New at Reason

David Weigel | July 11, 2006

Cathy Young urges some caution on the genetic "enhancement enthusiasts."

Comments

|7.11.06 @ 9:31AM|#

So, is this Catman character the ultimate furry?

|7.11.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Lumping Ray Kurzweil together with Catman is oh so wrong.

Kurzweil (and other transhumanists) are looking to elevate the human condition above mere biology.

The Catman is simply a circus freak.

Robb Allen|7.11.06 @ 9:51AM|#

Well, I for one do not wish to live forever. Living forever means working forever. The only reason we can retire today is because we save enough to last for a finite amount of time. And, if we could all invest our money to perpetuate itself, eventually there would be no more / not enough people available to actually make all the products we need.

I think there are econmic drawbacks to a lot of the arguments for transhumanism (which I believe at this point to be fairy tales. Cure the common cold THEN I'll buy into the human race having enough knowledge to augment ourselves). There is also the 'master race' concept that will be hard to fathom.

Thinking it's a bad idea to drive 100MPH with your eyes closed through rush hour traffic isn't the same as being afraid of the unknown.

|7.11.06 @ 10:03AM|#

Robb Allen: Who says it rush hour and why don't you keep your eyes open? :-)

Brian Carnell|7.11.06 @ 10:06AM|#

"Well, I for one do not wish to live forever. Living forever means working forever."

Fine, don't.

Anyway, I was a bit disappointed by Young's arguments.

"One need not be a radical egalitarian to be troubled by the prospect of a society in which the affluent can add genetic enhancement to their children's advantages while the have-nots fall further behind."

This seems just like a variation on "life isn't fair because rich people can afford to do X and non-rich people can't."

It's inevitable that rich kids will have advantages over non-rich kids. Today they have access to elite schools, etc., etc., and tomorrow they might have access to expensive enhancements that, say, boost IQ.

But is the non-rich kid really worse off in that scenario. My parents sent me to a daycare facility rather than an elite preschool -- I don't see how my position was worsened at all in that case. Same thing with genetic enhancement -- I'm not sure how I my children are harmed if some rich parent can afford to genetically enhance his kids and I can't.

"Rarely considered is the possibility that some might define "best" in ways that are not only peculiar but harmful. Even leaving aside oddballs who may want their child to be a cat person, what if some people decided to breed submissive females�or boys genetically purged of competitiveness, aggressiveness, and other macho traits?"

I wonder how we would reconcile our desires to ban this with the current prevailing reproductive ideology that pre-viable fetuses are not legal persons. If a fetus has so few rights that it can be killed in the womb, exactly what would be the basis for preventing these sort of horrific genetic modifications to pre-viable fetuses. Does a fetus have a right not to be born with certain genes? If so, what about people who have children konwing that they are incredibly likely to pass along genetic diseases?

|7.11.06 @ 10:07AM|#

Robb,
It's very simple to save enough money to last forever. Find your the annual amount you want to live off of (let's say $100,000/year) and divide it by your expected rate of return, including inflation (say 10% for simplicity). Divide the annuity by the RoR and you have the amount you need to sock away to live off of it forever. So for my example, $100K/10% = $1,000,000. Put a million in the bank and you're good to go. Since your RoR includes expected inflation, you'll be good to go.

Obvfiously, you want to be very conservative on your RoR to be able to handle volatility in the market of centuries.

|7.11.06 @ 10:10AM|#

The libertarian argument for genetic enhancement is that parents should be free to choose what's best for the children.

Is it really? Personally, I would be comfortable drawing a line between, say, prenatally curing my theoretical child of some genetic ailment and bestowing upon him or her my current ideas of what constitutes beauty. The former strikes me as defensible, the latter should be left up to the kid.

|7.11.06 @ 10:11AM|#

Wow, I used good to go in two consecutive sentences. And then I misspelled obviously. My apologies.

|7.11.06 @ 10:19AM|#

And then I misspelled obviously.

