[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Adrian Tymes]

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

Okay, Angel's Advocate.  Devil's is just the common
term.  ;P

> Is the problem here the technology or the
> desirability of the traits?

Yes.  ^_-

> 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 we knew what markers those were, and that those
markers were not associated with other potentially
desirable or undesirable things.  We don't, at least
not with much confidence (especially for IQ), so
attempts to do so right now will likely bring about
unintended, and potentially (probably, given
historical precedent) disastrous, selection effects.

> 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.

And, as has been cautioned, don't assume endorsement
even for or against existing traits such as deafness.

> But what
> about values that we already endorse through
> eumemics, e.g., knowledge.

Counter-examples of said endorsement are widespread.
Some people really do want their kids to be dumb (so
they will be obedient to their parents, even when said
parents are wrong in the extreme).

> > 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.

There still is some resistance.  This is part of why
I said, "Not just a simple democratic majority
(although it may come to that in some cases)".  I do
not claim to know where the cutoff is below 100%
agreement, or even that there is a single cutoff that
is optimal for all such issues (I suspect there is
not).

> 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.

A temporary restraining order is all I was going for.
There is potential for it to become indefinite, if
agreement never forms that a certain set of genes is
undesirable - said agreement likely necessarily
including, perhaps even consisting entirely of, those
who possess said genes (and thus, who would be
directly affected).  But if that agreement were to
come about...well, hey, if everyone (and I mean
*everyone*) who has gene X says they want to make sure
their yet-to-be-conceived kids never have gene X, and
no one else wants gene X, then yeah, the state is
probably going to be quite justified in requiring
genetic engineering to eliminate gene X.

Maybe it was Devil's after all.  ^_-