i see your points, i guess its just the method of induction that i have a problem with. getting to them when they are babies and altering their brains takes away freedom of choice and free will. its basically as bad as these negative traits you are trying to take away. also think about these two points.
Being born as human takes away a freedom of choice and free will as well. Kids born as genetically loved up humans will have no more say in who they are as we have a say in being human.
1. first off, you would never get every living person to submit to the procedure, so therefore the people who were altered would still need the negative emotional spectrum to survive against normal people.
I've considered this point before and, in all honestly, it's the one thing I'm ethically conflicted about. Forcing everyone to be liek this WOULD be a lack of freedom. I would imagine that in a world with designer babies, people would always choose for their children to be happy. The interim poses difficulty, though. It's either everyone is loved up or no one is. People that would perceive life in bliss and respectful understanding wouldn't understand certain concepts that would allow those that weren't like that to take advantage of them. The only solution I can think of is somehow allowing people like this to understand negative emotion to some degree, but not able to experience it in the same way. Obviously we don't know enough about ourselves to know if this is possible (although we do know that happiness is influenced by both genetics and experience -- half and half. The genetic part is known as the "hedonic setpoint" and everyone has a different genetic predisposition to happiness. Mine, personally, is fairly high
), but it's something to be considered as we understand more about the human body and how we function physically and psychologically.
I'm also unsure if this could be altered for currently existing humans -- only future generations. There is a lot unknown about this and I simply can't condone forcing parents to make their children loved up balls of happy 8)
2. say you did get every single person to undergo the procedure, what if you are camping and a bear attacks you. you would be so euphoric you would prob think "oh im dying but i dont blame the bear because its his role in nature to do this." same goes with a shark attack if you are swimming, or any number of natural predators. but if you were the way you are now, at least you would try to fight back, out of fear, the emotion you wish to abolish. fear saves lives. it gets adrenaline pumping, allows you to react more quickly, and is a necessary evil.
I was debating going into this very issue in my last response to you, but decided to save it for if you brought it up. In a world where everyone is loved up, we still have other animals that are bound by darwinian evolution that would be of some concern to us. Ultimately, I'd say we should map their genomes and alter them to be friendlier as well. Biblically speaking (as I'm influenced by my western cultural upbringing aside from being an athesist), the lamb laying with the lion. This would be a massive undertaking that would require a perfect grasp on ecosystem functioning of all animals and their environments. We're nowhere near that now, but if we manage to say alive, I'm sure we'll understand it fairly easily eventually.
I suggest changing fear. To know when something is dangerous and to, as you stated, understand that it's in the animal's nature. Flight or fight response must be preserved in some fashion until we understand how to alter other animals as well. Being afraid of an animal isn't necessary if you understand to avoid situations like that to begin with. Prevention is far desirable to encountering such a situation to begin with. We could separate ourselves from situations like that, sticking to urban areas and setting up measures to protect. Humans are intelligent and we can use our intelligence and common sense as opposed to putting ourselves in dangerous situations.
that said, i can see where the idea sounds good on paper, but imo it just wouldnt work and would be unnatural. and you cant really compare cell phones and computers as unnatural. those help us evolve. this procedure you are suggesting would evolve us in a way, but the cons outweigh the pros. but an interesting conversation topic though. very thoughtful points and definitely would be nice if it could happen with no consequences.
It would take a lot of thought and very careful consideration by the entire human populace and people far more intelligent and decent at problem solving than just myself. I believe that the only way for humans to survive without eventually destroying each other is through this method. If we continue to remain stereotypical primates -- violent, angry, and deceitful -- we will end up developing newer and better technology that can cause even greater constructive purposes or even greater destructive purposes. It only takes one angry, fearful, destructive human with power to end the human species and possibly even the planet itself.
On that note, those were some awesome points and I intend to do more research and figure out a better response
It really makes me happy to have these kinds of philosophical conversations. I often stay awake at night thinking about stuff like this (future of humanity, ethical debates, quantum theory, human behaviour, and evolutionary sciences in particular).