Yeah, but it works when pronounced.

|7.11.06 @ 10:20AM|#

What worries me the most is that unfounded hype will prompt all sorts of bad policies: Somebody will claim to have a treatment that eliminates criminal tendencies. It doesn't actually work very well, but the hypesters proclaim it as such, and the next thing you know it's mandatory.

|7.11.06 @ 10:20AM|#

Solitudnarian,

I completely agree. It is one thing to cure diseases and elviate sufferring. That is an unqualified good. It is entirly something else to start breeding children for specific purposes, which is what enhancement really is.

|7.11.06 @ 10:20AM|#

What worries me the most is that unfounded hype will prompt all sorts of bad policies: Somebody will claim to have a treatment that eliminates criminal tendencies. It doesn't actually work very well, but the hypesters proclaim it as such, and the next thing you know it's mandatory.

|7.11.06 @ 10:24AM|#

Thoreau,

A treatment that claims to eliminate criminal tendencies could never be tested without human experimentation. Scientists would have to give this treatment to unsuspecting children in the womb and see if any of them turn out to be criminals. The treatment by its very nature would have to alter the behavior and nature of these children in some way. All without their consent and with God only knows what side effects. That strikes me as a complete violation of individual sovereighnty and extremly immoral.

|7.11.06 @ 10:28AM|#

I would hardly say that body-focused postbiological and transhumanist fiction "almost invariably" deals with Frankenstein scenarios. Stross' Accelerando, John C. Wright's Golden Age trilogy (which examines libertarianism's role in an uploaded future), and many recent books by Alastair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge, and a host of others fall squarely into this catagory.
If anything I'd say were reaching a saturation point of post-singularity tales where bodies are swapped and modified and brains are uploaded and children are prenatally tweaked as part of the cultural background noise.
I'll also add that, aside from the Long Now group, transhumanists (body-modders included) are currently the only folks actively discussing and debating the long term future of our species. And that is a damn shame.

Robb Allen|7.11.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Oh, I totally agree that it's up to each individual to decide on their lifespan. I'm not saying "MAKE A LAW SO NOBODY CAN LIVE FOREVER!!!!!" However, I am saying that economically, you will have to work forever to do so.

Sure, you could work for a while, save the money, and coast for a few years. But eventually, your money will peter out or, if everyone else is doing the same thing (living forever and retiring), the workforce will dry up forcing the 200 quintillion dollars you have saved to be worth nothing.

|7.11.06 @ 10:56AM|#

Jeff, well said.

Personally, I'd support genetic manipulation if it would result in John not misspelling the fuck out of any word with more than two syllables.

/no coffee
//cranky

|7.11.06 @ 10:59AM|#

"Sure, you could work for a while, save the money, and coast for a few years. But eventually, your money will peter out or,"

Except that, presuming a modicum of pre-planning on your part, as illustrated by Mo, it wouldn't.

" if everyone else is doing the same thing (living forever and retiring), the workforce will dry up forcing the 200 quintillion dollars you have saved to be worth nothing."

At which point, engaging in physical labor would become an activity that is highly sought after and would therefore pay extremely well.

|7.11.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Could you imagine what it would be like if science had the ability to make every woman look like Denise Richards?

Robb Allen|7.11.06 @ 11:10AM|#

If you already have a gazillion dollars, why would anyone want to get paid well? Aren't you already paid well? Or are you saying that eventually, a gazillion dollars won't be worth much because there's nothing to spend it on because everyone else has a gazillion dollars and isn't working?

"At which point, engaging in physical labor would become an activity that is highly sought after and would therefore pay extremely well."

At which point you would have to go back to work to make enough money to live. Your "save once, live forever" concept only works if you are in a slim minority. Eventually, enough people will obtain the same amount of money you have and will no longer want to work. The value of your cash will be reduced to the point where no matter how much you saved, it won't be enough.

Sorry, but to think you can work for 150 years them live off of the result for eternity is fantasy. Like thermodynamics, you can't create enough energy riding a bicycle to coast forever. Friction will eventually eat up the energy. In this case, other humans will be the friction to your bank account / energy store. No amount of planning can remove other people from the picture.

Brian Carnell|7.11.06 @ 11:41AM|#

"Is it really? Personally, I would be comfortable drawing a line between, say, prenatally curing my theoretical child of some genetic ailment and bestowing upon him or her my current ideas of what constitutes beauty. The former strikes me as defensible, the latter should be left up to the kid."

First, you are already determining your child's ideal of beauty by the mate you choose. I don't happen to find red heads attractive, and so I've condemned my daughter to perpetuate my ideal of blonde beauty. All genetic engineering lets us do is have a lot more control over what we already do.

Second, this differentiation between disease/non-disease enhancement really falls apart. It's a bit like saying antibiotics are appropriate but cosmetic surgery is not, when both can have a huge impact on health.

