[extropy-chat] Eumemics

[Emlyn O'regan]

Mark Walker wrote:
> The sorts of concerns you raise are quite common, at least in 
> my experience
> in lecturing and teaching this stuff. However, just because 
> you are in the
> majority it does not necessarily mean you are wrong. : )  
> Let's put aside
> cases of genetic engineering of children and concentrate on 
> simple embryo
> selection. Here there is no genetic engineering, simply 
> choosing which fetus
> to implant. The individual here cannot complain post facto 
> that they were
> manipulated in any way, only that they were chosen. They 
> might have been
> born in any event, by selecting them we have simply "rigged 
> the lottery".
> This seems to resolves to just the usual complaint of being 
> born at all, as
> the song goes: "were not my mother's womb my grave".
> Now take IQ. There is a lot of evidence that this has a strong genetic
> component to it. (See for example, Plomin R., et al. 
> Behavioral Genetics,
> 4th edition. New York, Freeman, 2001, or "Are We Hardwired?" 
> for a slightly
> more popular account). For example, estimates of the IQ 
> correlation between
> identical twins adopted and reared apart are in the 50 to 80% 
> range. The
> correlation between the IQ of adopted children and their 
> parents is pretty
> close to zero. Here we have a case where the technology of 
> selecting embryos
> has already established, the consent issue doesn't seem 
> germane, and the
> benefit is the potential for increased knowledge. Isn't a 
> primary purpose of
> education to increase knowledge? If so then what is the principled
> difference between embryo selection for the potential for increased
> knowledge and attempting to educate the young so that their knowledge
> increases?
> 
> 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
> 

Embryo selection I can probably support; there's nothing risky involved,
just a choice that could have occured anyway. Yes, that's a strong argument
(thanks!). Because in the case of embryo selection, it's like education; it
*must* happen (default is close enough to random), so morally you are fairly
free to choose.

However, like education, the choice of how needs to fall back on those
primarily responsible for the child, ie: the parents, and not on the state.
I wonder if I need to back this statement up? Probably.

Emlyn