Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Ronald Bailey listens intently to Leon Kass and comes away with his views of bioethics changed forever. Okay, not really.
|2.9.07 @ 8:24AM|#
"The fictional inhabitants of Brave New World are degraded. But
they are not degraded because of biotechnology or because of their
voluntary choices. No, they are degraded because they are ruled by
a totalitarian elite that abuses technology to stunt their bodies,
their minds and their moral capacities. Tragically, the Epsilons,
Gammas, Deltas, Betas and even the Alphas are not superhuman or
transhuman, but subhuman. Surely the salient lesson we learn from
Brave New World is that we must guard against tyranny, not against
technological progress."
Bailey nails it here. We should all fear domination. But free
choice to use technology can help us overcome certain forms of
domination, not increase it. Social conservatives like Kass have
always worried about technological change. For one thing it is
simply "different" and has a "yuck" factor to it (heart
transplants? IVF? How yucky, you can't be serious). For another,
when it comes down to it, they don't like the masses having lots of
choices. Just think of what conservatives of the NRO type have been
against throughout history: vaccinations, IVF, transplants,
vivisection, contraception, a host of pharmacology...Those good old
days of ancient Greece and chilvarous Olde England, when men were
men, religion ruled, and people were free...Free to die from
consumption at 23, suffer from bipolar disorder (but undergoing
exorcisms), etc..
|2.9.07 @ 9:03AM|#
Can someone even explain to me why this guy is treated as some sort of expert on ethics? His arguments generally have holes and unquestioned silly assumptions big enough to drive a Mac truck through, all rolled up in a pompous nannying tone.
|2.9.07 @ 9:41AM|#
Leon Kass thinks eating ice-cream cones is degrading.
No, seriously, he really thinks so:
Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized
forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone-a catlike activity
that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still
offends those who know eating in public is offensive.
- Leon Kass, The Hungry Soul, pp. 148-149. University of Chicago
Press, 1994, 1999,
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 10:06AM|#
I don't know if this is one of the things Kass is getting at,
but I can imagine one big problem with biotech is that it will
widen the class gulf. The rich are already "superior" to the poor
in the sense that they can afford better food, medical care, access
to gyms for exercise, etc.
People who can afford biotech "improvements" will continue to get
smarter, better looking, and healthier (and thus richer) while
those who can't will fall further behind. And if there's one thing
human history teaches us it's that "superior" people think they
have a right (or even a duty) to rule over inferiors.
So that's at least one scenario where biotech could lead to less
human dignity. It will further inequality.
|2.9.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Klass is a fruit loop but Bailey is a bit too blithe about the dangers ahead. The technology could the powers of oppression far more powers than they have ever had. Yeah, they can kill you and torture you or imprison you, but at least right now they can't steal your soul. If you technology could enable the transformation of man, what is to guarantee that it will be the transformation we choose? Why isn't is just as likely or really even more likely to be used to eliminate dissent and difference in society? If someone doesn't get the mold or objects to the government, just declare them medically insane and give them a medical remedy to change their opinions. That seems like the most likely outcome of this kind of technology, at least in places like China or North Korea.
Joe McDermott|2.9.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Reminiscent of a 2002 post I wrote on opposition to embryonic
stem cell research:
Well, the opposition to cloning and embryonic stem cell research
finally comes clean. The real horror is not the techniques of this
nascent science (though those techniques are quite terrible, Smith
hastens to point out, having decided for all of us that the soul
attaches at conception -- has he brought other stone tablets down
from on high?), but the result that will follow if this science is
not stamped out, and now: people might actually be able to choose
for their children the potential of longer lives, abetted by bodies
and brains that are genetically predisposed towards greater
abilities and fewer limits. How horrible! God forbid that a Steven
Hawking might be born without a wracked shell for a body. Let's
make sure that the lottery of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and
slow-wittedness continues unabated. Don't deny parents the
thrilling chance to have their own Downs syndrome, cerebral palsy,
blind, or other special child. After all, it builds character. And
let's for sure keep the chance of passing on sparks of genius in
the arts, athletics, the professions, science and every other field
of human endeavor totally random, as God intended. We wouldn't want
a bunch of Picassos, or Ruths, or Darrows, or Curies, or Churchills
running around. Who'd be left to watch Oprah and Rosie?
