mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (01/03/89)
At the end of Stephen Jay Gould's book Mismeasure of Man, there is a short epilogue regarding his belief that man is a neotenous form of an ape-like ancestor. Neoteny refers to juvenile characteristics. For decades, some scientists have noticed that some animals appear like neotenous versions of other animals. For example, the head of an adult spaniel appears similar to the head of a terrier puppy. The illustration in Gould's book shows the human-like shape of a baby chimp's head. As I recall, there a tremendous amount of common genetic material between ourselves and our closest primate relatives. I forget the exact figure, but only a few percent makes the difference between a man, a gorilla, or a chimpanzee. What if that small amount of difference encodes a clock that decides when to arrest the development of adult features? Wouldn't it be fun to try pushing it forward to get a race of super-geniuses, or pushing it back to see what pre-man must have been like? Of course there would be enormous social problems with trying to do it in this country, but once the Human Genome Project reveals the clock, a technological backwater nation could do it as an exercise and demonstration of their own talent (recall the pioneering work in fetal cell transplants done in Mexico). Another possibility, with lighter ethical baggage, would be to neotenize one of our primate cousins. If its intelligence could be raised by a factor of 10, it could be darn useful as an assistant or for assembly-line work. Imagine that! "Hey Chimpman, change the channel." "Chimpman, bring me a beer." "Chimpman, grade this stack of freshman midterm exams."
hes@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Henry Schaffer) (01/04/89)
In article <13127@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: > At the end of Stephen Jay Gould's book Mismeasure of Man, there is a short > epilogue regarding his belief that man is a neotenous form of an ape-like > ancestor. > ... > Another possibility, with lighter ethical baggage, would be to neotenize > one of our primate cousins. If its intelligence could be raised by a > factor of 10, it could be darn useful as an assistant or for assembly-line > work. Or, on the other hand, we might end up as assistants for it. > ...
stein@dhw68k.cts.com (Rick Stein) (01/05/89)
In article <13127@cup.portal.com>, Mark Robert Thorson writes: >Another possibility, with lighter ethical baggage, would be to >neotenize one of our primate cousins. If its intelligence could >be raised by a factor 10, it could be darn useful as an assistant >or for assembly-line work. There goes the UAW! :-) >Imagine that! "Hey Chimpman, change the channel." "Chimpman, >bring me a beer." "Chimpman, grade this stack of freshman >midterm exams." Sounds like the Planet of the Apes to me. :-) [Too scary!]. But also, if these beings have intelligence which rivals a homo sapien, doesn't this neotenization really amount to creating a race of slaves? I thought that this Nation, viz a viz the Civil Rights movement and the Emancipation Proclamation prohibited this indenture from ever occuring. -- Rick 'Transputer' Stein ( My mother was a clairvoyant. :-) ) uucp:{felix, spsd, zardoz}!dhw68k!stein Internet: stein@dhw68k.cts.com
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (01/06/89)
In article <17917@dhw68k.cts.com>, stein@dhw68k.cts.com (Rick Stein) writes: > In article <13127@cup.portal.com>, Mark Robert Thorson writes: > >Another possibility, with lighter ethical baggage, would be to > >neotenize one of our primate cousins. If its intelligence could > >be raised by a factor 10, it could be darn useful as an assistant > >or for assembly-line work. > But also, if these beings have intelligence which rivals a > homo sapien, doesn't this neotenization really amount to > creating a race of slaves? But the point is that people would say that they aren't human, regardless of their intelligence, and therefore aren't "slaves". This is a classic argument. Also see the very good film "Blade Runner" which addressed this issue explicitly. Replicants weren't slaves because they weren't human. Proof of their inhumanity was that the didn't have emotional responses and could, in fact, be distinguished by a test. Gordon letwin
chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (01/06/89)
In article <13127@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >What if that small amount of difference [between the genomes of chimpanzees and humans] > encodes a clock that decides when >to arrest the development of adult features? It would be simpler if the difference consisted chiefly of modifications to the existing developmental program, rather than addition of a new timer. This doesn't mean that the latter couldn't have happened, but the former would be the first thing to look for. > Wouldn't it be fun to try >pushing it forward to get a race of super-geniuses, or pushing it back to >see what pre-man must have been like? This isn't the most clearly-worded question in the world. > Of course there would be enormous >social problems with trying to do it in this country, but once the Human >Genome Project reveals the clock, a technological backwater nation could >do it as an exercise and demonstration of their own talent (recall the >pioneering work in fetal cell transplants done in Mexico). In that case, that nation had first better be able to figure out which of the chimpanzee-to-human modifications is relevant to the differences in intelligence, temperament, and lifespan, and how they work, because simply sequencing the human genome (which I am all for, incidentally) isn't by itself going to tell what each part means, except for a few parts that are similar to ones already discovered -- that takes a lot of additional work. Think of it as being shown extremely complicated engineering plans that are all written in a code of which all the subtleties haven't been discovered yet and when you haven't finished your engineering education -- that is essentially what we will be up against once we finish sequencing a human genome. >Another possibility, with lighter ethical baggage, would be to neotenize >one of our primate cousins. If its intelligence could be raised by a >factor of 10, it could be darn useful as an assistant or for assembly-line >work. > >Imagine that! "Hey Chimpman, change the channel." "Chimpman, bring me a >beer." >"Chimpman, grade this stack of freshman midterm exams." No, this does not have lighter ethical baggage. If you bring something's intelligence up to the point where it is capable of learning to make ethical decisions, you must give it the same rights as we have. If you somehow increase something's intelligence asymmetrically so that it can learn to work in a technological society but cannot learn to make ethical decisions, you have created an abomination (of which too many already exist). Incidentally, while I don't have I. Q. numbers for chimpanzees (if such would even be meaningful), I have gotten the impression that increasing the intelligence of a chimpanzee to increase I. Q. by a factor of 10 would put it ahead of us in intelligence (as someone else pointed out in another way in a subsequent posting). -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (01/06/89)
