Biopolitics Worldview Mutual Misunderstanding: Self-Loathing Versus the Pursuit of Excellence
This past weekend I had the pleasure of participating in the Stuck with Virtue conference at Berry College in Rome, Ga. I found the conference intellectually enjoyable and the hospitality wonderful. The conference series aims to deal with the moral consequences of technological progress.
At the beginning of my talk, "For Enhancing People," I suggested that I had been invited in order to prove to skeptics in the audience that, unlike unicorns, extreme libertarians actually do exist. Extreme, in this case, meaning that I argue that people should be allowed to use a wide variety of technological enhancements in the future (biotech, infotech machine/human interfaces, etc.) with the goal of boosting their intellectual and physical capacities. Such enhancements, I think, would help people live more flourishing lives, and perhaps, even to improve their practice of virtue.
I think it is fair to characterize my fellow participants as believing that such enhancements pose considerable moral dangers. But just how far our thinking diverges on this issue startled me. During the formal sessions, bioethicist Benjamin Mitchell from Union University offered some penetrating counterpoints to my talk. During a coffee break, I was talking with Mitchell about his concerns and he told me that he thought that people who want to take advantage of enhancements must suffer from a great deal of self-loathing.
I was shocked by his comment. Why? Because, as I explained to Mitchell, in my experience when I talk to people who want to use technologies to enhance themselves, they express their desires as seeking after excellence. Self-loathing versus the pursuit of excellence. No wonder biopolitics is so vicious.
The conference papers including mine will be published in a future issue of the journal, The New Atlantis.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
he thought that people who want to take advantage of enhancements must suffer from a great deal of self-loathing
Holy shit, project much? What an asshole. Did you slug him in the face, Ron? Because you should have.
I can't wait to get my nerves replaced with fiber-op, and some sort of faster than chemical signaling in the brain. Not out of self-loathing, just so I can slap people before their eyes register I've moved.
Righteous Bitchslaps Of Virtue
And of course, if they have self-loathing, we must protect them from themselves. For the good of us all.
Holy shit, project much? What an asshole. Did you slug him in the face, Ron? Because you should have.
So much for that whole non-initiation of force thing, epi. =)
At a certain point, sustained stupidity must be understood as a form of aggression.
"Did you slug him in the face, Ron? Because you should have."
Ron's waiting until he has the hydrolic's put into his right arm so he can bitch slap him into the next county.
I want the "Six Million Dollar Man" sound effect when I jump.
Did you slug him in the face, Ron? Because you should have.
Why bother? Ron can have his modifications and keep on living when the other guy gets slipped on the slab at the mortuary.
Living longer is the best revenge.
Living longer is the best revenge.
You meant "pissing on his grave", right?
Bingo! Give that man a whizzer!
I'd like a whizzer with extra power. Nothing like pissing on that grave from across the street.
Living longer better is the best revenge.
Fixed. I keep telling those who tell me "that'll cut 10 years off your life." Have you seen how those last 10 years roll?
Thanks, but no.
Amendment accepted. I've often said that, if I could live 60 years with a 20 year old body, I'd gladly trade that for my life expectancy past 80.
However, it would be even better to live 500 years with a 20 year old body.
🙂
Well, that depends on who the 20-year old is. :::rimshot:::
That's a pretty common view, I would imagine. I'm so extremely libertarian that I don't even want biology to tell me what I can and can't do!
Also, check out this article about a transhumanist argument for the 2nd amendment HERE
Is it also self-loathing when people go to college? read a book? watch a film? cook a nutritious meal for themselves? lose weight? exercise?
My insulin enhances me into a state of relative health. Am I injecting out of self-loathing?
No, you're just an insulin addict. We'll have an intervention and fix you soon, you degenerate.
You can have my pancreas when you pry it... wait... you can just take the fucking thing.
It's clear to us that your near-infinite hatred killed it.
Its really the same arguement feminists make against women looking to turn back the clock or enhance their current "assets". Benjamin should be redirected to Jezebel to learn some real "self-loathing"
PHOTOSHOP HORROR!!!!
Seriously, I get the general idea that the media portrayal of beauty is a bit unrealistic, but then they take it from the idea of, "Hey, you shouldn't have to be a model to be hot" to "How dare you ever criticize a person's weight, no matter how heavy they are."
I wear glasses--can't see worth a damn without them. The degree of my self-loathing must be astoundingly high.
Is it also self-loathing when people go to college? read a book? watch a film? cook a nutritious meal for themselves? lose weight? exercise?
Yes, no, yes, yes, no, yes, and of course.
I missed the 7th question?
Did he?
Bwa-hahahaha!
Insulin addict...I'm reporting you to the DEA.
I missed the 7th question?
Yeah, I thought I included it in the original quote but had not.
The question was "Am I injecting out of self-loathing?" Since everything SF does is out of self-loathing, the answer is obvious.
resistence is futile
Resistence is not futile.
viral bioscum! u will not be added to our own perfection.
You guys kicked me out of the collective, so :-P. I'll hang out over here with the rest of us Borg you guys kicked out!
You guys are such dorks...
Maybe they've played too much BioShock...
Not only played, but actually bought in to the utterly ridiculous premise of the game...
"Self-loathing versus the pursuit of excellence. No wonder biopolitics is so vicious."
I think that's called "projection" on Mitchell's part, isn't it?
If Bailey tends to assume that everyone wants to improve themselves to make the world a better place, that might suggest that Bailey wants to improve himself to make his world a better place.
If Mitchell tends to assume that people who want to improve themselves are generally self-loathing, then what does that suggest about Mitchell?
Hmmm, I guess I'm wearing glasses out of self-loathing, rather than what I thought it was about, seeing with 20-20 vision far away.
And I guess my wife is using a pacemaker out of self-loathing, rather than what she thought it was about, not having her heart do weird shit.
And all the patients she's put metal hips and knees and whatnot ... self-loathing, all of them, instead of just sucking it up and living in pain and being immobile.
Yup. Don't forget all of those "self-loathing" Iraq war vets with missing limbs. They should be sent to a Tony Robbins seminar, instead of receiving prosthetic replacements.
prosthetic replacements cause climate change, do violence to women and children, oppress non-whites, support terrorists AND they make Baby Jesus cry.
This message brought to you by the Council Of United Nationalist Thinkers Society.
"prosthetic replacements cause climate change, do violence to women and children, oppress non-whites, support terrorists AND they make Baby Jesus cry."
I'm for all of those things. Where can I get a prosthetic limb of my very own?
You capitalized Of, ruining the acronym.
I guess it takes a convention full of statist fucks like that for Ron Bailey to, relatively speaking, be considered a "extreme" libertarian, rather than a smallish-l libertarian.
Is it self-loathing if I want to smack the shit out of someone who think "people who want to take advantage of enhancements must suffer from a great deal of self-loathing"?
Cause if so I'm self-loathing like a mofo.
But people might not have to overpay and kowtow to these "bioethicists" if they didn't act as gatekeepers. Oh. Now I see why they're agin' freedom of self-enhancement.
What the fuck does any of this have to do with getting more tax money from the rich?
Really people...try to stay focused.
You ever tried getting a cyborg to pay its taxes? Good luck.
I think you can draw a clear distinction bewteen enhancments that people choose to make and genetic enhancements done in the womb. The former are free choice. And really they are nothing but an extension of earlier develoments like (as SF mentions above) incilin or wearing glasses. They are way for use to enhance and escape the hand life has dealt us. But they are a path we choose to take.