Not so my God. He created us in the midst of this universe of
infinite size, infinite danger, and infinite possibility, and He
gave us just one weapon to match against that vastness: the human
mind. Our long ascent from the caves, through barbarism, to our
current semi-civilized state, we owe to that tool. And we owe Him,
and ourselves, continued striving towards something better. It's
not necessary that we have mapped out what that something is. What
is needed is a commitment to continue the struggle, unburdened by
irrational fear, sometimes referred to as "the wisdom of
repugnance." New science always offers possibilities, not promises.
We should trust ourselves, and our essential humanity, which is
surely resilient enough to withstand changes in the vessel which
houses it (remember, Yoda teaches: "Luminous beings are we, not
this crude matter [flesh and blood]").
Before we buy the bogeyman of Brave New World, mustn't we recognize
that the horror of that world lies not in the genetic techniques
that are such an instrument of oppression, but in the fact of
oppresssion? Try thinking of an open, democratic society governed
by the rule of law, where genetic enhancement is an available
choice, not a totalitarian requirement.
|2.9.07 @ 10:47AM|#
"God forbid that a Steven Hawking might be born without a
wracked shell for a body."
Hawking himself admits that had he not gotten sick, he would have
never gotten serious about his studies and would have probably
ended up being a drunken but very smart pub rat somewhere in
England. Not that that means that we shouldn't try to cure ALS, of
course we should. But, things are not that simple. The technology
is coming and there is nothing we can do about it and Kass is dead
wrong to fight it. That said, we may loose a lot in the
translation. I am not sold on the idea that man can build paradise
on earth.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Perhaps the best way to sum up the philosophy of folks like Mr. Bailey is that when it comes to technology, the only question is, "Can we do it?" The other question, "Should we do it?", is not worth asking.
tros|2.9.07 @ 11:01AM|#
I can not believe he has the nerve to bring up Huxley.
"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be
within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making
people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless
concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in
fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather
enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel
by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by
pharmacological methods."
- Aldous Huxley
Kill yourself, Leon Kass. You deserve to be reincarnated as a louse
on the testicles of a starving junkie in Nicaragua. You have
personally stood in the way of human evolution for 6 fucking years
now. The only thing you are doing is upholding the dignity of human
slavery.
Besides the odious individual making the argument, I recognize the
perils of going too fast into that singularity. You'd better
believe I'm going to wait out the beta version in archaic
revivalist land.
Make sure your shit is open source before you put it in your
brain.
tros|2.9.07 @ 11:01AM|#
P.S. Huxley's last words on planet Earth, to his wife:
"One Hundred Micrograms LSD"
|2.9.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Kass reminds me of all those Victorian clergymen who huffed and
puffed about using anesthesia during childbirth "because women are
supposed to give birth in pain! The Bible says so!"
Queen Victoria had her next child with the assistance of ether. The
Victorian clergymen quickly shut up for fear of being accused of
lese-majeste. (Sometimes royalty is useful.)
I have enough friends with chronic conditions (genetic in most
cases) that I'm not going to condemn them to lives of continuous
medical monitoring/medication simply because Kass thinks it's icky
to cure them. Bloody idiot.
|2.9.07 @ 11:09AM|#
"Perhaps the best way to sum up the philosophy of folks like Mr.
Bailey is that when it comes to technology, the only question is,
"Can we do it?" The other question, "Should we do it?", is not
worth asking."
That is exactly backwards. Philisophically. "Can we do it?" is a
moot question - we either can or we can't. "Should we do it?" and
its corrollary "Should we NOT do it?" is the exact question Ron is
addressing.
If it enhances a person's life and is done with that person's
consent, my answer is definitely "do it." I say that from personal
experience: Without a stent to drain excess fluid from my eyes - a
modification of my body that Kass seems to find "degrading" - I
would be blind in a couple of years.
tros|2.9.07 @ 11:10AM|#
"Should we do it?", is not worth asking.
That's right. You can ask YOURSELF "should I do it?" and decide for
yourself. You would be a civilized human being if you would mind
your own fucking business and not worry about what "we" do.
Ask yourself, is the question "Should I fornicate myself with a
sharp stick?" worth asking? I believe so. Think about it you may be
surprised what the answer is!
uncle sam|2.9.07 @ 11:15AM|#
I think many so-called "bioethicists" are merely attempting to become bigger fish in the pond.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 11:22AM|#
That's right. You can ask YOURSELF "should I do it?" and
decide for yourself. You would be a civilized human being if you
would mind your own fucking business and not worry about what "we"
do.
