[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Relativism is the view that all truths are relative" Enough said, thank you.

I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious.

Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Perhaps you'll understand why they came up with their conclusions by identifying false assumptions they've made. It's usually harder to identify false assumptions when they are hidden or not explicitly present in the statement itself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Making decisions efefctively with incomplete information requires understanding of Bayesian probability.

[alancalverd]

"Relativism is the view that all truths are relative" Enough said, thank you.

I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious.

Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Perhaps you'll understand why they came up with their conclusions by identifying false assumptions they've made. It's usually harder to identify false assumptions when they are hidden or not explicitly present in the statement itself.

I didn't bother to read beyond the first statement! All "isms" are of dubious validity: either your hypothesis is supported by the evidence, in which case you have knowledge, or it isn't, in which case you would be foolish to act on it, whatever you call it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I get this article in my news feed.
https://nocamels.com/2021/01/hebrew-university-autism-genetic-mutation-medications/

Israeli scientists have identified a specific gene mutation associated with autism and found that it has a significant impact on brain development in mice, with gene-expressions changes that are prominent in the cerebellum area of the brain.

The research indicates that these findings could be instrumental in developing drugs to directly change the neural processes in the cerebellum and offer hope for effective medications for the main symptoms of autism in the future.

The study found that genes associated with autism tend to be involved in the regulation of other genes and in the cortex, striatum, and cerebellum areas of the brain. The cerebellum is responsible for motor function, and recent findings have indicated that it also contributes to the development of many social and cognitive functions.

The scientist’s findings were published in Nature Communications, the peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Nature Research since 2010.

The study aimed to better understand the relation between the cerebellum and autism.

In the study, aimed at better understanding the link between the cerebellum and autism, the team tested one of the most prominent genes associated with the disorder called POGZ. Professor Shifman chose this specific gene based on prior findings that linked it to developmental disorders and overly friendly behavior in some patients on the autism spectrum.

If we find a fetus with genetic mutation which will cause severe developmental disorders, what should we morally do?
- Fix the gene.
- Abort the fetus.
- Business as usual.
- Plan some other treatments, e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological before the fetus is born.
- Plan some other treatments, e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological after the fetus is born.

What moral standard do you use to choose the option? What do you think of someone else who choose another option?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I didn't bother to read beyond the first statement! All "isms" are of dubious validity: either your hypothesis is supported by the evidence, in which case you have knowledge, or it isn't, in which case you would be foolish to act on it, whatever you call it.

Any old scientific theories already superseded by a new one had their own evidences. Some of them are still pretty accurate for some specific conditions.

[alancalverd]

About 30% of human pregnancies abort spontaneously, so I don't get too upset about a very few more that are aborted intentionally.

My moral tests clearly apply to the treatment of anyone who has survived birth (apart from corrupt presidents, of course).

So we have to draw an arbitrary line below which we permit elective abortion and above which we consider the fetus viable and subject to the protections of our moral code enshrined in law.  This doesn't raise too many problems in a civilised country with effectively unlimited free health and social care services but if postpartum treatment depends on parental income, or so many highly dependent babies are born that the economy cannot sustain treatment for the elderly who paid their taxes for it, we have to look very carefully at the position of the arbitrary line, and the availability of in-utero testing and correction.

It is clearly wrong to bring a child into the world if there is no possibility of supporting it to adulthood, and we have the means to safely and humanely prevent that happening.

AFAIK there has been some success in in-utero surgery but gene therapy at any age seems to have hit the wall about 20 years ago.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is clearly wrong to bring a child into the world if there is no possibility of supporting it to adulthood, and we have the means to safely and humanely prevent that happening.

We can agree on that case, although we came to our judgements using different standard. Universal moral standard tells us to choose decisions based on their likelihood to effectively achieve universal terminal goal. When no information is available to determine the most effective option, the decision should be based on their efficiency, which is a universal instrumental goal. The most efficient one among the most effective available options should be chosen.

No possibility simply means practically zero probability. That's why I brought the video about Bayesian reasoning here.

[alancalverd]

The most efficient decision is to abort all second sons and any fetus with detectable anomalies, and absolutely limit human reproduction to an average of 2 live deliveries per female. This will avoid the population rising to unsustainable (but currently inevitable) levels, but may prove to be unpalatable. It is the job of government to implement the unpalatable where it is needed to prevent the unacceptable. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The most efficient decision is to abort all second sons and any fetus with detectable anomalies, and absolutely limit human reproduction to an average of 2 live deliveries per female. This will avoid the population rising to unsustainable (but currently inevitable) levels, but may prove to be unpalatable. It is the job of government to implement the unpalatable where it is needed to prevent the unacceptable. 

There must be some scientific basis to set those numbers. They are driven by economic law of diminishing marginal utility. How many human individuals are the most optimum to support the achievement of best case scenario? It depends on some factors, such as currently available resources to sustain them, and how much additional resources could be produced by each additional human individual.
If the number is too low, there would be inadequate workforce to produce required resource. If it's too high, too much resources would be wasted just to support them with no additional value.

[alancalverd]

The scientific basis is obvious. If every female gives birth to significantly more than two children, the population will increase, limited only by the availability of space, food or water. The best case is irrelevant: a crowded, starving population is the worst case.

