[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Mark Walker]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emlyn O'regan"
>
> 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.
>

Optional and necessary for what purpose? Some people are only smart enough
to get a McJob and eke out an existence all because of the DNA lottery.
(Others of course are smart enough to do other things but choose McJobs).
Not everyone is born with the right DNA to pursue excellence in music,
knowledge, athletics, etc. I'm not sure I agree with the reversibility claim
either. Try to look at a page or a screen and see shapes but not letters and
words. It is pretty hard to undo the abcs that you learnt at school. On the
other hand, if you are the product of embryo selection and you are provided
with the genetic potential for high iq, perfect pitch, and athletic ability
there is no reason that you can't let this potential atrophy as you smoke
pot and listen to punk music in your parent's basement. Moreover, the main
issue it seems to me is the basic asymmetry between the enhanced and the
unenhanced. The enhanced can choose most of the life trajectories of the
unenhanced, but not vice versa. Which is to say that the enhanced have
greater autonomy. (For those who want to explore this claim further see the
debate starting here:
http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-talk/2003-September/000254.html )
.


> 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.
>

The position I am interested in is one that says three things: (1) it is
morally permissible for parents to practice eugenics to select or promote
traits, (as would happen with genetic engineering or embryo selection). (2)
it is not morally permissible for the state to mandate eugenic selection.
(3) It is morally permissible for the state to mandate education of the
young. As I noted in my original post, the question of consistency doesn't
touch hardcore libertarians who deny that it is permissible for the state to
mandate education (i.e., (3)). Since you deny (1) you too do need to look
for a way to reconcile these 3 claims. I'm guessing that qua transhumanist
you are in minority in denying  (1). But, hey, you are in the majority--at
least in the "West".

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