<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-11-16 23:14, Adrian Tymes
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALAdGNRHnk0vf3nLVW6myXTapnQ-qXDQS4hMN0fX_+9DnHiQcg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p dir="ltr">On Nov 16, 2015 2:41 PM, "Anders Sandberg" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se">anders@aleph.se</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
> Fine. But suppose you were setting up rules for
enhancement. What kinds of evident harm would be evident to you?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Largely the ones already covered by existing laws.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes, that's not the answer you - or many people -
want to hear, as it is the complete opposite of justifying Doing
Something re: changing the laws or making new ones to deal with
this new scenario.</p>
</blockquote>
Heh. You don't think I am libertarian about enhancement?<br>
<br>
While I agree there is a temptation to Do Something, there is also
an interesting issue of what makes doing something actually
appropriate. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALAdGNRHnk0vf3nLVW6myXTapnQ-qXDQS4hMN0fX_+9DnHiQcg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Unfortunately, it is also the truth: for the most
part, it's not a matter of making new laws, but of correctly
enforcing the ones we already have.</p>
</blockquote>
Currently many laws prevent enhancement - whether drug or
pharmaceutical laws banning non-therapeutic use, regulations making
doctors gatekeepers of any bodymodification technology, reprotech
laws banning certain forms of reproduction or genetic enhancement.
If you don't think these laws are right, you need to find arguments
why they are excessive in order to convince people to roll them
back.<br>
<br>
One could argue that maybe "tech will find a way" and that fixing
regulations/policies is not necessary. But I think this is
empirically wrong: GMO is seriously held back worldwide by EU import
restrictions, pharma companies are not developing enhancers because
the regulatory risk is overwhelming, and we know nanotechnology got
badly sidetracked because a particular research sociological
constellation hijacked funding from the original vision. There is no
ban on anti-ageing research, yet the funding is minuscule because
there is no strong Do Something support for it.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University
</pre>
</body>
</html>