In the latter case a destiny is being chosen for someone. When you are in the womb you don't have the capacity to choose to be engineered to run fast or learn languages or whatever. And someone shouldn't choose that for you. I am content to leave what you start as to nature, absent serious handicaps which can assume the person would not want to be born with. But, once you an adult, you should be able to choose whatever is available. If you want to be a great musician and there is in the future some kind of brain therapy that would allow you to play Paganini's Caprices after a few weeks practice, why shouldn't you be able to take it?
John,
Is that any different than a woman chossing a man based on his intelligence or sense of humor. Sh (unconsiously) wants her offspring to gain his best traits as much as she wants to be with him. Genetic modification is just another step down that path. It won't necessarily work (as many mother of absolute bums find out), but its an attempt to form a more "acceptable" human. I think the real arguement isn't "self loathing", but lack of real understanding how playing around with genes can be dangerous and cause susceptibility to diseases we've never heard of before or result in defects we don't understand. That's the argument that resonates with me, not that we'll create a Khaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn!!!!!!
Of course if gene therapy is dangerous or doesn't work, that is a different story. I was assuming for the sake of argument that it was both effective and safe. My argument is that it seems to be an infringment on personal autonomy to breed someone for a particular purpose. Suppose you genetically enhance someone to be a great athelete. Maybe they dont' want to be such a thing? Who are we to choose the path someone's life will take. Yeah sure they can always choose to ignore their natural talents and do something else. But we are, by giving them some talents, necessarily limiting others.
I think by the time we get real good at creating "certain" traits, we'll probably have outgrown the desire for them because of the understanding we've gained along the way. Down that road will lie alot of broken bodies to get there though, which is what I'd be afraid of. Failure, not success, is where the danger lies.
If you create a successful athlete that is schizophrenic, that's not exactly a success is it. Or a terrific swimmer that gets cancer at 25. Its not designing "perfect" people that's going to be the problem, but all the flotsam of the failures that don't just go in the trash.
True. And if you can build great athletes in the womb, the advantages of being one will be a lot less than they are now. Michael Jordan is only Michael Jordan because there is only one of him. If every guy at the Y rec league had his game, it would be a fucking blast but it wouldn't be a big deal anymore.
Yeah, people worry about the arms race in genetic traits, but I don't think that would last long before a societal shrug would diffuse that particular issue. Arguments of the unfairness only demonstrate a particular laziness in thought that we can succeed in such an endeavor without genetic cost and that we'll still care about it once true success has been achieved.
People are built the way they are because there are tradeoffs to every perceived advantage. People in North Korea value height in a mate, even though in the recent mass starvations tall, athletic people were the first to die.
If people want to try to work around those tradeoffs, fine. Some will succeed, most will have unintended consequences. But the eventual result will be knowing which traits are just random crap from mutations, and which are worthwhile tradeoffs that can't be monkeyed with without unacceptable consequences.
Suppose you genetically enhance someone to be a great athelete. Maybe they dont' want to be such a thing?
Then I'm guessing they probably won't pursue an athletic career, and all those genetic enhancements will just sit there, making them quicker, stronger, and more fit than their fellow cubicle dwellers. Which would suck. I guess.
Would their controlling parents make their young life a living hell, pushing them into sports? Yeah. Kind of like happens now to a lot of kids.
they'll totally kick ass at racquetball, which everyone knows is a requirement for corporate success...(LIT channeling his memories of '80s corporate comedies).
Sounds like Todd Marinovich.
But we are, by giving them some talents, necessarily limiting others.
How do you figure? Do humans get some kind of fixed attribute points to distribute like some kind of gaming character?
you might not. But I would think you probably would. If you have the kind of mind that works in a way to make you a great athlete, it is doubtful you could also have it work to make you a great musician or mathematician. Maybe you could do it, but we would have pretty much achieved God like status if it ever gets to the point that we can create a human being who is what is now considered world class at everything.
...we would have pretty much achieved God like status if it ever gets to the point that we can create a human being who is what is now considered world class at everything.
I think that's a lot like saying we'd all be rich if we all had a trillion dollars.
Unless genes are absolute destiny, I don't think your argument works. I think there would still be a "normal" distribution of outcomes.
You can't be world class at everything. Tradeoffs always exist. Being the world's best race horse jockey absolutely prevents you from being the world's best basketball center.
Being even the worst NFL player almost invariably means you can't be a woman and bear babies, because the tradeoffs needed to have kids prevent the sort of specialized athletic ability necessary to make it to the NFL.
I get 5 Skill Points on every birthday. Doesn't everybody?
I just add bits to my body enhancing exoskelton.
"IR Sensor with 20Mpixel resolution, THANKS MOM!!! ....oh, yeah, the socks are nice too, thanks. I'm gonna go integrate this new part, brb."
My argument is that it seems to be an infringment on personal autonomy to breed someone for a particular purpose.
Really? You've never looked at a woman and speculated about how kids with her would turn out? Did you just pick a mate at complete random, without any regards to looks, intelligence, personality, or anything else?
Because if you did choose someone in preference to everyone else, then it was just a less precise method of breeding babies than deliberately trying to give them certain traits.
But we are, by giving them some talents, necessarily limiting others.
By what reasoning does having a talent in one area preclude or limit talents in other areas?
That's the great argument against circumcision!
Yeah, a potential for cancer 50 years in the future is not a bad tradeoff for not creating a potential hazard for infection of newborns at birth.
Um, potential for cancer? Yeah, I've seen the research, but the lack of an explanation as to WHY has me concerned (along with the fact it's based on evidence from 1936 and doesn't take lifestyle habits into account.
Also, let's not forget about THIS
Get GET THE FACTS!
sarc-fail
Then I'll be losing a lot in tips.
Silly argument John. I have no choice over my genes to begin with, neither did my parents (outside of selecting each other).
Would you rather have your child's destiny left up to the genetic dice, or would you like to be able skew the odds favorably as much as possible?
john: With due respect I think your analysis is a bit confused. I submit the arguments on consent from my formal paper below for your consideration:
Another often heard objection is that genetic engineering will be imposed on "children-to-be" without their consent. First, I need to remind everyone reading this article that not one of you gave your consent to be born, much less to be born with the specific complement of genes that you bear. Thus, the children born by means of assisted reproductive therapies and those produced more conventionally stand in exactly the same ethical relationship to their parents.
Let's say a parent could choose genes that would guarantee her child a 20 point IQ boost. It is reasonable to presume that the child would be happy to consent to this enhancement of her capacities. How about plugging in genes that would boost her immune system and guarantee that she would never get colon cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, or the common cold? Again, it seems reasonable to assume consent. These enhancements are general capacities that any human being would reasonably want to have. In fact, lots of children already do have these capacities naturally, so it's hard to see that there is any moral justification for outlawing access to them for others.
Philosopher Fritz Allhoff has grappled nicely with the issue of consent. Allhoff offers a principle derived from the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative that we treat individuals as ends and never merely as means or, more simply, to treat them in ways to which they would rationally consent. Allhoff turns next to philosopher John Rawls' notion of primary goods. In A Theory of Justice Rawls defines primary goods as those goods that every rational person should value, regardless of his conception of the good. These goods include rights, liberties, opportunities, health, intelligence, and imagination. As Allhoff argues, "These are the things that, ex hypothesi, everyone should want; it would be irrational to turn them down when offered. Nobody could be better off with less health or with fewer talents, for example, regardless of her life goals?. Since primary goods are those that, by definition, any rational agent would want regardless of his conception of the good, all rational agents would consent to augmentation of their primary goods."
Ron I am not disagreeing with you. I stated above that some thigns, like not getting altzheimers would be such that you could presume consent. And generic IQ points would also fit in that catagory. But I think there are some enhancements that wouldn't. I think an enhancement that points someone towards a particular career or path in life would violate the principle of free will.
Now you can say something has to choose. And that is true. But I would rather have the random chance of nature than the whims of controling parents or fashion.
mother nature doesn't even know your name...so why would you trust the bitch.
john: I submit to you that human freedom does not depend upon genetic ignorance. If it does, we're all doomed when you can buy your complete genome test results for a $100 in the next couple of years.
In fact, I think that genetic knowledge, that is, knowing what your randomly conferred genes are will give you greater freedom to overcome whatever physical or mental tendencies they encode.
But I would rather have the random chance of nature than the whims of controling parents or fashion.
And you are welcome to continue indulging that preference. Just don't try to force that preference upon others at a point of a government gun, and think that that is remotely libertarian.
I also think you greatly underestimate the social good of these things. Do we really want a society of genuises? I dont' think it is clear at all that a society where everyone has a 180 IQ would be better, more just, or more pleasent by any measure than one with a normal bell curve of IQ. In some ways the whole enhancement movement is the ultimate form of self flattery and class snobery. If we could just breed people to be just like the people who like enhancement everything would be great.
If one of those 180 IQers could develop cold fusion and make it work, I'd give the son of a bitch half my wealth. Now, if all they do is sit around and talk about Kant and brood silently, those bastards have wasted my oxygen.
We'll snip out the liberal arts education gene.
Well as the great Judge Smalls tells us "The world needs ditch diggers to". What if you produce a huge generation of David Foster Wallaces too fucked up and brilliant to deal with the benility of ordinary life and with no practical sense? Once we start fucking with people's brains we will never know what we have lost.
You can't argue the perils of success by pointing out the perils of failure.
I've already pointed out that we risk creating issues we never knew existed when we tamper with people's genes, but that's a different issue than actually succeeding in creating a slightly smarter version of the original person, all other things the same.
There is a reason that human IQ hasn't been on a runaway acceleration. There are tradeoffs to higher IQ. If people try to breed 180 IQ kids, they will quickly discover those tradeoffs, and the next generation, chastened, will be more careful about the problems with tinkering with the human genome.
I don't think a population of only 180 IQ geniuses is sustainable. There is a reason why the average IQ hovers where it does.
We kill the overachievers? Or they're too fucked up to find a breeding partner?
There's also the fact that IQ measures against the norm (an IQ of 100 is average)... and the scale needs to keep getting adjusted every couple of decades in order to keep the average IQ at 100.
Yep. Sort of funny when people argue about IQ without really understanding what it represents.
I also think you greatly underestimate the social good of these things. Do we really want a society of genuises? I dont' think it is clear at all that a society where everyone has a 180 IQ would be better, more just, or more pleasent by any measure than one with a normal bell curve of IQ. In some ways the whole enhancement movement is the ultimate form of self flattery and class snobery. If we could just breed people to be just like the people who like enhancement everything would be great.
I would presume that attempting to increase the intelligence in utero would not change the world dramatically, seeing as how humans, in general, have the capacity for rationality, yet frequently process the world through emotion, preconceived prejudices or simple groupthink. I don't believe that the capability of more complex reasoning inherently manifests itself without untold variables coming together.
Ron,
but you must admit that circumcision IS a different story. That truly is body modification without consent- for whatever reason.
So what, you think jews will genetically modify their children not to have foreskin?
I think you've just discovered a niche bio-mod market sir!
Puny mortals! Kneel before me! KNEEEEEEEEL!
The conjunction of Spencer @ 2:55 pm and Mutant Overlord @ 2:56 pm does create an unfortunate mental image, no?
Maybe it's showing that the key to overthrowing our potential future overlord is to kneel before them and give them an unvoluntary circumcision.
I'm still trying to figure out why the motivation for enhancement makes any difference at all in whether it should be allowed or not.
I also question the idea that enhancements would be tend to be motivated by self-loathing. In my experience, people who don't like themselves, a lot, tend to be more interested in punishing themselves than improving themselves. "I'm fat and stupid, so fuck it. What's the point?"
