Genetically Modified Salvation: Three "Evil" Questions

a reply to: eisegesis

Why cant people relate that they are from the animal kingdom and not a magic mushroom castle in the sky...

a reply to: eisegesis

I think the following answers 1 & 2...The only thing that matters is your motive. If you kill someone bc you do not like them, that is negative or evil. If you kill someone bc you know that It will result in saving the lives of many, then that would not gather negative karma or evil. That mother of the the person that you killed may think you are evil, but your motive was to save the lives of many others.

another example:
If you lie to better your chances of making money or making someone fall in love with you, that is evil motive, but if you lie to spare negative feelings so as to not harm them, that is not evil motive.

I am basically regurgitating Edgar Cayce, he could see things most people couldn't when he meditated.

as far as answering #3...Being and or seeing evil may teach you right from wrong in the long run but you do not need evil to have good motive.

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elementalgrove

I find simplistic questions ridiculous.

"Is genetic modification evil?"

I do think that removing evil from a genetic stand point is not necessary and would be contraindicated for our issues. This is because I believe it be fundamentally important for our individual as well as collective evolution. It is our work that needs to be done.

I do like contemplating the questions posed in the OP, if we can be convinced that there is no point to evil and it is simply the nature of man, we find ourselves in quite the hellish existence, with no hope of our own salvation!

Thank you for that response.

We may not have the means to remove evil intentions unless they are linked to physical process or imbalances, but we sure have tried to suppress illogical behavior by introducing or altering chemicals in the body. While not directly related to the "suppression of evil", some people with chemical "imbalances" (also subjective), have been known to cause harm to themselves and/or others until they are medicated.

To me, this is not far from actually manipulating the body's own genetic systems to achieve a desired result. Whether we can remove these "undesirable" traits genetically is what I'm interested in. I also wonder if we can reversely add desirable traits using the same process. We first need a complete connectome of the mind in order to begin tinkering. Who knows what we'll discover.

Changing behavior through synaptic engineering

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: eisegesis

I'm not inciting the notion of thought control, but a lot of us have the potential to be better versions of ourselves at will. We just choose not to.

Not a lot of us. Every one of us can be "better" than we are. Except, of course, Donald Trump. He's perfection. Just ask him.

Or are you saying that we can "evolve" by power of will?

Depends what your definition of evolution is.

The rigid use of the term begins to unravel in the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum.

Good to see you here though.

a reply to: eisegesis

The rigid use of the term begins to unravel in the Philosophy and Metaphysics forum.

Yeah, well. Everything tends to unravel there (here).

originally posted by: eisegesis

We may not have the means to remove evil intentions unless they are linked to physical process or imbalances, but we sure have tried to suppress illogical behavior by introducing or altering chemicals in the body. While not directly related to the "suppression of evil", some people with chemical "imbalances" (also subjective), have been known to cause harm to themselves and/or others until they are medicated.

Sounds like THX-1138. Have you seen it? People could be jailed for "criminal drug evasion." Keeping the population medicated definitely reduces "evil," at least in the eyes of the government because the population's "evil" tendencies to revolt are eased.

To me, this is not far from actually manipulating the body's own genetic systems to achieve a desired result. Whether we can remove these "undesirable" traits genetically is what I'm interested in.

Hitler tried that because he considered the Jews "evil" with "undesirable traits." He was trying to "remove these undesirable traits genetically" by eliminating the population that carried them. That's a fairly gross way to do it, but hey, the technology was not as advanced back then. He could have just sterilized them and have achieved the same result. But then he would have had to feed them.

The overall problem here is that you appear to be suggesting someone be allowed to manipulate traits genetically, traits that you consider "evil." And what we are trying to tell you, and which you are doing an excellent job of avoiding, is that not only does evolution not work that way, there is no "evil gene" and further, who gets to play God to manipulate the species and eliminate the traits YOU deem to be undesirable.

To the State the revolutionary is "evil" and to the revolutionary the State is "evil." How do you reconcile this? How do you determine what is, in fact, "evil." You must deal with this issue, and so far you have completely and intentionally avoided it.

Depends what your definition of evolution is.

You don't get to choose what your definition of evolution is. Language is not a free country where you can make up your own definitions. If you cannot or will not use the generally accepted scientific definition of evolution, then we have nothing further to talk about.

a reply to: eisegesis

It's all about motive so no amount of drugs or genetic engineering will work. It's a dead end street.

a reply to: schuyler

The overall problem here is that you appear to be suggesting someone be allowed to manipulate traits genetically, traits that you consider "evil." And what we are trying to tell you, and which you are doing an excellent job of avoiding, is that not only does evolution not work that way, there is no "evil gene" and further, who gets to play God to manipulate the species and eliminate the traits YOU deem to be undesirable.

