[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Emlyn O'regan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Walker [mailto:mark at permanentend.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 1:44 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Eumemics

> 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?
> 

Education is a special case with humans. We are social creatures, who
function best with a prerequisite long period of education before adulthood.
Some things we need to function properly as Human v1.0 in our current
society come in our genes, the rest requires education. Note that this
education should be defined far more broadly than typical state regulated
education!

So in the case of eumemics, there is a requirement for education, meaning it
isn't optional. Furthermore, it is to a large part reversible; you can shake
even the crustiest of crusty memes if you try hard enough for long enough.

However, genetic engineering is an entirely different beast. Firstly, I'll
assume that prenatal genetic engineering is being proposed because we assume
the postnatal organism cannot be modified further genetically. One day
(maybe soon) this wont be true, which will render much of the argument for
eugenics, such as it is, irrelevant. However, I'll take this as a given
here.

So genetic engineering is irreversable, by the previous paragraph. It is
also entirely optional, in a way that memetic upload (education) isn't.
These two qualities (optional, irreversable) should be combined with the
unproven and unknown qualities highlighted by Adrian in his reply to Mark,
to show that modern "eugenics" (parental or state manipulation of the
unborn) is a really poor idea, not comparable to education, and to be
undertaken at the parent/state's extreme peril; after all, you are messing
with a future citizen, who *will* be pissed off if you get it wrong (from
their point of view, not yours).

My view is that transhumanists just shouldn't venture onto this territory.
Fix really deadly genetic illnesses, but after that you should leave a
person alone until they are old enough to choose for themselves. In about 18
years from now, it's not too far fetched to assume that adult phenotype
genetic manipulation will a going concern, after all.

> 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?

Again, because there is a necessity when it comes to education. Eugenics, on
the other hand, is optional.

> 
> 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.

You assume that we know how to make positive differences such as these
(pretty doubtful), and that everyone values the same things; after all,
there are likely to be tradeoffs involved. And you don't consider any of the
risks involved in screwing this up.

> 
> 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
> 

Again; eugenics is optional. Education isn't. Screwing around with your own
genes, or anything else about yourself, is well and dandy, I highly support
it. Screwing around with someone else's genes, like your kids', when you
don't have to, is really dangerous territory.

Emlyn