For example, suppose my wife and I know that the fetus she is carrying will be a dwarf. Is fixing that a disease or non-disease issue? Would social pressure to correct dwarfism in the womb really be so bad? Young seems to think so, but the other side of that coin are the folks who think of medical conditions like deafness as akin to being gay.

|7.11.06 @ 12:07PM|#

"If you already have a gazillion dollars, why would anyone want to get paid well? Aren't you already paid well? Or are you saying that eventually, a gazillion dollars won't be worth much because there's nothing to spend it on because everyone else has a gazillion dollars and isn't working?"

I was addressing your statement about people running out of money.

"At which point you would have to go back to work to make enough money to live. Your "save once, live forever" concept only works if you are in a slim minority."

Ok, first thing's first: I'm not sure that I'd want to ever completely retire, so I'm not quite sure I understand your utter aversion to work. Supposing that transhumanist modification results in a lifespan that is infinite, or nearly so, one would be free to choose nearly any career that they want to. Instead of slaving away in an office, it wouldn't be difficult to switch to art, investing, or any number of careers. In fact, given an infinite lifespan, I think you'd see people jumping careers as they get bored with them.

"Eventually, enough people will obtain the same amount of money you have and will no longer want to work. The value of your cash will be reduced to the point where no matter how much you saved, it won't be enough."

This makes no sense, as people will always want to continue to innovate. I mean, your ideal for retirement may be sitting on a couch, getting nagged by some old biddy while you sip a Miller High Life.

Mine ain't. There will always be people who will be motivated to continue growing their wealth through new innovations, works of art, technical craft, etc. Whole new segments of the economy will spring up to cater to the new immortal demographic. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how you can consider this to be a zero-sum game. It makes no sense to me, as the opportunities for wealth creation in such a situation are, quite frankly, astonishing.

"Sorry, but to think you can work for 150 years them live off of the result for eternity is fantasy. Like thermodynamics, you can't create enough energy riding a bicycle to coast forever. Friction will eventually eat up the energy. In this case, other humans will be the friction to your bank account / energy store. No amount of planning can remove other people from the picture."

Second law of thermodynamics only applies to a system that is closed from receiving new input. Wealth management/investing is based around the concept of generating wealth. Instead of pedaling a bike and coasting, your initial investment is more like turning the key in an engine. Or, to use a clich�, like planting seeds for a crop. No one ever says "if you plant those seeds now, sure you'll have a crop grow, but what then?"

This is not to say that there wouldn't be economic downturns, but face it, the economy has, on average, grown by 10% a year. This is even after factoring for things like The Great Depression.

Warren|7.11.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Holy crap. It's the return to the Galacticly Stupid Ms Young. WTF Cathy?

Even leaving aside oddballs who may want their child to be a cat person, what if some people decided to breed submissive females�or boys genetically purged of competitiveness, aggressiveness, and other macho traits?

Yeah? So what if they do? Ms young is afraid that genetic enhancement is going to lead to a new social order where we all become slaves to the hive, ala Brave New World. Or were all diversity is lost and fanatical bigotry flourishes ala Gattaca. But these dystopias are exactly what the libertarian principal that "parents should be free to choose what's best for the children" will prevent. Indeed, that is the only way to prevent them. The fundamental feature of a dystopia is the unlimited reach of the central authority. By empowering individuals, there will always be those on the fringes, ready to counter the missteps of the mainstream.

I'm not saying parental choice in genetic enhancement will be trouble free. Child abuse is a problem we struggle with now. Parents that select traits which cause their children to suffer, will be a new aspect to the same problem. But let's not try to solve problems we don't have yet. And when they do arrive, they will best be addressed by adhering to the principals of protecting individual rights and preserving freedom.

|7.11.06 @ 12:31PM|#

"I would hardly say that body-focused postbiological and transhumanist fiction 'almost invariably' deals with Frankenstein scenarios. Stross' Accelerando, John C. Wright's Golden Age trilogy (which examines libertarianism's role in an uploaded future), and many recent books by Alastair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge, and a host of others fall squarely into this catagory."

Well, true, for us nerds anyway. But Hollywood sci-fi- the kind that most people "on the street" are familiar with- is largely absent of positive views of transhumanism (the possible exceptions- and both of these are a stretch- are 2001 and AI- and neither presented a vision of near-future genetic or cybernetic modification). And, if you go visit most bioethics departments, they're more likely to be talking about Brave New World or Frankenstein than Accelerando or Steel Beach. Which is a damn shame- Frankenstein was written 200 years ago, and Brave New World was A METAPHOR (and not a particularly good one at that)...

|7.11.06 @ 12:45PM|#

X-ray vision would be cool.
Of course I would use mine for the betterment of humankind and not for looking at women's boobies.

|7.11.06 @ 1:05PM|#

"Except that, presuming a modicum of pre-planning on your part, as illustrated by Mo, it wouldn't."