This wouldn't be forced upon anybody, only voluntary. Nobody gets to play god or decide what is acceptable behavior for another. I was curious to see what people's responses would be if they had the opportunity to genetically remove undesirable traits much like when people with severe depression get an electrode in the brain. The electrode is an indirect manipulator of human thought, so why couldn't there be a possible physical process that contributes to the mind straying into thoughts that generate evil actions?

The subjectivity of what defines good and evil is what makes this interesting to me. I don't believe Dr. Evolution can convince the entire human race to come in for a tune-up, but if we eventually found a genetic link between undesirable behavior/actions that contribute negatively to one's life, would people have themselves "treated" in order to remove the ability to convince oneself to act harmful?

a reply to: schuyler

You don't get to choose what your definition of evolution is. Language is not a free country where you can make up your own definitions. If you cannot or will not use the generally accepted scientific definition of evolution, then we have nothing further to talk about.

Evolution:

Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

www.nas.edu...

If we genetically modify our ourselves, the same fabricated traits will more than likely be passed on to the next generation. Since we could likely manipulate everyone's genes the same considering the distinct similarities of our genomes in most areas, how is this not a form of engineering our own evolution?

ETA: The thread I linked to at the top of the page deals with a direct manipulation of instinctual reactions produced by the brain.

"Our studies indicate that switching the sign of a synapse not only provides a novel synthetic mechanism to flip behavioral output but could even be an evolutionary mechanism to change behavior," said Alkema. "As we start to unravel the complexity and design of the neural network, it holds great promise as a novel mechanism to test circuit function or even design new neural circuits in vivo."

originally posted by: eisegesis
1. Is “evil” subjective to the creator/giver?
2. Is “evil” NOT subjective to the receiver?
3. Is "evil" necessary to understand what a "good" act is?

Relative = depends on something else before it can be evaluated.
Absolute = exists independently; non-comparative
Subjective = left to the individual to evaluate.
Objective = something not influenced by personal opinion; fact-based.

I would say that "evil" is subjective which makes it subjective to both the giver and receiver independent of each other. That takes care of #1 and #2. For #3 I would probably say yes to that also in the way you're asking it which would also make "evil" relative as well.

This is a difficult philosophical question though and I question myself about it often and still not sure I can lock down a solid answer. It often hinges on various things such as intent of the action being evaluated and awareness of those involved.

a reply to: eisegesis

This led me to wonder, if it was possible to genetically remove “evil” from the human mind, would that be comparable to what most Christians refer to as Salvation?

A truly thoughtful conundrum. If we were to remove "evil" from the human mind we would possibly denature the person from attaining their rightful place as an autonomous moral decision making free person. As you correctly concluded "evil" like "good" is in the eye of the beholder. To use your example of the model of Salvation as applied to Christianity it would appear that that already was the case in the Garden of Eden, where man had no concept of good or evil until God and the Adversary (satan in christiology) made Man aware of such a concept when they both decided to have a tug of war over Adam.

Adam from what little we know from Genesis was happy in his ignorance. But this is where it becomes contradictory as the microcosm is a reflection of the Macrocosm and God made man in his image. Adam was by definition less than human as he had no moral compass just a free for all with only 3 riders. Worship your Creator and don't partake of the 2 trees (Life/Death & knowledge of Good/Evil). We don't have to extrapolate on GM meddling on emotions or higher reasoning in the future. There's whole reams of studies and experiments proving that man can be made to become "Evil". Wars from perhaps 1939 onwards have shown the propensity of programming the human mind to kill in the name of some perceived political bogeyman who would turn us into Mao or Stalin worshipping sheep. Or even Germany viewing the eradication of the "Jew" as their salvation.

If you want to see real evil in the eye look at how the US vets were not only fighting to prop up the US/Saudi petrodollar in the Gulf Wars but were also forcibly injected and experimented on with vaccines (without informed consent)

if it was possible to genetically remove “evil” from the human mind,

Well no need for that its been done countless times; here's a good example...the women left behind during WWII building bombs and armaments did not see that they were doing anything evil, ie bombs kill, they saw themselves as putting a wage on the table and defending their land.

As we constantly reflect on how our actions are perceived by others

I would strongly contest that assumption. Perhaps you and I do reflect, what I see around me generally is people oblivious to the true nature of the programming. There are no longer ethics or philosophy discussed. Just I want my pie at all costs and damn the others. Cheap consumerism has spawned a generation of materially unsatiated clones who dance to government propaganda and Madison Ave generated "demand". The next "market crash" will have far wider effects than the crash of 1929 on the oblivious.

a reply to: elementalgrove

At this level of our growth, evil is apparently necessary.

