was an ally. Some of the worst stuff happened under the old Republic - they pretty much had a policy of genocide against Tibetans in Sichuan. I don't remember if it was actually the KMT (or some of the warlords who allied them), but they were quite brutal. Then the KMT fled to Taiwan, and the CCP became the "bad" guys.

While the CCP has a mixed history, they do relax the One Child Policy for ethnic minorities (I think Tibetans are allowed 2 children), so it's hard to suggest they are actually genocidal. Nationalistic, yes, but that nationalism recognises the rights of minorities (as long as they don't try to rebel). They did a lot of dodgy stuff in the Cultural Revolution, but it's not like they are given a free pass on that.

I'm not sure about the Great Leap Forward, but that was more an outrageously stupid policy decision than a deliberate crime. It only lasted 3 years. While Mao should have ended it sooner, it's not like he kept it going for 10 years, like the Cultural Revolution. Perhaps it really took 3 years to weed through the false reports of progress, and to realise it wasn't just growing pains, sabotage, or natural disasters. Besides, it wasn't really targeted at any ethnic group - all rural Chinese were hit pretty hard.

coldtea6• 13 years ago

No, it's actually simpler.

First, Germany invaded other countries. They had to fight it back, else there would be a huge Nazi power state occupying all of Europe which would be a big thread (and contender for the same resources).

Second, the German "eugenics" program was not birth control or DNA sequencing but killing people they deemed invalid, inferior etc. By the millions. Not even comparable.

Third, China is not a deluded small-ish country in Europe, thinking it can take over the world by itself. It's a huge behemoth superpower.

beachstartup• 13 years ago

Why do the Chinese get a pass in the respect that the Germans didn't?

it might have something to do with starting WW2. just maybe.

ams6110• 13 years ago

As to why there is no outcry from the intellectuals it's probably because they are sympathetic. Eugenics and the intellectual left have a long history together.

spitx6• 13 years ago

I've heard of this cozy relationship before, sporadically at best.

Could you elaborate on this?

Links to definitive works on this subject by respected scholars and experts would be great.

threeseed3• 13 years ago

Do all intellectuals act as a single collective ? No ?

Then do you mind not peddling such pathetic and baseless nonsense. Actions of few != Actions of all.

scott_s• 13 years ago

Can you provide sources which discuss your claims on Chinese eugenics?

spitx6• 13 years ago

  "Although the state has only recently taken an official 
   role in the control of human reproduction, its current
   policies stem from the age-old concept of the
   individual's responsibility to the collective. It is this
   emphasis on the collective good that has driven modern
   eugenics discourse since the late nineteenth century,
   when Chinese intellectuals the well-to-do gentry, and
   government officials explored how to improve the Chinese
   race after the arrival of the stronger Western
   imperialist nations. Indeed, nationalism in its many
   forms remains an important force in eugenics today.
   Dikötter shows that it is the introduction of modern 
   science in China, particularly after World War I, that
   opened the real possibility of implementing the eugenic
   vision. It is in the republican era (1911-1948) that
   elites called for increased intervention of medical
   professionals and the state into the sexual lives of 
   citizens."

   "Government policy on inferior births also increased in 
   severity from the 1950s on, culminating in the 1995 
   eugenics law, giving rise to many technical and ethical 
   problems. A eugenics policy assumes that all handicaps 
   are irreversible and that education would have no effect.
   Furthermore, poor definitions of disorders, handicaps,
   illnesses, and fitness as well as local control of 
   implementation not only erode individual rights but also 
   increase corruption and bureaucratic incompetence. This 
   book shows us the greater problem in post-Mao China-
   eugenics has been legitimized by medical knowledge that 
   is ever-changing, not to mention packaged and 
   disseminated by those who have a vested interest in the 
   control of human reproduction."

Source:

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hapr/summer00_tech/bookreview.ht...

   "A national survey on ethical and genetic issues of 402
   geneticists from 30 provinces and autonomous regions in
   China showed that 90% called for ethical guidelines for
   genetics practice and research; 89% supported current
   Chinese laws on abortion for genetic abnormalities and
   non-medical indications; more than half opposed sex
   selection by any means; 55% thought that gene donors
   should have a right to share in the profits from
   commercial tests or treatments developed with the use of
   their genes; and 50% thought that public education on
   genetics should be the top priority in the Chinese
   government health budget."

Source:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

tlogan• 13 years ago

Actually, before WW2 started we really did not care about Nazis a lot and what they were doing. Hey, we also rejected to accept thousands of Jews from MS St. Louis fleeing persecution in Germany.

jk4930• 13 years ago

Actually many from the US eugenics movement were interested in what Germany did, often finding positive words. And Germany got much of its inspiration from the US. Eugenics fell into disfavor only after WW2, it got a renaming into human genetics and the same persons continued to work on the subject.

threeseed3• 13 years ago

I don't understand what you mean. America executes thousands of their "lower classes" each year as well as part of the criminal justice system. Doesn't mean that it is systemic "cleansing". You need to have better sources if you believe that is what China is doing.

And the reason the entire world dislikes Israel as a country (as of the latest world popularity ranking) is due to its one-sided, selfish foreign policy and this ridiculous "anti Israel = anti Jewish" position many Israelis take. When everyone is sick of it you shouldn't be surprised if many academics are too.

spitx6• 13 years ago

Perusing the same global distribution list of capital punishment shows 43 American executions.

Do not spout falsities here. You will be called out.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distr...

Meanwhile your "world popularity ranking" index ( whatever and however that is conceived to measure ) and Israel's bottom ranking in it, needs a citation.

coldtea6• 13 years ago

>Why do the Chinese get a pass in the respect that the Germans didn't? American film makers churn out documentaries and feature films about the Third Reich by the dozen every year. Yet I haven't seen even a single Frontline doc cover this.

Because the Germans started a world war and killed millions of people? Because the german "eugenics" program included killing millions of Jews, Gypsies, invalids etc? (All of those things that the Chinese do not do).

>Chinese execute thousands of their "lower classes" every year. This is nothing but the "cleansing" of the intellectually deficient and the ungainful.

No, it's merely keeping the strict rule of the party and having capital punishment for several offences. Nothing to do with eugenics, except if you call the killing of a serial killer or state money embezzler "eugenics".

(Not to mention that a number "thousands per year" would be a drop in the bucket compared to the Chinese population to be part of any eugenics program in the first place).

And I don't think the US should speak of other countries on those matters (people in glasshouses, etc).

First, It's in the top-5 capital punishers in the world (along with China at #1, North Korea, etc), in an era where civilised countries have long since abandoned the practice. And besides capital punishment, the US is the world leader in incarcerations, with an non-proportionate majority being black and poor (their "lower classes").

Second, it dived head-first in it's own "eugenics" program, with DNA sequencing etc. American government and companies invested trillions on genome research. Suddenly China is not allowed to?

spitx6• 13 years ago

Have a cookie.

You're delirious.

United States being in the top five capital punish-er list conveniently masks the fact that the top culprit, China, is in a league all by itself.

Its several orders more depraved.

Its several orders higher than the rest in the list, combined.

coldtea6• 13 years ago

>After a couple of generations, it would be game over for Western global competitiveness.

That's nice. Speaking as a westerner, fuck "western global competitiveness". Why West should have the upper hand? It's not even 1/5 of the global population, and it has done the most horrible crimes, from the Holocaust, to Slavery, to exploiting and colonising the rest 4/5, including fighting China for the "god given right" to sell opium to its citizens. Time for some payback.