All markets ineluctably fail.

|7.11.06 @ 1:13PM|#

"I don't happen to find red heads attractive"

Is it just a hair color thing for you or is it because all ginger-kids are retards?

Jennifer|7.11.06 @ 1:16PM|#

Holy crap. It's the return to the Galacticly Stupid Ms Young. WTF Cathy?

Warren, what's wrong with suggesting that there probably would be downsides to this technology? I certainly wouldn't call for legal restrictions on it (not yet anyway), but I wonder about the implications sometimes--right now, for example, we've got the Taliban making it illegal for girls to learn how to read, and if they had the ability I'm sure they'd gladly replace "illegal" with "impossible."

I'm having trouble understanding how "mentioning the potential for trouble" becomes synonymous with "you're too pessimistic don't be such a chicken little."

Jennifer|7.11.06 @ 1:16PM|#

Holy crap. It's the return to the Galacticly Stupid Ms Young. WTF Cathy?

Warren, what's wrong with suggesting that there probably would be downsides to this technology? I certainly wouldn't call for legal restrictions on it (not yet anyway), but I wonder about the implications sometimes--right now, for example, we've got the Taliban making it illegal for girls to learn how to read, and if they had the ability I'm sure they'd gladly replace "illegal" with "impossible."

I'm having trouble understanding how "mentioning the potential for trouble" becomes synonymous with "you're too pessimistic don't be such a chicken little."

|7.11.06 @ 1:21PM|#

right now, for example, we've got the Taliban making it illegal for girls to learn how to read, and if they had the ability I'm sure they'd gladly replace "illegal" with "impossible."

I didn't even think of that. Hmm, what if they created a recessive gene on the X chromosome that knocked 50 points off your IQ if you got two copies?

But, as I think of it, there's nothing to worry about: Those genetically modified women would still have IQs 30 points above your average Taliban fighter.

Thank you, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the genetically enhanced waitress!

Jennifer|7.11.06 @ 1:22PM|#

I don't happen to find red heads attractive

Proper genetic engineering might help you overcome this aesthetic handicap.

Brian Carnell|7.11.06 @ 1:24PM|#

"Holy crap. It's the return to the Galacticly Stupid Ms Young. WTF Cathy?

Warren, what's wrong with suggesting that there probably would be downsides to this technology? I certainly wouldn't call for legal restrictions on it (not yet anyway), but I wonder about the implications sometimes--right now, for example, we've got the Taliban making it illegal for girls to learn how to read, and if they had the ability I'm sure they'd gladly replace "illegal" with "impossible.""

Absolutely there will be people who try to do things that most of us would be horrified at. Riffing off of Cathy's 2002 column about deaf activists, what if a couple decided to modify a healthy fetus so that it would be born deaf.

Again, I think most sane people would be revolted by that application, but I don't see how it is inconsistent with the existing legal, moral and ethical framework that applies to human beings in their initial stages of development. If I can kill the blastocyte, why can't I give it a gene that causes deafness?

|7.11.06 @ 1:33PM|#

"All markets ineluctably fail."

Right, it's not like you can't ever move your money. If I was saving for eternity, I would pad myself a lot more and hedge in multiple markets, domestic, multiple international markets as well as valuable commodities. There are lots of ways to protect your investments.

Besides, I'd be working for pleasure at that point.

|7.11.06 @ 1:43PM|#

Does anyone here actually believe that a society that forbids smoking in restaurants and requires seatbelts and motorcycle helmets is going to permit parents to make any of these decisions?

|7.11.06 @ 1:44PM|#

The class warfare argument that this is something only the rich will be able to afford seems like an especially poor one to me. That's been the argument against every new technology that's ever come out, but as long as the government doesn't manipulate prices or trade, affordability invariably becomes democratized eventually. Maybe we won't all have the Rolls Royces of human enhancement but everyone, or most everyone, will have some access to it.

Also, I think genetic engineering is not in the Koran so I doubt the Taliban would go for it, as much as they'd like to dumb down their women.