In article <189@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes: >In article <17917@dhw68k.cts.com>, stein@dhw68k.cts.com (Rick Stein) writes: >> In article <13127@cup.portal.com>, Mark Robert Thorson writes: >> >Another possibility, with lighter ethical baggage, would be to >> >neotenize one of our primate cousins. If its intelligence could >> >be raised by a factor 10, it could be darn useful as an assistant >> >or for assembly-line work. >> But also, if these beings have intelligence which rivals a >> homo sapien, doesn't this neotenization really amount to >> creating a race of slaves? > >But the point is that people would say that they aren't human, regardless >of their intelligence, and therefore aren't "slaves". This is a >classic argument. Also see the very good film "Blade Runner" which >addressed this issue explicitly. Replicants weren't slaves because >they weren't human. Proof of their inhumanity was that the didn't have >emotional responses and could, in fact, be distinguished by a test. Actually, they had emotional responses -- their emotional responses were different from those of normal humans in great part due to their not having a chance to develop much of a background (due to short life span and conditions of slavery) and in some very small degree due to an inherent difference which was not explored in depth (but which allowed the test to work even in cases of posession of human experience). Blade Runner depicted the test as being accurate if the tester is sufficiently persistent, but accuracy of the test is not necessary either for the plot of Blade Runner or for use of such a test in real life (remember witch hunts, Communism, and the McCarthy era). The point is that people tend to look for differences which set them apart from others to justify use of the others as slaves. Most people have been deprived of the chance to use other people as slaves, but given a chance, they will do it. Since question of the legal status of intelligent genetically engineered beings has not been addressed, many people would jump at the chance to use them as slaves. Once intelligent genetically engineered beings appear, the opportunity to use them as slaves will also appear, unless this important ethical and legal question is addressed between now and then. If it is not, the beings in question will be used as slaves, unless they can escape. No matter how much they look like us and act like us, people who are aware of their existence will devise tests to detect them. If it is impractical or impossible to devise an accurate test, people will develop and use an inaccurate test, just as has been done many times in human history. Sorry to put an article of small relevance to biology in sci.bio, but these are issues which really need to be addressed. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (01/08/89)
Lucius Chiaraviglio says the creation of a slave race -- hmm, need to find
a new term for that; how about "animal friends" -- would be an abomination.
Who is to say my abomination is less than your abomination? How is it worse
to make use of a biological robot than an electromechanical robot? Don't we
already have slave ... uh, animal friends in the form of dogs and cats?
Is Teddy Ruxpin a mockery and an abomination? Why wouldn't a suitably
engineered biological Teddy Ruxpin, a living, breathing Teddy Ruxpin be
equally morally acceptable?
Wouldn't it have been great to grow up with a real Winnie-the-Pooh, rather
than just read about it? What's wrong with ... oh, excuse me, Chimpman
would like to say something:
help get me out of here
Ha ha. Very funny, Chimpman. Now, get back to work. Remember to wipe those
glasses again after they're dry.
Both Gordon Letwin and Lucius remark on the topic of IQ tests. I would like
to point out that the meaning of intelligence is highly controversial. The
IQ testing movement has its roots in the eugenics movement of the early 20th
century. Here are some quotes from one of the earliest promoters of IQ tests:
"Every time a "B" man employs himself doing "C" work society is losing.
Every time a "C" man attempts to do "B" work he fails, and again society
loses.
"The study of feeble-mindedness has confirmed our belief that intelligence
is a matter of brain cells and neuron patterns, and still more definitely,
it is a question of the development of the larger association areas of the
brain, the functionality of which develops relatively late, and hence this
development is particularly liable to arrest; moreover when such arrest has
taken place, there is no evidence that it ever starts up again.
"Much money has been wasted and is continually being wasted by would-be
philanthropists who give liberally for alleviating conditions that are to
them intolerable. They admit the money is being wasted. They do not understand
that it is being wasted because the people who receive it, have not sufficient
intelligence to appreciate it and to use it wisely. Moreover, it is a positive
fact that many of these people are better contented in their present surrounding
s than in any that the philanthropists can provide for them. They are like
Huckleberry Finn who was most unhappy when dressed up and living in a
comfortable room at Aunt Polly's and having good food and everything that
Aunt Polly thought ought to make him happy. He stood it for a few days
and then he ran away and went back in his hogshead with his old rags on,
and getting his food wherever he could pick it up.
Aunt Polly's efforts were wasted because she did not appreciate the mental
level of Huckleberry Finn.
[Above quotes taken from HUMAN EFFICIENCY AND LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE by
Henry Herbert Goddard (Princeton University Press, 1920).]chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (01/09/89)
In article <13307@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >Lucius Chiaraviglio says the creation of a slave race -- hmm, need to find >a new term for that; how about "animal friends" -- would be an abomination. >Who is to say my abomination is less than your abomination? How is it worse >to make use of a biological robot than an electromechanical robot? Exactly. Do what you will with nonsentient machines, but if you make a sentient machine, it deserves the same rights as other sentient beings. > Don't we >already have slave ... uh, animal friends in the form of dogs and cats? Animal friends are not slaves. However, far from everyone's pets are animal friends. . . . >Both Gordon Letwin and Lucius remark on the topic of IQ tests. I wasn't trying to put any great stock in them, but rather using the topic to point out that talking about raising IQ's (or actually anything else) by a factor of 10 isn't something that you just throw around -- especially considering that chimpanzees (the subject of that part of the original posting) are probably not THAT far behind us. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu