From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Apr 02 2002 - 07:22:57 MST
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Randy Smith wrote:
> Fukuyama is a "political theorist" and apparently a wannabe
> bioethicist:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/science/social/02END.html
I was just minutes behind you Randy. Though I don't think
I'd use the word "disasterbation" to describe it... :-)
Now, before nearly everyone starts complaining ... try to think
rationally and productively on this topic (so we have answers).
e.g.:
> Major increases in human longevity could also be disruptive, he fears, because
> "life extension will wreak havoc with most existing age-graded hierarchies,"
> postponing social change in countries with aging dictators and thwarting
> innovation in others.
Isn't he denying the strength of his own political arguments here?
If the drive is towards liberal democracy, then presumably we should
not have "aging dictators". And most studies show that innovation
tends to be made mostly by people in their 20's or perhaps 30's.
A different type of creativity can be developed if one lives long
enough to develop significant experience in multiple fields
(take my experience in computer science and biotechnology for
example).
I don't see the preservation of "age-graded" hierarchies as being
a strong argument unless there is more to it. If he is talking
about the upset this causes to social security/pension systems,
presumably those get solved by nanotech (though I doubt
Fukuyama is aware of that).
Unless his argument is deeper than what is quoted I don't think
it can hold water.
Now, there is some meat for consideration:
> But the most serious threat to the stability of human societies is genetic
> engineering that may alter, by design or inadvertence, the special balance of
> contrarieties of human nature.
I think the current scientific debate on cloning shows "reasonable"
consideration for the risks it poses (my recent work suggests to me
that until you can do whole genome sequencing on developing embryos
there will be significant risks of producing "defective" copies and
as a consequence reproductive cloning of humans will remain very
questionable morally). Not enough is known about the genetics of
"human nature" to know whether genetic tinkering would corrupt it.
What is first needed is to identify those disruptions of human nature
that could indeed pose a threat to society. For example, we need
serious studies searching for alleles that lead to criminal, violent
or other sociopathic behaviors. Presumably it is reasonable
for society to prohibit individuals seeking to modify themselves or
their children in these directions. While increased aggression might
be useful for sports competition, it is a trait of questionable value
in a densly populated society. On the other hand one may wish to
allow modifications that increase ones intelligence even if it
increases your sensitivity to pain.
We need careful and reasonable thought here -- not ranting about
the individual liberties we naturally have or should be granted
by society.
I thought the NY Times bringing up the concept of "posthumans"
a good thing.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:12 MST