New at Reason

February 9, 2007

Ronald Bailey listens intently to Leon Kass and comes away with his views of bioethics changed forever. Okay, not really.

Comments

|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 @ 9:31AM|#

Julian has an interesting ditty on this subject here

|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.

Alex|2.9.07 @ 11:46AM|#

Everybody o matter who they be they allways gets what they deserves.

|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 @ 1:35PM|#

Thanks Eric, some days I just want the exercise.

|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.

Robert|2.10.07 @ 6:39PM|#

"Bioethics" is mostly an endeavor to substitute a contorted concept, patient "autonomy", for more straightforward notions of liberty/freedom.