From: hal@finney.org
Date: Thu Mar 14 2002 - 15:18:06 MST
> Fukuyama argues that "the most significant threat" from
> biotechnology is "the possibility that it will alter
> human nature and thereby move us into a `posthuman'
> stage of history." The most obvious way that might
> happen is through the achievement of genetically
> engineered "designer babies," but he presents other,
> imminent routes as well: research on the genetic basis
> of behavior; neuropharmacology, which has already begun
> to reshape human behavior through drugs like Prozac and
> Ritalin; and the prolongation of life, to the extent
> that society might come "to resemble a giant nursing
> home."
We could add to this the possibility of (non-super) AI which could force
us to expand our definitions of what entities deserve and require that
their rights be respected.
> Fukuyama then draws on Aristotle and the concept
> of "natural right" to argue against unfettered
> development of biotechnology.
I wonder how our local "natural rights" theorists see this. It's always
seemed like a serious problem with the natural rights approach, that
as we change what is natural we lose all guideposts as to what rights
should exist.
> His claim is that a
> substantive human nature exists, that basic ethical
> principles and political rights such as equality are
> based on judgments about that nature, and therefore
> that human dignity itself could be lost if human nature
> is altered. Finally, he argues that state power,
> possibly in the form of new regulatory institutions,
> should be used to regulate biotechnology, and that
> pessimism about the ability of the global community to
> do this is unwarranted.
Of course I hope that we do not see these kinds of restrictions, but
contrary to many here, I welcome consideration of these issues by writers
as influential as Fukuyama. It is time for the larger world to begin
to grapple seriously with the changes ahead. They can no longer hide
behind the comforting belief that it's all just science fiction.
I hope that the debate between Greg Stock and Francis Fukuyama is
conducted in an open-minded and flexible style, rather than as a
confrontational, take-no-prisoners memetic slash-and-burn mission.
This is just the first step in a public dialogue which will be going
on for decades. We need to seek common ground and encourage consensus
rather than confrontation.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:58 MST