From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 00:16:40 MST
hal@finney.org wrote:
>> 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.
It is a pretty dumb play on the word "natural" that hasn't a
thing to do with natural rights per se. The "natural" in
natural rights is there to anchor rights in the nature of the
beings involved. Whether that nature came to be through
evolution or through technological means is utterly beside the
point. Any respect I had for Fukuyama falls quite a bit when I
see such a spurious argument being used.
>> 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,
Obviously a silly argument given the above. If the nature of
augmented humans, posthumans, AIs and so on requires certain
conditions in order for said beings to flourish then natural
rights are alive and well.
>> 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.
>>
They can try if they want a war on their hands.
>
> 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 don't believe that "the larger world" is competent to "grapple
seriously" with the changes ahead. How can I believe it when
the majority of that world is utterly uneducated on much that is
relevant to such considerations? The larger world is ruled by
powers that have ample reason to fear massive change and to
oppose any change that may upset their power base. They also
have opposed, quite successfully, much of the population
possessing the ability and willingness to think. It is one
thing to question on the basis of whether humanity can survive
much less thrive under what is to come. It is another entirely
to string together bogus arguments and call for force to be used
to prohibit any/all that disagree and act on their
disagreements. I see nothing in how cloning and bioegineered
crops are being handled by the public to make me anything but
fearful of the public becoming more involved, especially in a
legislative capacity.
> 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.
>
Consensus is not the friend of innovation. It is incompatible by
definition.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:59 MST