[extropy-chat] Causes of luddism

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Emlyn O'regan <oregan.emlyn at healthsolve.com.au>
wrote:
> I totally agree. I think that the voluntary nature
> of all the stuff we talk
> about is intrinsic to, and perhaps fundamental to,
> transhumanism in all its
> non-fucked forms. 

Hmm.  Maybe it's so intrinsic - to us, anyway - that
we forget to even mention it at times?

> Are there cases where state sponsored (eg:
> subsidised individual choice) is
> supportable, for example in screening for something
> like cystic fibrosis?
> When does that become a slippery slope toward
> eugenics?

When there are people who might, despite being fully
informed on all the issues, actively choose the "bad"
path and get some benefit out of it.  For instance,
cystic fibrosis grants no advantages, and all those
who presently have it apparently would not mind being
cured.  But there are some deaf people - born that
way, or acquired - who actively prefer not being able
to hear, and who have (at least, claim to have; close
enough) developed a subculture around deafness, to the
point that they fret over advances in cochlear
implants and the mere possibility of cures for genetic
deafness in the future.  One can easily imagine a
"perfect" genome leaving out both CF and deafness (in
fact, if anything, it would likely tend towards better
than present human normal hearing).

> Actually, I think this particular issues
> (manipulation of the unborn) is a
> hard one for transhumanists.

> With all that heavy "natural" meddling going
> on, where is the line to
> be drawn?

You're right, this is a tough issue for us.  But if I
may offer a potential starting point: parents should
be allowed to engineer their children without any
non-explicitly-specified limitations before the child
can survive (for at least several seconds)
independently of the gestating host organism (i.e.,
"before birth", with allowances for modifications of
"birth").  Explicitly specified limitations include:

* The child must be allowed to develop to independent
function on a more or less normal timetable.  (There
are already premature and late births, so you can't
say "exactly 9 months".  But the point of this is to
avoid engineering children of surrogates that remain
tied to the womb for years; they who control the
surrogate have their fingers on the child's life's off
button.)

* The child must develop into what most people would
accept as "human".  (This one will probably need much
refining.  E.g., some people would seriously claim
none of us are human, merely for what we think and
believe.  This is intended to avoid creation of
otherwise-human organisms that are forced to live
outside of society, and which few people would grant
human rights to of their own accord.  This benefits
both the child and society, heading off spending
resources on major fights over whether a given
existing person should be treated as human.)

* The child's probable lifespan, as predicted from
genetic factors, may not be shorter than average.
(*Really* borderline, and I'm not sure this one should
be here, but this is offered for debate anyway.  Some
people really would prefer shorter lives, and many
children have dreamt of growing up physically before
their time - not caring if such an act would shorten
an unrealized future.  9 year olds who know they'll
die at 27 think they have about the same relative
amount of life as 30 year olds who know they'll die at
90.  Plus, as more children are introduced with longer
lifespans, even natural, unaltered genelines start
falling afoul of this rule.  That said, the intent of
this rule is to prevent fast-maturing humans who die
before they are of legal age, providing 10-15 years of
slave labor for their creators with no chance of
legal repercussions so long as they stay within child
labor laws - e.g., working for their creators'
businesses, being "home schooled"/trained on the job,
and so forth.  Existing child prostitution laws would
only prevent this exploitation for one specific
career.)

> It'd be much easier to believe in God at a time like
> this. Bugger.

It would?  Wouldn't God most likely dictate which
choice is the correct one, therefore all true
believers would suffer no sin by imposing that choice
on everyone else?

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brett Paatsch

> > Excellent stuff imo. Good thinking!
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Brett
> > 
> > [applauding from the peanut gallery :-)]

Thanks!  ^_^