[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Adrian Tymes]

Just playing devil's advocate here...

--- Mark Walker <mark at permanentend.org> wrote:
> 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?

Technical understanding.  The state, having evolved
through memetic influences, has at least a rough
understanding of beneficial vs. non-beneficial memes.
Although this understanding can easily be demonstrated
to be flawed in certain cases - and in those cases, it
should be (and is being, to some degree) restricted
from action - it can also be demonstrated to have
selected certain good memes (insofar as any meme can
be judged absolutely "good", independent of the
memeset of the observer).

On the other hand, genetic engineering is very much in
its infancy, so imposing genetic solutions at this
time - prior to a better understanding of what genes
do what - is likely to cause more problems than it
solves.  (Note that this does not apply to, say,
state-mandated treatment of genes that are well
understood to be desirable or not; for instance,
correcting the gene that gives cystic fibrosis or
certain other diseases.  But in these specific cases,
there is not much debate anyway: what parent wants
their child to be born sick?)

Perhaps a better way to put it: both memetic and
genetic engineering are allowed when it is widely
known what memes/genes are good and what are bad.  Not
just a simple democratic majority (although it may
come to that in some cases), but closer to universal
consensus levels.  Without that knowledge, attempts to
impose solutions have historically just caused damage
without achieving the desired results; the limits on
government impositions in this case are there to
prevent a repeat of that mistake.