Its the people who are pretty happy with themselves who generally look for ways to better themselves. "I'm pretty good at this. I wonder how I could get even better?"
I'm still trying to figure out why the motivation for enhancement makes any difference at all in whether it should be allowed or not.
Yes, it makes a difference, because that would be akin to letting people make their own choices, and we can't have that!
Did anyone start whining about how only "the rich" will benefit from enhancements? Meanwhile, the poor will still be stuck with their lousy "regular" bodies, which will require some special govt program in order to "promote equality".
Khaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnn!!!!!!
Like chimps in suits, Khaaaaaannnnn!!!!! never gets old. It is just always funny.
That is a serious question. What if we effectively split into two different species one enhanced rich one and one normal poor one? You are kidding yourself if you don't think that won't create a shitload of mostly unpredictable social problems.
In the future, the rich man with his brilliant, yet violently unstable son will envy the poor, loving family that passes his limo on the street.
It will probably work in the same way as every other technological innovation. Those with greater resources will be able to afford them sooner, when the prices are high. This will drive down the cost, at which point us normal folks will be able to afford them too.
So really, the rich will be the ones getting screwed, because they had to pay more for their "MACH 5 fart enhancer/air purifier" than I do. Suckers.
That and they'll have to deal with all the defects, product warranty issues and general beta testing issues. Which is fine if its a widget, not so cool if its the heir to your fortune.
But the top line technology will always be better than the cheap stuff. So the poor will never catch up. A 2011 Ford Focus is a better made car by far than a 1966 Astin Martin. But the 2011 Astin Martin blows both the focus and the 1966 Astin away. So when you finally get your hands on the technology, the rich will have something beyond that.
Now with cars and computers it doesn't matter. But what if they are buying an astronomically better way to compete in the market place than you and no matter what you do you will never have anything but the lowest level job? That could be a problem.
The difference between a top line appliance and base model appliance usually is in the details. You might not be able to get the genes modified to have a smart, handsome, son with blond hair and blue eyes, but you might be able to get a smart child with no defects.
It may be a problem, but its also progress.
Constructing a society that keeps everyone at the level of the lowest common denominator would be a cure much worse than the disease.
Russia tried it.
The problem is that you equate human capability with ordinary technology RC. A world were everyone can drive a DB9 sounds great. A world were everyone has a 180 IQ sounds like a nightmare. You of all people should know that RC. Think about what a collection of worthless shit bag pricks inhabit Harvard Law School. And every one of the sans the few idiot son legacies have high IQs. Is that the world you want to live in? Not me.
IQ's not being the be all end all, if congress was just a little bit more intelligent (and honest), it wouldn't be a bad thing. Imagine someone not named Paul in congress that understands economics.
I don't know, John. Do you think that the high IQ has anything to do with the shitbag-prick-ness of those people? I'd be willing to bet that libertarians on average have a higher IQ than the general population. And if everyone were smarter, I would expect the same diversity of opinion among smart people that one sees today.
The problem is that you equate human capability with ordinary technology RC. A world were everyone can drive a DB9 sounds great.
Why? Wouldn't the universal availability of such a car make it very mundane? The fact that people value restoring archaic vehicles that are far inferior, technologically, to the current cars, shows that individual valuation is wildly differing. Complete standardization would be more of a nightmare.
A world were everyone has a 180 IQ sounds like a nightmare. You of all people should know that RC. Think about what a collection of worthless shit bag pricks inhabit Harvard Law School. And every one of the sans the few idiot son legacies have high IQs. Is that the world you want to live in? Not me.
You are conflating IQ with certain worldviews. If everyone were magically 50 IQ points higher, I doubt it would change the continuum of differing views and personalities to any degree.
especially if they're still raised in northwest Kentucky.
I wanted to be the first to bring up Harrison Bergeron in this thread......
