[ExI] Morphological freedom and its limits

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: [ExI] Morphological freedom and its limits

>...A bit quiet here. I assume everybody are busy bringing about the
singularity. Or the list is on holiday again :-)

>...In any case, here is a discussion topic: I am going to give a talk on
morphological freedom in a few weeks, discussing how different conceptions
of morphological freedom can approach questions on what human enhancements
and extensions are ethical or wise. So, dear list, what are your views on
how to draw lines about what modifications are "right" or "wrong"? ...--
Anders Sandberg


Anders, somewhere in the discussion of ethics on this activity we should see
someone mention externalizing risk onto society.  

In the early days of when the US federal government was trying to figure out
what to do with the emerging problem of proles driving drunk (1920s) it was
pointed out that our constitution did not allow the fed to outlaw alcohol.
So, they had to create a specific constitutional amendment (the 18th)
allowing the fed that authority.  It didn't work out; the cure was worse
than the malady, so it required another amendment (the 21st) to cancel the
first.  So now our constitution has these two self-inflicted scars.

Not wanting to repeat that bitter experience, our federal government jumped
at the opportunity to repeat that bitter experience.  It created a federal
narcotics enforcement agency.  The argument went thus: people taking
narcotics externalizes risk on society.  It increases risk of poverty,
crime, etc.  So... the fed proceeded, but without a constitutional amendment
allowing it this time.  Perhaps they didn't want to risk another pair of
contradictory amendments such as the 18th and 21st.  

Testing the legality of dope prohibition is something neither the state
governments nor the fed want to do, for it is entirely unclear if the fed
has the authority to restrict dope and the states don't want to take on the
expense themselves.  So, on we go.  

Now some states have decided to allow grass, while it is still illegal at
the federal level.  No one wants to escalate that fight.  So far the fed has
backed down, for if they push it, the case is likely to end up in the
supreme court.  We have constitutional literalists in the majority
currently, so there is a good chance the court would side with the states in
allowing it.

In the creation of designer babies, it is hard to deny that we externalize
risk onto society, for if it goes really wrong in unforeseen ways, the
parents would exhaust their own resources with plenty of big expenses left
afterwards.  On the other hand, it is unclear the federal government has the
authority to prohibit experimentation of this kind.  States can, but at
least some will not.

spike