From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 14:32:33 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> Two articles in The Economist worrying about the ethics of brain science
> and how it may create a (shudder!) posthuman future:
>
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1143583
> http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1143317
>
> See the effect Fukuyama et al has? We better respond proactively - not
> doing anything will lead to a walk-over situation. We need more books
> like Greg Stock's.
One of the things that bothered me about this article was the built-in
assumption that treatment is OK, enhancement is wrong. It seems that
this is a foundation of the emerging bioethical consensus and we need to
try to cut it off at the root. The purpose of this distinction is to
remove one of the best arguments of those who favor technology, which
is to exhibit people who are suffering and who would benefit from the
new methods. By drawing the treatment/enhancement line, the luddites
can support helping those who are disadvantaged while still doing as
much as they can to fight the new technologies.
However there are several big problems with this strategy that
opponents of technology are trying to use. Philosophically, it has a
weak foundation. Fundamentally it is assuming that the way things are is
the way they should be. People are born with certain abilities which are
"normal", and if enhancing them is wrong, that must mean that "normal"
is right. This is the familiar is/ought fallacy. It might make sense
for someone who is religious to believe that, but not for anyone who is
trying to make an argument founded on science.
Another problem is that science and technology in general challenge
this distinction. At one time, disease and poverty were "normal".
Few would argue that the world was a better place then. It is only by
refusing to accept what is normal and seeking to improve it that our
lives have reached the level of comfort that we have today.
The article reluctantly makes another point against the distinction:
> When it comes to the brain, society now regards the distinction between
> treatment and enhancement as essentially meaningless. Taking a drug
> such as Prozac when you are not clinically depressed used to be called
> cosmetic, or non-essential, and was therefore considered an improper
> use of medical technology. Now it is regarded as just about as cosmetic,
> and as non-essential, as birth control or orthodontics.
I'm not sure how true this really is, but if so, it is a huge win
for our side. The more people accept the idea that enhancement is
acceptable as long as it is voluntary and self-chosen, the weaker will
be the arguments of the Luddites that it should be forbidden.
It is significant that the few horror stories the article manages to
conjure up are situations where people are being forced against their will
to make use of brain-related technology, for example super lie detectors.
Some of the situations they raise do seem troublesome, but none of them
go directly to the issue of self-enhancement. That is where we should
place our focus.
We can make an extremely strong case in favor of an individual right to
self-enhancement. It is consistent with centuries of Western philosophy
directed towards self-improvement. If it is accomplished with drugs
and technology rather than will power and meditation, signs are that
our culture is very ready to accept it.
Here's a hopeful thought: suppose they come up with successful,
safe, weight loss drugs in the next 10-15 years that will finally let
overweight Americans take off the extra pounds and improve their health
and appearance. This would be the most popular drug in history. But it
will be a major nail in the coffin for the treatment/enhancement theory.
People will universally accept this drug as an alternative to the
teeth-gritting will power necessary for a successful diet. They will
owe their improved quality of life to the use of technology for
enhancement, and every time they admire themselves in the mirror this
point will be driven home.
Human vanity, if not wisdom, will make the case for us. In the end our
opponents have no chance of success.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:23 MST