From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Transhumanism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Reprogenetics is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


  • "The end effect of both practices on the gene pool would not be too different."

I don't think it's POV, as user Fastfission suggested, to say the end effect would be "improved population genetics." These are scientifically measurable variables, such as biological health and intelligence. This sentence is only addressing population genetics, not the value of the practice itself - which would be POV.--Nectarflowed (talk) 20:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wording is far too vague, as it currently stands it could easily be interpretted not only along ethical lines (any use of a word like "improved" is problematic, especially when applied to eugenics), but along scientific lines which are not necessarily implied. For example, there are those who argue that this sort of activity would result in increase genetic homogeniety, which in the long run would lead to a lessened ability to respond to certain types of biological situations, etc. Which would not be "improved." Furthermore, even asserting that this would necessarily raise "intelligence" or "biological health" (nebulous concepts) would run up into resistance from a variety of scientific critics (such as Richard Lewontin). So I'm putting back the way it was -- I think the current version has too much of a veneer of science though it actually contains quite a bit of imprecision. --Fastfission 02:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To use more precise terms, disease genes and heretible IQ are far from nebulous concepts. Anti-genetic determinists and those who "give ideology priority over truth" (Dawkins) like Lewontin and Gould represent minority scientific opinion when expressing such views. --Nectarflowed T 17:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want to say, "would reduce the incidence of genetic disease and potentially affect hereditable IQ," that would be fine with me. Gould's approaches were based less on being anti-genetic determinist than in showing how ideological genetic determinists were misapplying statistical techniques in promotion of their own ideologies (ideology goes both ways, you would surely admit). Lewontin is a more complicated case but he's still consistently cited by population geneticists for his views on the subject. --Fastfission 20:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When inserting your above sentence, I substituted 'genetic IQ' for 'heritable IQ,' as the former is more common, according to a google search. Yes, ideology goes both ways. My only concern about anti-genetic determinist positions is that they may sometimes, as Pinker has criticized Gould and Lewontin's position for, be based on politics rather than science. Best, Nectarflowed T 09:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but Pinker's throwing stones in glass houses with comments like that -- or is he the noble scientist, clear of sin, striving for purity and truth, the beacon of humanity? ;-) Personally I've never read a scientist who wrote about larger interpretations of heredity that I didn't think was largely motivated by their own underlying ideas about people and society. There are obviously varying degrees of intellectual rigor and honesty but I think you see my point (I don't think Gould or Lewontin violate those any more or less than Pinker does). --Fastfission 1 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Notability sources?[edit]

I'm suspious that this word, a neologism invented in 1997, has not sufficiently caught on for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Where has Dr. Silver's book been reviewed? Who else now uses the term? How often has it appeared in print, and in what sources? I'm not putting this up for AfD at the moment, because I think these may be answerable questions, but the are very important issues, and I would urge the main authors(or anyone who wishes) to find and add some sourced mentions of the word and reviews of Dr. Silver's book to the article, to beef up the appearence of notability. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Remaking Eden was a bestseller (has even been reprinted in a wonderfully tacky "airport book" format) and the word is currently used in the literature on bioethics. Google Print has at least 20 other books which reference the term in its database, and Google Scholar shows it in well over 120 different articles. I think it certainly satisfies Wikipedia notability requirements.--Fastfission 23:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Great; I'll look into verfiying and formatting these facts for inclusion into the article. Thanks for the quick response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Improving the article[edit]

Added a paragraph, because the article seems a bit lopsided. Would it help to give a neutral definition first of what it is, then a separate section on Silver's critique of it, then one on critiques of Silver? I'd also like to mention a familiar argument but can't find a source. A: "You shouldn't be able to use reprogenetics." B: "My family's got sickle cell/Tay-Sachs/etc.; I want to avoid having a sick kid." A: "Then you shouldn't breed." The Silver-style argument against reprogenetics is itself an argument for legally-imposed eugenics! Hence my comment on framing the issue in terms of reproductive freedom. --Kris Schnee 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your paragraph since it is simply repeating the second paragraph of the criticisms section (Did you click on the link called parental obligation?). However, we could improve the latter. --Loremaster 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


"Towards the end of Silver's book he speculates that the GenRich and the "Naturals" could, over time, even become separate species, unable to interbreed. However, Silver now accepts the criticism made by evolutionary biologists that speciation cannot occur without reproductive isolation and is therefore unlikely to happen." I think it has recently been proven that speciation does occur in non-isolated populations, there was sth about it in "nature" (two species of fishes in a mexican lake). Perhaps s.o. more apt than me could do some research? Tillalb 12:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)--

Were the two species of fishes unable to interbreed? The reason I ask is because I wonder whether or not the word "species" and "speciation" is being used too loosely. I may be wrong but it seems that Silver thinks that the inability to interbreed will be the clear boundary between humanity and posthumanity. --Loremaster 17:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they were. I just found the article - it was Nicaragua, not Mexico :)

nature article --Tillalb 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. We need to research this more. --Loremaster 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Year confusion for the book "Remaking Eden".[edit]

This article currently says that the "Remaking Eden" book is 1997, however this page (second paragraph, first sentence) seems to say that the book is 1998. Vulpecular (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)