You can't produce more resources

"Buy land. They ain't making any more of the stuff." - Will Rogers

On the other hand if we reduced the world population to 10 - 20% of its current size our descendants could all enjoy a Western standard of living for as long as the sun shines. That could be achieved in 100 years by encouraging women not to have more than one child, with immediate and continuing benefits to everyone and no hardship.

Assuming that most humans mate for life, the genetic makeup of a second son won't be much different from the first, so the evolution of the species will continue with fewer males, but the survival of the species requires a small surplus of females because not all are fertile. We may need to encourage bigamy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can't produce more resources

Space is mostly unexplored. Some asteroids are expected to contain more precious metals than what humans have ever mined.

[alancalverd]

Apart from gold contacts on circuit boards and reed switches, and platinum crucibles, I've never considered "precious" metals to be of any significance in my life. I do however need lots of oxygen, water, carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, and various trace elements that are adequately abundant on this planet as long as not too many other people are trying to get hold of them. So why not just limit the population to what can be sustained indefinitely? Particularly as it can be done at no cost, no effort, and immediate benefit to everyone.

And remember that the monetary value of gold and diamond lies entirely in their rarity! If we suddenly doubled the amount of gold in circulation, our banking system would collapse (again). 

[charles1948]

And remember that the monetary value of gold and diamond lies entirely in their rarity! If we suddenly doubled the amount of gold in circulation, our banking system would collapse (again).

When you mention the amount of gold "in circulation", is that a valid point any more.  It used to be in earlier times, when gold was made into coins. Such as golden guineas, and "pieces of eight" and doubloons, etc.  These really did physically circulate among the populace.  At least among the rich portions of the populace.  Or the pirate community.

But in modern times, that doesn't happen.  No-one today ever uses a gold coin to purchase anything.

There are still gold "coins" in existence. Such as Krugerrands.  But these are only standardised lumps of gold.
The equivalent of an "ingot" or "gold bar".  These lumps of gold do not circulate, but are kept in private safes, or bank vaults.  Especially in Swiss banks.

I've read that in Swiss bank vaults, there are lots of big piles of gold bars on the floor.  All the piles have a label on top, such as "USA"  or "UK" or "Japan".

The piles of gold never move.  Only the labels get transferred between them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Assuming that most humans mate for life, the genetic makeup of a second son won't be much different from the first, so the evolution of the species will continue with fewer males, but the survival of the species requires a small surplus of females because not all are fertile. We may need to encourage bigamy.

Not all males are fertile either. We need data to support our assertions

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

On the other hand if we reduced the world population to 10 - 20% of its current size our descendants could all enjoy a Western standard of living for as long as the sun shines. That could be achieved in 100 years by encouraging women not to have more than one child, with immediate and continuing benefits to everyone and no hardship.

That's what China did to it's population, including Uighurs. But the later is met with a lot of backlash and accusation of genocide.
To convince them, you need to offer good reasons why western living standard is good for them.  They will also ask if it's the perfect choice. Is it possible to improve it further?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Apart from gold contacts on circuit boards and reed switches, and platinum crucibles, I've never considered "precious" metals to be of any significance in my life.

They are needed to build computers and controllers in industrial revolution 4. They are also needed as catalyst for many chemical processes. Also for batteries for transportation and optimize renewable energies.
Foods need processing. More people means more food can be produced. It can be produced by machine, though. But then you need more metals to build more machines.
What's important is to be independent from any particular heavenly body, so our survival can be less vulnerable to catastrophic events.

[alancalverd]

That's what China did to it's population,

I said encourage, not force.

There seems to be quite an appetite for cars, electrical appliances, and a meat-based diet, in modern China.To live to a Western standard (which doesn't mean adopting any particular choice, but having plenty of choice) requires at least 5 kW of controllable power qand 2500 Cal/day  per capita. This cannot be generated sustainably for 6,000,000,000 people but is entirely feasible for one tenth of that number.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There seems to be quite an appetite for cars, electrical appliances, and a meat-based diet, in modern China.To live to a Western standard (which doesn't mean adopting any particular choice, but having plenty of choice) requires at least 5 kW of controllable power qand 2500 Cal/day  per capita. This cannot be generated sustainably for 6,000,000,000 people but is entirely feasible for one tenth of that number.

Is it already the ideal condition? Is it possible to improve it further? What would it look like to live better than current western standard?

[alancalverd]

It is a currently desirable and achievable condition. We pass this way but once, and I'd hope to leave the world better than when I arrived (there were rockets falling on London, and now they go to Pluto, so we've achieved a little bit). Better to improve the status quo with what we have to hand, than sit and wonder what  we might achieve with more.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is a currently desirable and achievable condition. We pass this way but once, and I'd hope to leave the world better than when I arrived (there were rockets falling on London, and now they go to Pluto, so we've achieved a little bit). Better to improve the status quo with what we have to hand, than sit and wonder what  we might achieve with more.

Or wonder what could go wrong so we can prevent them.
You still have to define what it means to have a better life. Would it be better if we live longer? or should it be shorter instead? Is there an ideal condition? Is it achievable?