I can't resist the irony here - to be "civilized" is by definition
to live among other people in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Only worrying about yourself is the exact opposite of that
concept.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 11:26AM|#
That is exactly backwards. Philisophically. "Can we do it?" is a
moot question - we either can or we can't. "Should we do it?" and
its corrollary "Should we NOT do it?" is the exact question Ron is
addressing.
I guess he is addressing the question but not with anything that
approaches an open mind.
tomWright|2.9.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Plunge,
Kass is revered and considered an expert precisely because he HAS a
"pompous nannying tone".
If he sounded reasonable, or actually WERE reasonable, he would be
boring and not worth the ink to publish him.
tros|2.9.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Dan T.
When everyone worries about their own self and only their own self
there will be no need for a retarded regulatory state. This is what
"we" are trying to accomplish here at this libertarian blog. At
least that's what I'm trying to accomplish.
Anyway the point is that your opinion does not matter because you
just want to control people. Probably because you have trouble
controlling yourself.
|2.9.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Ultimately what is lacking in Kass' use of dignity to justify
the limits he prefers is that it must assert that there is inherent
dignity in raw biology separate to the question of person-hood.
This is true for many reasons, one being he must get rid of
autonomy as a piece of the dignity puzzle.
While everyone probably has some definition of dignity that depends
on the "awareness" of person-hood not everyone would find dignity
in the mere genetics of some biological mass. So in essence if you
don't find a base amount of human dignity in something basic and
minimal, lacking any quality of person-hood like a skin cell, for
example, then you are under no obligation to accept the rest of his
thesis.
Alex|2.9.07 @ 11:45AM|#
The purpose of life is to suffer. Suffering is good for the soul, it is what GOD wants and we must do so.
|2.9.07 @ 11:47AM|#
I can't resist the irony here - to be "civilized" is by
definition to live among other people in a mutually beneficial
arrangement. Only worrying about yourself is the exact opposite of
that concept.
Dan T, it may be too deep of a concept for you, but libertarianism
is based on the idea of enlightened self-interest.
This means weighing the immediate gains of direct self-interest
versus the long-term gains of cooperation with others holding
similar philosophies.
Most libertarians are not the self-absorbed neanderthals that you
make them out to be.
|2.9.07 @ 11:48AM|#
In other words, biology is the platform upon which the person-hood of a human being stands, but it is the person, not the biology that is associated whith characteristic dignity.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 11:57AM|#
When everyone worries about their own self and only their
own self there will be no need for a retarded regulatory state.
This is what "we" are trying to accomplish here at this libertarian
blog. At least that's what I'm trying to accomplish.
Hmm…so if I'm only worried about myself, then there's no reason why
I shouldn't break into your house and take some of your stuff. Who
cares about you, anyway?
Anyway the point is that your opinion does not matter because
you just want to control people. Probably because you have trouble
controlling yourself.
So I'm supposed to only concern myself with my own person
well-being, yet I'm not supposed to want to control others even if
that would improve my own well-being? The logic is fascinating, I
admit.
|2.9.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Reading Bailey on Kass is a bit like listening to one of those
glass half empty / glass half full arguments, except that Kass
seems to see the glass as completely empty and Bailey almost
invariably sees it brim full if not, indeed, overflowing.
While I share Mr. Bailey's desire to thwart the nastier aspects of
the natural order -- the whole point of civilization is, in effect,
an attack against nature -- unbridled enthusiasm for the
possibilities of our own Brave New World is as problematic, albeit
for different reasons, than paralyzing fear of its
consequences.
The human capacity for evil is roughly equal to the human capacity
for good. Indeed, the operative phrase here is "human capacity." To
the extent it makes any sense at all to say that other animals are
capable of doing either good or evil, their limited ability to do
anything at all mitigates against such claims. Not so, obviously
and increasingly, in the case of humans. So there is at least that
concern. If power does indeed tend to corrupt, even the increased
empowerment of the individual carries with it the increased
potential for corruption.
That hardly leads me to rush to Kass's side. I am, for example,
capable of engaging in this discussion (computer technology aside)
because of reading glasses -- pretty low tech, but a tremendously
empowering "enhancement" over my natural state.