But that in itself is subjective; whose to say we were more advanced in a past age or will be in a future age. Your biggest assumption is suggesting that growth, and I take it you mean spiritual growth, is some linear function heading towards an idealized utopia/heaven.

Ignorance of a staggering level is in place when man considers himself to be separate from nature, leading to the erroneous destruction of man's environment.

You have fallen for the trap of the Green agenda...you have excluded mans inhumanity to man after "staggering". May I suggest...

Ignorance of a staggering level is in place when man considers himself to be separate from Man and nature, leading to the erroneous destruction of man's environment and the cruelty of Man to his neighbours and brothers

They used to give "Mentally Ill" people ESP ... Electric Shock Therapy ... as in One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest"
That rendered the patient docile and compliant to "Socially Acceptable Behaviour" ... a "Cabbage" like state

What is perceived as evil or good is only manifested by the choices we make
To take away the element of what and by whoever thinks evil ... is evil in itself
It takes away personal choice ... and choice is what makes us different from robots

Anyway ... Who decides what is good or evil ... It is a Medieval attitude and lacks understanding

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I make no concrete assumptions. I believe there are varying levels of existence, worlds/dimensions to experience the infinite spectrum that God's imagination can create. We are given an aspect of this creative ability within ourselves and we use this gift in our personal lives.

That is not to say there is only one linear path in which we evolve. I would venture on to say that this is an illusion and our spirit (which is a term that can have infinite meanings based upon the subjective view) has an infinite amount of paths to take.

As for falling for the green agenda, your making the claim that I separate man from nature. However when I make the claim that you quoted, I am also including man within the description of nature. You aptly describe it when you say the destruction of mans environment and cruelty of Man to his neighbors and brothers.

a reply to: wisvol

Evil and Good are actually objective

Fail...do some real philosophical reading.

A community of people with good intentions is heaven, the brain modification exists and it's called choosing to do what is right consistently

A community of people with good intentions? What like the Pentagon? It is a closed community after all.

Millions marched around the World protesting the invasion of the Middle East after seeing the propaganda pushing for war. Where did that get them?

This change only comes from within, no matter how much education, chemistry, surgery and voodoo electronics are used.

True upto a point. You have to want change. Why is that moral compass absent from the politicians and generals who push for war? Its because they are self serving to the arms corporations who put them there.

a reply to: Phage

I find simplistic questions ridiculous.

"Is genetic modification evil?"

Nowhere did eisegesis ask that question and even in your wildest imagination could you sum up her OP to that one liner of yours. Why do insist on misquoting people?. She assumed that it may be possible to do GM on removing evil.

eisegesis...
if it was possible to genetically remove “evil” from the human mind,

a reply to: schuyler

This does affect evolution, but not for the better in terms of strengthening the species. In essence, it passes on defects.

That builds a strong case for the abolition of childhood vaccinations. We were experiencing exponential population growth with all sorts of plagues, famines and diseases wiping out millions, and the only temporary abatement would have been access to cheap resources and land for expansion upto the 1900's. All without passing on "vaccinated altered" genes. Since mass immunizations we seem to be getting more cancers and illness even though we appear to be living longer. Part of eating frankenfoods, or keeping doctors in business I would guess.

"winters coming...quick get your flu shots only $9.99"

Evil subjective and can be objective, and normally associated with bad after maths.

1.I.E, if those apocalyptic prophecies actually played, and God wiped the wicked of the face of the Earth, would that make him Good or a Big Baddie? However, God allowed the fall of the saint, which in turn brought the desolation of the wicked, would make him Evil?

2. That pov of would be subjective to the individual, it like what good or bad, or beautiful and ugly, or how why does everything that feels so Good is bad, or that everything is bad can be so good.

I.e, Now if I had to decide the fate of soulless coward by holding a giant sword over, who'd not lend out a hand for his own mother, and would be willing to sacrifice flocks of sheep, and would expect to receive mercy because the fear of pain would be to much for the individual, and drop that mass on him...Would that make me evil, or did I do some Good in the long run.

Do I allow the parasite to infest the lands, which in turn can cause so much more grief, if I didn't commit the Evil act?

3. Nether, how does the Good can do so much bad, while the bad can do so much good? Does good become to soft, that it becomes delusional, and selfish?

Double Post

a reply to: eisegesis

but a lot of us have the potential to be better versions of ourselves at will. We just choose not to. Where does that line of thinking stem from?

The ego? The ego always want its way - a spoilt brat, not caring for consequences. The thought of the "Loss of Power" or control keeps some from bettering themselves. In the eyes of a true psychopath there is no "other" that one must take into consideration before "acting". There is only self to consider.