That being said, there are issues that give me pause. The example of deaf parents does not seem completely implausible to me. And the far reaches of some of these chimerical possibilities give me the shudders. Of course, the shudder effect is not something policy or law should be based on. And issues of gatekeeping, criteria, etc. are blurry enough so that at this time the answers to those questions are not at all clear either. So, while biotech offers great hope in so many ways, and the issues are blurry enough that calling for iron clad rules is not reasonable, considering some of the other issues at stake, my first response to the topic is not always, "woo hoo, look out Doc Oc!"

Robb Allen|7.11.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"Ok, first thing's first: I'm not sure that I'd want to ever completely retire, so I'm not quite sure I understand your utter aversion to work."
Wow! I didn't realize I have an utter aversion to work. Thanks for informing me of that by putting words in my mouth. I said I don't want to work forever.

You make it sound like everyone will be able to simply 'switch career gears' like they're changing their mind about what to have for dinner. I can't play the xylophone. Just because I'm bored with my programming job doesn't mean I simply can go pick up an equally profitable career in the Boston Pops. Yes, I have all the time in the world to learn, but guess what? During that time I also have to continue to work doing a job I might not want to be doing to continue to survive.

Or are all the 'upgrades' I need to stay alive free?

It isn't a zero sum game - but the sum climbs faster than you can when every other person is doing the exact same thing. Investment works right now because very few people invest.

"your initial investment is more like turning the key in an engine."

Engines require a fuel source. Seeds require replanting. And fuel sources. All investment is is fuel storage.

You may be right. There may always be the right amount of people who are bored and doing the work while the other portion is 'coasting'. But having a little experience in the 'being a human' endeavor, I'm willing to bet people tire of the work faster than they do of the coasting. And, paint all you want, but since the world will be saturated with bored painters, you won't be making much with that choice.

|7.11.06 @ 1:44PM|#

And Mo nails it right in the friggin' X-ring.

|7.11.06 @ 1:48PM|#

"All investment is is fuel storage."

No it fucking isn't!

Judas Fucking Priest on a Rocket-Powered Pogo Stick!

If investing was just a way to store wealth instead of generating more of it, then you'd be just as well off to cash your paycheck and stick it in a mattress.

Robb Allen|7.11.06 @ 2:21PM|#

*Sigh*. Cash is fuel. It is the transfer of wealth that turns the fuel's potential energy into kinetic. But nonetheless, all analogies fail at some point so I'm not going to argue over one.

If I put a dollar into the bank, the bank can loan that dollar to someone who the bank feels will take the dollar and make $5 out of it. The bank gets back their dollar plus a little, you get $1.50, and the entrepreneur gets to keep the rest by generating work that creates a needed product.

Now, let's call the entrepreneur Joe and assume there are only 3 people on the planet - Joe, you, and the banker. Joe now has done enough work and invests his $1. You invest yours as you no longer wish to work either. The bank now has $2 and no one to give it to to produce even more. You and Joe are now stuck with $1 with no chance of ever getting more.

Tell me how 'investment' is going to make you any more money when nobody is willing to do the work? Investment assumes someone will take your money and do something with it. That is how the sum increases. This is why investment only works when few people do it. You will always require a cheap source of labor to produce the goods you want but don't want to do yourself.

Now, it is very possible that given infinite life, humans might simply stop specializing and start living a life where they produce everything they need on their own. But then resources become scarce (as the population only increases) so how do you divvy them up?

Don't get frustrated, I'm trying to have an honest debate here. I don't think, given our current nature as humans, that we can economically live forever without constant work. Money is wonderful and I strongly suggest that everyone invest it because I know 90% of us won't and the 10% that do get a good benefit from the risk. But to think that the system can survive without a constant input is folly (like the law of thermodynamics) and to think you won't have to supply that effort through anything more than simply investing money seems illogical to me.

I am more than willing to look at any point I'm missing.

|7.11.06 @ 2:58PM|#

Actually Robb, even if everyone lives forever, what makes you think everyone will save? If resources get scarce, that invesment I have in copper futures will pay a pretty penny. If I want to go to outer space (and spend some of my money) I'll inject money back into the economy. People will still take part in liesure activities and people will inventwhile bored. There will always be markets.

|7.11.06 @ 3:21PM|#

Actually Robb, even if everyone lives forever, what makes you think everyone will save? If resources get scarce, that invesment I have in copper futures will pay a pretty penny. If I want to go to outer space (and spend some of my money) I'll inject money back into the economy. People will still take part in liesure activities and people will inventwhile bored. There will always be markets.