The question occurs, though, (to me, if not to Mr. Bailey) whether
we shall soon have it in our power actually and for the first time
to change human nature, itself, and if so, whether we are in a
sufficient position now to judge the likely consequences as
positive. I doubt the answer to the latter part of that question is
yes and therefore think Kass and his ilk do well to suggest why we
may want at least to temper our own enthusiasm.
tros|2.9.07 @ 12:03PM|#
The logic is fascinating, I admit.
I agree, it is not often I get to witness a simian humanoid evolve
in the medium of plain text. Does reason have a staff biologist to
write up a lab report?
|2.9.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Hmm…so if I'm only worried about myself, then there's no
reason why I shouldn't break into your house and take some of your
stuff. Who cares about you, anyway?
This point has been hashed out over and over and over in this
forum. And I know you have participated in these discusions before.
So either you have the memory of a flea or you really are the troll
that everyone accuses you of being. Grow up!
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 12:31PM|#
This point has been hashed out over and over and over in
this forum. And I know you have participated in these discusions
before. So either you have the memory of a flea or you really are
the troll that everyone accuses you of being. Grow up!
It comes up over and over again because it's a key problem with
libertarian philosophy.
Libertarians still want a state that uses force to control people -
they are just fond of pretending that the cases where they approve
of state restrictions on freedom are somehow "natural" or
self-evident.
uncle sam|2.9.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Hmm…so if I'm only worried about myself, then there's no
reason why I shouldn't break into your house and take some of your
stuff. Who cares about you, anyway?
In other words, the "straw man argument" applies here.
All individuals are equal in rights. You should be able to work it
out from there.
Larry A|2.9.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Kass preaches against biotechnology, predicting it will erase
dignity. How much dignity is there in death?
The man is closing in on 70 years old. Were it not for
biotechnology developed in his own lifetime the
chances he'd be alive now are miniscule, and the chances he'd be
healthy enough to be "dignified" are even lower.
In Larry Niven's Fallen Angels the 'danes (as in mundane)
are against technology. Unless it's "appropriate"
technology.
|2.9.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone-a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive.
- Leon Kass, The Hungry Soul, pp. 148-149. University of Chicago Press, 1994, 1999,
Just because jaybird's quote bears repeating. What kind of serious
person pays attention to a guy who straight-facedly argues that
revulsion is a useful moral criterion - and admits to
being revulsed by people eating in public?
Damn, the man is beyond parody.
|2.9.07 @ 1:21PM|#
I see a bioethicist as someone who is just full of opinions, but not committed enough to actually practice medicine or law. Sort of like being a consultant.
|2.9.07 @ 1:23PM|#
It comes up over and over again because it's a key problem
with libertarian philosophy.
No its not! You bring the same strawman to the discussion time and
time again. It never has and never will be a realistic
representation of the libertarian philosophy.
One of the primary tenents of libertarianism is that you are free
to do what you want right up until you harm someone else. Your
strawman is that unfettered libertarianism means that anyone can
harm anyone without consequence.
So one more time, do you want to have a rational debate or do you
just want to continue to burn straw.
|2.9.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Carrick - you're doing a very nice job of refuting the strawmen. But just so you know, Dan is just a nitwit who looks to see what people here are saying and then argues exactly the opposite, even if it makes him contradict himself from day to day or thread to thread. Don't let him frustrate you.
|2.9.07 @ 2:05PM|#
There does remain one problem:
Assume that many people select their children for genetic
advantage, but a minority refuse to do so - for ethical or other
reasons. Over several generations, you would wind up with two
distinct populations: One, "enhanced", superior in at least some
ways to the "natural" population. I realize that there are
tradeoffs in genetics - an advantage in one context may be a
disadvantage in another or the cost of the advantage may be some
deficiency. [eg: Disease resistance in a population seems to depend
on there being a diversity in the gene pool.]
However, if such a selection occurs, there will be an assumption,
by at least a portion of the "enchanced" population, that their
"superiority" entitles them to more rights than the "natural"
population. While libertarians would hold that the "enhanced" group
has no such entitlement, that notion would nevertheless arise,
along with the resultant social problems.
Heinlein probably did the best exploration of this idea and its
impact on a democratic republic in "Beyond this Horizon."
|2.9.07 @ 2:18PM|#
However, if such a selection occurs, there will be an
assumption, by at least a portion of the "enchanced" population,
that their "superiority" entitles them to more rights than the
"natural" population. While libertarians would hold that the
"enhanced" group has no such entitlement, that notion would
nevertheless arise, along with the resultant social
problems.
