[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Mark Walker]

> Just playing devil's advocate here...

I'm not sure I believe it, but your argument has ingenuity on its side; the
devil should count his blessings having you on his side.

>
>> 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?)
>

Is the problem here the technology or the desirability of the traits? If the
former then it is sufficient to limit the state's interest here to embryo
selection. One could examine embryos for genetic markers associated with
high IQ and CF and sort accordingly. If the latter then the fact that the
technology is in its infancy might caution us against providing new traits,
say extra legs so that one could be as fleet of foot as satyrs. But what
about values that we already endorse through eumemics, e.g., knowledge. If
we look for genetic markers to ensure a goodly quantity of intelligence to
allow at least the possibility that embryo will be able to have a goodly
quantity of knowledge. Any given level of knowledge by an individual has a
corresponding minimum level of intelligence that individual must possess. If
we increase intelligence then we will have raised the ceiling for knowledge.
The eumemic equivalent of course is the attempt to impart knowledge to our
offspring through education.

> 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.

I'm no historian, but I think the history of mandatory education is perhaps
a relevant counterexample to your general claim. There seems to have been
quite a bit of resistance to mandatory education in the U.S. and it seems to
have taken quite a long time to make it mandatory in every state in the U.S.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html . So if we are agreed that
mandatory education is a good thing (again allowing for the possibility of
it being privatized) then it seems that the "wisdom" of the state exceed
that of the consensus of the population. The near consensus on the goodness
of mandatory education came after the fact. That point aside, it seems that
the council for the defense has only come up with a temporary restraining
order, as our knowledge of what eugenics can do it seems that there will no
longer be a principled reason for allowing state mandated eumemics but not
eugenics.

Thanks for your input.

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