From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:37:44 MDT
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, John Grigg wrote:
> Taken from the Transtopia website: There is nothing wrong with the idea
> of eugenics if it means making people stronger, healthier, smarter,
> better looking, and longer-lived by both selective breeding and the
> humane termination of seriously unfit (misshapen, retarded, or otherwise
> not viable) specimens,
"Selective breeding" sounds questionable because it sounds like something
imposed on individuals rather than a free choice that they might make.
"Humane termination" is also questionable because it presumes that
those being terminated are in some way "human". They may be potentially
pre-sentient beings but once uplifting becomes feasible so are dogs,
cats and a host of other species.
I think an extropic perspective would support the retention of
seriously unfit individuals in the hope that their illnesses
might be repaired with advancing technologies -- these should
presumably always be decisions of the individuals involved.
[This begs a significant moral debate of whether to utilize
medical resources to preserve a few at the expense of the many.]
I think a better extropic vector is to determine how we can get
to a non-resource constrained environment as soon as possible.
> preferably by means of abortion after thorough genetic screening.
Better would be genetic screening before implantation (so no "abortion"
is required). We are not far away (< 5 years?) from when complete genetic
profiling of parents should be available. It seems very likely that most
carriers of severe genetic defects will move towards IVF and prescreening.
It moves much of the debate to the level of "so you think these 16
cells in this lab dish are 'human'" -- where hopefully some
level of rationality will begin to set in.
> Indeed, had selective human breeding been practiced
> systematically in the past (as has been done with many domesticated
> animal & plant species), humanity would have been spared a lot of
> misery, and would now probably be significantly more advanced.
Questionable. This might have to be enforced using coercive measures
which seem *highly* undesirable. Humans are sentient beings with free
will who should be free to mate with whomever they please.
> Eugenics is in effect a logical and moral imperative for any truly "civilized"
> society, just like, for example, the abolition of work and the quest for
> physical immortality. (end)
Imperative? Not! While it is reasonable for parents to seek children
with improved traits (after all they have to invest in the support and
survival of the children) it is not reasonable for them to in any
way create an environment of disrespect or lack of support for beings
who may in some way be considered "disabled".
A human is a human is a human -- the *moral* thing to do is to treat
them all as equals. We are going to have to stretch this concept
significantly as we extend "sentience" to higher and lower levels
that we are capable of recognizing.
Also, to me, it seems perfectly feasible to produce a "civilized"
society which lacks physical immortality and encourages work.
Clarke's "Against the Fall of Night" does a pretty good job
exploring societies consisting of "immortals" and "mortals".
The correct choice isn't completely obvious.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:08 MST