* Frederick @ Peter - Eugenics? I think the world has been there and done that... with, ahem, the Nazis! I don't think that's the way to bring about world peace... but hell on Earth.
An inspiring epic song may sound unlikely to some but more likely to lead to positive change, in my opinion, the kind of change in consciousness that really matters... a spiritual one.
* Peter @ Frederick - As to spiritual differences, I treat them as psychological differences and consider them quite properly treatable. Thus someone who is spiritually an IMHOP then he/she needs treatment and the correction of their IMHOP is something which constitutes a spiritual difference.
* Steve @ Peter - Eradicate diseases? That's in the realm of possibility. What I don't think is possible is to figure out a way for people to share power/influence. That is the root of conflict, period. Figure out to manage that and things will begin to change.
* Peter @ Steve - Every institution except marriage presupposes dominance. The present view of marriage is therefore highly suspect. Power sharing is not a viable model for human relations . I would want to examine carefully all the instances you might bring forward of power sharing and see if they are successful. I think not. My suggestion here would be that we eradicate IMHOP and, by this, leave only negotiation as a way of getting what you want. That is a viable option, as unionism and many other instances demonstrate. But this is not 'power sharing', I've been president of my faculty union and, though we negotiate, dominance reigns in a stable union and in a stable administration, and in a strike one party emerges as dominant. On we go. Now, my view of dominance is hardly popular, so that becomes the sensitive difference between our views.
* Steve @ Peter - I couldn't agree more with you regarding power-sharing. It doesn't work and never will work. Ergo, and forgive my pessimism, there never will be world peace.
* Peter @ Steve: There is a difference between genetic medicine and eugenics. In genetic medicine we define the disease and people are offered a medical procedure to relieve it. In Eugenics a power above the individual defines the disease and forces the procedure on the individual. Further, because the individual is determining the definition and the treatment, this is not a racist move, as eugenics is, designed as it is to make a master race, or at least to improve the race.
* Peter @ Steve - I don't think you are being pessimistic, why not copnsider that you are possibly or probably right. Pessimism is a disease worth writing about in its own right. Given that absolutely nothing is certain to work, how high do the odds have to be before we try it? Please answer me however vaguely, it is a crucial issue if you want to change the world. How low on the odds can you bear to go without giving up. Think of Christ, Ghandi, King M.L., and make your own list.
* Sher @ Peter: It's too sci-fi to modify neural structures, defeat Darwin's ideas on natural selection, but we are genetically engineering plants & selectively breeding animals. We'd have to cross a line to Rockefellers & Dr. Mengele, Hitler's geneticist, & eugenics. Are you seriously going there? Are you speaking metaphorically?
* Peter @ Sher - There are lots of diseases which we need to treat by genetics, which we do treat by genetic modification. It's the future of medicine we are talking about. I realize this is a hot button issue, but here we are, are we going to to refuse to treat IMHOP because it is 'genetic', the province of Darwin ? You have nailed the fundamental problem with attaining peace, it's deep, fighting is built into YAMS, for understandable reasons, but no longer justified. Look, we decide what is or is not a disease, that's a value judgment. Some diseases are genetically induced, let's treat them if we want rid of them. Side effects? That's a fair question, of course. We need to go very easy, but not because we're into eugenics.
The difference is this. Eugenics aims at producing a better human race, genetic medicine aims at producing a healthier human individual, not a better one. That doesn't settle it, of course, but this crack in the problem is worth following. Eugencis and genetic medicine are worlds apart. Saying how is the important challenge posed by your question.
Other comments? Add yours here