Such as white people thinking that it is OK to own black
people.
The future social problems caused by genetic enhancement will be no
different than the social problems caused by "advantage" in the
past.
That is not enough, by itself, to justify a prohibition against
genetic enhancement.
|2.9.07 @ 2:18PM|#
I find the Brave New World scenario to be naive. Societies and genetics are both far too complicated and messy to end up with such a neat and clean distinction over time.
|2.9.07 @ 2:27PM|#
carrick
I agree with you. But it is important to be aware of the potential
problem.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 2:49PM|#
No its not! You bring the same strawman to the discussion
time and time again. It never has and never will be a realistic
representation of the libertarian philosophy.
One of the primary tenents of libertarianism is that you are free
to do what you want right up until you harm someone else. Your
strawman is that unfettered libertarianism means that anyone can
harm anyone without consequence.
So one more time, do you want to have a rational debate or do you
just want to continue to burn straw.
I don't think you can simply assign the phrase "straw man" to any
idea you disagree with. A straw man argument is one where a debater
makes up an argument that his opponent doesn't really hold.
So remember, I was originally responding to this: "When everyone
worries about their own self and only their own self there will be
no need for a retarded regulatory state."
And my response is that libertarianism does in fact require a
regulatory state because if I only worry about my own well-being
then there's no reason not to take from you what I can get. And so
you guys need to stop pretending that you have no interest in the
state using force to protect your particular set of ideals, which
is the very charge you make towards liberals and conservatives.
|2.9.07 @ 3:02PM|#
A straw man argument is one where a debater makes up an
argument that his opponent doesn't really hold.
Duh!
When everyone worries about their own self and only their own
self there will be no need for a retarded regulatory
state.
What was that about an argument that the opponent doesn't really
hold? Only a narrow segment of the libertarian population (those
anarchist dudes) think there should be no state at all. And even
the anarchists agree that you have no right to harm another.
So thank you for providing the definition of a strawman and a
real-life example of one in the same post.
|2.9.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Sorry Dan, I see you were quoting Tros from above.
But you did represent that libertarians believe that violence
against other is an position.
Robert|2.9.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Are we in some kind of Moliere play here? Like "Tartuffe" or "Le Bourgeois Gentillehomme"? See, we can all think good is good and bad is bad, we don't need any experts to explain that. So we have to hire experts like Leon Kass to explain to us that good is bad and bad is good. Genius like that costs money, and it takes great refinement to appreciate its product.
Dan T.|2.9.07 @ 3:25PM|#
But you did represent that libertarians believe that
violence against other is an position.
Well, to an extent it is - after all, if I came and stole your
stuff you'd want the police to come and take me by force to
jail.
|2.9.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Well, to an extent it is - after all, if I came and stole
your stuff you'd want the police to come and take me by force to
jail.
Either that, or maybe my hired goons will come an beat the shit out
of you. The state is just one legitimate option for enforcing the
"no harm to others" rule.
It is definitely desirable to have a "neutral" authority to help
resolve disputes. But way too many people today are willing to
abdicate their responsbility to take care of themselves to the
government.
By the way, the neutral authority does not have to be the state.
Binding arbitration by not-for-profit and even for-profit
organizations can be far more effective at resolving disputes.
frogman302|2.9.07 @ 5:09PM|#
I notice a lot of you are like "well stephen hawking would get
to walk". But you know what that means? It means that a man who is
incomplete in body could have a completed body.
Now this I have nothing against. A man who could get a leg
transplant, arm transplant, face transplant or whatever else.
What I am against is pseudo-human machine peoples. Where there is
nothing but wires and cords popping up from here and there to get
the daily net access, while needles in the back are pushing in
"Exercise/weightloss" formulae. Nano-clamps are keeping the gene
information from expiring on this poor hulking 150 year old mass of
a "man" who's only purpose is pleasure from the next
virtua-orgasm.
OR
You have the "ubermensch" the perfect DNA human being. But here's
one that become the perfect murderer/rapist and no one can stop him
because he's too smart and too physically powerful and he starts
ruling all of the "lessers" with an iron fist.
So here's two examples of being either DICTATED by machines, or
DICTATED by those who think they are better than us.
So good luck with choosing your dictator...
|2.9.07 @ 8:42PM|#
There was an SF novel by Modesitt that was very good on the tensions an "augmented" vs. "non-augmented" society would have to deal with.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245