[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Emlyn O'regan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Walker [mailto:mark at permanentend.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 9:45 AM

> 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. 

Well, trivially, you have to be able to read in order to participate in
western society in any kind of first-class way. Writing is also extremely
useful!

More, you need socialisation, which I'd lump under education, and I think
which you'd call eumemetics. Without it, you're wolf boy. Check out this
site on feral children:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0

I think that to conflate this kind of thing (lack of socialization) with
lack of genetic engineering is disingenuous. Socialization (education!) is
necessary, genetic engineering is optional.

> 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. 

There might be a case for separating things like speech and literacy
(skills?) from knowledge. I'm not sure.

> 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. 

It is a huge "if" to even say that you can do this at all, genetically. You
will be selecting for a particular genetic pattern, which may or may not
epiphenomenally result in the traits you describe. I think you couldn't be
anything but uncertain of the effectiveness of such selection without a few
generations of the selected to test. And it's my contention that by the time
you get there, we'll have stronger technologies for enhancement which can be
used solely by consenting adults. So the generations in between are
non-consenting guinea pigs in an ultimately pointless experiment.

> 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 )
> .

I totally agree. I only object to the method of enhancement, which I claim
is untestable (in a reasonable timeframe), of dubious value, probably risky,
and involves irrevocable action on those who cannot give their consent. If
you were talking about adults modifying themselves, I would fully support
your argument.

> 
> 
> > 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. 

My position is that I don't think it's morally permissable for the parents
or the state to play with the genetics of offspring, except where there is a
clear and present danger to the offspring from not doing so (eg: cf?). I
think you are clear on that.

On point 3, I think it is necessary for some minimal education to be given
to children, and personally I lean toward a solid education for all
children. How that is enforced (ie: does it come back to armed men enforcing
the rules), I'm hazy on. Probably at some minimal level it should be state
enforced. But the details of that education, within basic guidelines, should
be up to parents probably. But that's all only imo, and I can't really back
it up with much, or be very specific. I contend, however, that it's
unrelated to the first to points, given what I've said previously about
genetic and memetic interference being entirely different beasts.

> 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".

Ouch, you don't pull your punches, do you? :-) I probably am in the
majority, but accidentally, and mostly for different reasons I think. Oddly
enough, the most common reason I see expressed for not allowing genetic
manipulation of children is jealousy, or a fear of inequality, which I find
weird. Make no mistake, the entirety of my concern is about untried,
unprovable technology with dubious benefits and very real risks, and lack of
ability for the individual to give consent.

Emlyn

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>