[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Mark Walker]

There are a number of ways to slice the eugenic (good breeding) pie, but one
that is relevant for my question to you has to do with the state/versus
nonstate distinction. Many transhumanists are in favor of eugenics, e.g.,
embryo selection for desirable traits, or elimination of embryos with
perceived defects, so long as it is not done in a state mandated way.
According to this doctrine, it is morally permissible for individuals or
families to make decisions about what constitutes good breeding , but it is
not permissible for the state to mandate such matters. Of course the Nazis
were the great
"popularizes" of state sponsored eugenics, but as Kevles et al. have pointed
out, many other nations were
involved. Hopefully, according to this doctrine, we have learnt our lesson
here.

Eumemics, as you have already guessed, has to do with good memeing. If you
believe in state mandated good memeing raise your hands. For example, how
many of you believe in state mandated education? Or do you believe it should
be left entirely up to parents or the children themselves whether children
get an education or not?

Question: suppose you believe that at least some state mandated eumemics
is morally permissible (e.g., education), but you do not believe in state
mandated eugenics, what is the principle or principles that makes it morally
permissible in the one case but not the other? Now of course you could
reject the question because you don't believe in state mandated eumemics,
even education. Well, at least here you will have consistency on your side.
I guess most of us reject this because of the harm that children will suffer
if their parents decided that they do not want to have their children
educated. It is interesting to note that even some staunch libertarians
think
that children are a special case, that is, that the state has a special
interest in the lives of children in a way that it should not in adult
lives. In any event, if you don't believe in state mandated education then
pleasing stop reading here. (To say that education is state mandated is
independent of the question of who should run it and who should pay for it,
e.g., this is consistent with private run schools).

Here are some possible candidates for the operative principle or principles:

1. Eugenics interferes with parental rights to choose the sort of children
they want to have.

Rebuttal: Surely eumemics interferes with parental rights just as much. If
you want to raise your child to not be infected with decadent mass culture
surely not allowing your child to read or write might seem like an appealing
option. So, forcing children to go to school infringes on parental rights
here. I guess most of us would say this infringement is justified. So, why
is it not justified in the case of eugenics, e.g., not allowing severely
mentally or physically disabled children to be born. Or perhaps not allowing
children with an IQ of less than 120 to be born?

2. Parents know what is best for their children, the state does not.

Rebuttal: Much the same point as above. What do we say to parents who do not
want to educate their children? Isn't the answer that in this case the state
knows best? So why not in the case of eugenics?

3. State mandated eugenics necessarily compromises the autonomy of
individuals whereas education does not.

Rebuttal: The full answer to this point would require rehashing the
discussion of the principle of potential plentitude (discussed a while back
on the WTA-list), but here is the
Readers' Digest version: Suppose the state mandates that embryos are to be
selected for high IQ, athletic potential, perfect pitch, and the capacity to
readily acquire virtues. (For the last of these see:
www.permanentend.org/gvp.htm) If you are the product of such a selection you
could still refuse to exercise any of the genetic potentials you have been
given, e.g., you could spend your time in your parent's basement smoking pot
and listening to punk music rather than attempting to develop your
intellect,
your athletic, moral or musical potential. As I argued in connection with
the Principle of Potential Plentitude discussion, enhanced
potential (in many cases) actually increases autonomy, it does not reduce
it.

4. State mandated eugenics may compromise the autonomy of individuals
whereas eumemics does not.

Explanation: This differs from the previous point in that it allows that
eugenics could be used in a way that does not compromise autonomy, but
worries that the state might use eugenics to compromise autonomy. Suppose
like some bad sci-fi movie embryos were selected for aggressive potential so
that the individuals could be made into fearsome soldiers (or some such
nonsense). Eumemics, on the other hand, does not compromise the autonomy
of individuals.

Rebuttal: State mandated eumemics can be used to compromise the autonomy
of individuals, consider for example indoctrination, propaganda, etc. The
Nazis too were helpful
in "popularizing" eumemics. If it is the mere potential for abuse that
stops us with eugenics then why do we not disallow all forms of eumemics
on the same basis? (And let us not under estimate the power of eumemics to
harm. I have a friend whose father went to a Nazi school for his education.
His father still celebrates Hitler's birthday every year with friends over
drinks).

Cheers,

Mark


Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214  Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org