How is that any different than an individual entrepreneur, with lesser resources and technology, competing against a large company with vast resources and superior technology? People are able to succeed in these conditions, and with technological enhancements, it wouldn't be any different.
Having superior technology does not mean being able to maximize the benefits of technology.
Only if there continues to be massive government regulation and intervention into the human enhancement market. Technology should decrease costs over time not increase them.
Who will have the last laugh when the rich turn into the Eloi?
Dear god... what if people with wealth and power were able to use those to attract breeding partners with better genes, thus passing those genes on to their offspring. Can you imagine what a social disaster that would be?
It's the definitions of "enrich" and "improve" that need classification. There are deaf couples who claim the right to deafen a fetus in vitro so they can have the deaf experience as a family unit. They do so under what they consider libertarian ethics.
Maybe that's why so many stupid parents work like madmen at keeping their children stupid, too.
In requesting that disability, there will be handwringing and possible a risk of future resentment from said son, but the actual creation of such a son wouldn't give me any issue. After all, deaf people can function just as well in our society. Same for blind or mute people. And I doubt that particular request will be in huge demand. The issue is how to isolate that particular gene and sequence it properly without affecting to the detriment of others. I wouldn't make the assumption just yet that we can do that on a "to order" basis.
Lizard Man wants a Lizard Son.
http://samdasilva.files.wordpr.....rd-man.jpg
On the plus side, Lizard Boy could reverse the process, possibly by suing his father to pay for it.
I can't come up with any distinction between deafening (or blinding, or whatever) someone in vitro, and doing it surgically after birth.
If the latter would clearly be beyond the pale (and I think it would), why wouldn't the former?
Perhaps my libertarian-fu is weak because I would have no problem with a law saying you can't have a doctor take out your kid's hearing or sight after they are born, or having a doctor do it before they are born.
Does this set us on the slippery slope to preventing any in vitro alterations? Somehow, I doubt it. I can't see any law against in vitro alterations to prevent disease, deformity, etc. getting any traction. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I can't see alterations that enhance a capability from being thrown into the bucket with alterations that remove or degrade a capability.
Agreed. If all alterations are considered bad with no moral considerations, then a woman taking folic acid is "depriving" her child of spinal bifida.
If the kid wants to be deaf, let him poke out his own eardrums.
"We were going to deafen him in the womb, but then we figured we'd just buy him a nice stereo as an adolescent. That pesky hearing problem will work itself out by the time he's 18."
"I can't come up with any distinction between deafening (or blinding, or whatever) someone in vitro, and doing it surgically after birth."
True, but most people that are pro-choice would see those two states of development as having different degrees of moral worth.
Certainly, if the genetic alterations took place prior to fertilization, there would be no standing for complaint, insofar as there wouldn't be a person to complain.
I wonder if I'm in the minority where I actually like to work for self improvement. I find that the hours put into learning and improving whatever it is that I'm doing make the end results much more meaningful.
I'd like to think if I had the opportunity to change myself by mechanical means that I wouldn't do so unless it was for something like a total knee replacement or a life saving procedure.
Dude, I'd totally graft adamantium on to my skeleton...but only after I worked on my self-regeneration gene.
now this you could sign me up for. Would have saved me hundreds of hours of PT during college football days.
I want to be able to fall 30 stories and land on my feet with no damage to myself.
I would also like to be able to hold my breath for 20 min underwater.
Why would you discontinue to work for improvement after being enhanced? As a primitive example, steroids don't make you stronger without a considerable amount of exercise. Getting into a good college does you little good unless you study, etc.
I find that the hours put into learning and improving whatever it is that I'm doing make the end results much more meaningful.
You can still spend those hours. You just start from a higher baseline.
Manny Ramirez still took batting practice for hours every day even after juicing up.
If there was an enhancement I could take to give me Google-like total recall and instant access to billions of facts, sure, that would "deny" me the hours I might have spent on memorization to reach that position "naturally". But I can just turn around and spend the very same hours pushing myself even farther and undertaking the mental gymnastics of a demigod, instead.
Yeah I see your point, and also see the benefits with continuing the R&D. I was just saying I don't think I'd make the changes.
And honestly i feel like for most people it would just turn into whacking off more efficiently and typing faster angrier replies on forums like these.
"If there was an enhancement I could take to give me Google-like total recall and instant access to billions of facts, sure, that would "deny" me the hours I might have spent on memorization to reach that position "naturally""
Correct. Having access to information, and being able to process it into something useful, do not go hand in hand. Being able to have "computer like" memory won't make you think more creatively, or rationally. Improving on those abilities, and maximizing the potential of your abilities would still require hard work.
Re: Doc S,
Obtaining enhancements requires work also - unless you want the government to hand them out for free like many other things nobody is really entitled to...
It would likely require money which is not the same as work.
I think the real reason for the acrimony is at the other end of the reaction spectrum:
People who don't want to change fear being outcompeted by people who do.
Mitchell isn't full of self-loathing that he's projecting on to Bailey. He's mainly just lazy, and he's anticipating the self-loathing he'll feel later if Bailey is allowed to outstrip him by taking the initiative.
"But - but - but I'm worried about the poor high school kid who might feel pressured to undertake dangerous medical treatments just to keep up with their peers!" Um, just tell that kid to be second-best and to like it. Problem solved.
The future needs ditch diggers too.
Yes, but genetically-enhanced ditch diggers would be better.
SHOVEL ARM!
How are you going to be able to lean on that when you and the other 4 guys are watching the one guy work?
shoveling dirt at multiple times the rate a steam shovel and built in ability to detect buried lines to within 5mm.
and built in ability to detect buried lines to within 5mm.
*drool*
The future needs ditch diggers too.
Caterpillar, Hitachi, and John Deere all sell programmable operator-less scrapers and excavators today.
The future does not need ditch diggers.
There is also no gaurentee that enhanced abilities won't come with big draw backs or be a ticket to happiness. Like everything else in the world, being a bioengineered freak will probably not be all it is cracked up to be.
See my earlier comments. Its not success that should scare us, its failure that should draw out the caution.
Like everything else in the world, being a bioengineered freak will probably not be all it is cracked up to be.
What could the average human being expect to be able to research before Google?
What can a human being now be able to research with Google?
What are the drawback again?
Genetic enhancement is an inevitability. So what we need to do is rid ourselves of libertarianism, so that we can avoid the worst aspects of the Darwinian hellscape that would result given the wealth-based access that they would no doubt defend.
Ha ha ha! Best spoof ever!
It isn't a spoof.
Tony read "Orynx as Crake" as prophesy not as a work of fiction.
Hey Tony her other book did not come true either, why would this one be any different?
Because nothing avoids a Darwinian hellscape like using using politics to distribute goods and services.
Darwinian hellscape...it looks alot like the rainforest.
that would result given the wealth-based access that they would no doubt defend.
Wait a minute... I think he means us.
Darwinian hellscape that would result given the wealth-based access that they would no doubt defend.
Google, glasses, spell check, sun glasses, cell phones, work gloves, shoes, cars, pencils...the list goes on.
What on this list of human enhancing items are only available to the rich?
"It's true: This man has no dick."
During the formal sessions, bioethicist [...]
One need not read past this...
Ronald you have been covering this for some time.
Bioethics poeple do seem to have pretty restrictive views of what humans can and cannot do to modify and improve themselves using biological means.
But so far looking in from the outside I fail to see how this group has had any effect in actually stopping anything.
Aside from hating technology and espousing that hate what if anything has this group done to actually stop it?
Is this simply a tempest in a tea cup?
I mean i did not see huge protests against the movie Limitless. The views of these people do not seem to be going anywhere out side their little group.
Scientific fool's gold
The only reason for anyone to disagree with me is that they are messed up. This goes double for when I have no rational argument for my position.
yes God