The ethics of modifying the human species.

[Yangja Isuko]

Just interested really what everyone thinks about things like transhumanism (transcending our PUNY WEAK HUMAN bodies through technology), and the seemingly global drive to ban research into cloning and many forms of genetic engineering.

this has probably been discussed to death, so if you just want to rant that's fine too.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

As I mentioned moments ago, an article that I wrote on Cloning shortly after Dolly was announced (and widely circulated), has recently been added to my Ethics Without God (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46876) series. It is Part XXIV.

My basic view is:

There are no intrinsic values -- the only values that exist are those between states of affairs and desires. So, of course, there can be nothing intrinsically wrong with transhumanism, or genetic engineering, or cloning.

The only question is: Can humans obtain more of what they desire?

In many cases, the answer seems to be 'yes.' We will be able to do more, live longer, think quicker and reach more accurate conclusions, and have access to all sorts of data. We will be able to visit climates that are presently hostile to human life. With so many more options available, it seems certain that more desire-fulfillment will result from allowing these things than desire-thwarting.

One significant objection that I have seen raised to this is its unfairness. The rich will get these advantages; the poor will get sick and die. I do not see this as an objection specifically to these technologies, but concerns the problems of poverty in general. It applies to even existing medical technology, so it should not be considered a special problem.

Other objections -- e.g., it is "playing God" have to rely on either religious or intrinsic-value assumptions, neither of which are true. So, the arguments are unsound and can be dismissed.

[James Hamlin]

Alonzo Fyfe
One significant objection that I have seen raised to this is its unfairness. The rich will get these advantages; the poor will get sick and die. I do not see this as an objection specifically to these technologies, but concerns the problems of poverty in general. It applies to even existing medical technology, so it should not be considered a special problem.

I see this as a strong objection to making the technologies available to the public. This issue expands the problems of poverty to ridiculously new heights. The technology doesn't merely lengthen life span. The technology could be used to increase physical and mental performance, which would change the difference between the very rich and the rest of the world from the size of their bank accounts to the formidability of their genes.

[Gothic_J]

Im all for it. lets modify us everyway. body parts as consumer goods. yes, Id like some wings with that. now Ill slip on my designer lungs and swim with the fishies.

and, as the technology becomes more understood, it will be cheaper. same way as computers or cell phones.

oh, and if you accuse me of playing god - I assume you didnt vaccinate your children?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by James Hamlin
I see this as a strong objection to making the technologies available to the public. This issue expands the problems of poverty to ridiculously new heights. The technology doesn't merely lengthen life span. The technology could be used to increase physical and mental performance, which would change the difference between the very rich and the rest of the world from the size of their bank accounts to the formidability of their genes.

Therefore, what?


"Therefore, you are prohibited from giving your children the medical care that would allow them to be as healthy as they could have been."


"Therefore, you are not permitted to be healthy yourself."


"Therefore, you must die."


In the name of addressing the problems of poverty, this particular argument seems to be demanding a great deal. I can understand a call to tax and redistribute wealth. I can understand government programs to educate and otherwise improve the opportunities of the poor.

I have some trouble demanding that the wealthy sacrifice their health, the health of their children, and their very lives for the sake of addressing a problem of poverty.

[abe smith]

Ever been immunized? smallpox, flu, polio, malaria, tetanus....
Ever had a hot appendix removed? Ever used any sort of contraceptive?.....Give your children vitamins, the WC/D/T series? Tell me all about not-meddling with modifying the human species.

[James Hamlin]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
I have some trouble demanding that the wealthy sacrifice their health, the health of their children, and their very lives for the sake of addressing a problem of poverty.

So do I. I have no problem with genetic engineering to prevent disease, but I thought we were discussing more theoretical alterations (not as extreme as wings and "designer lungs", but some performance-enhancing change that is neutral to health).

Have to go to class now...

[Nostalgic Pushhead]

I don't like it, but I don't have any logical arguments to say why. And, since I'll be dead before this happens, I really don't care.

(And of course, I don't care enough to write a huge mindless rant of some sort:)

I think the key to life is happiness. If being super-human makes you happy, fine. But I want no part in it, and if I'm expected to, I'll be really pissed. I really don't like the idea of messing with peoples minds and bodies.

With all these "improvings", what would the end result be? Quality of life will go up, sure... but how much farther? No matter how smart we make ourselves, we will still fight. There will still be war and death and bad stuff going down. We'll be able to count change faster in our head, but I don't see any other advantage. No societal ills will be solved. We'll just have smart people fighting smart people, and maybe subjugating the stupid people who can't afford genetic modification.

Bad stuff will still happen, because we are emotional creatures. If emotion is involved, people will eventually harm other people. If we are completely logical, maybe we'll get along. But what kind of existance is that?

I got no problem with ridding the world of disease. Everyone should live to be 85, and stay healthy until then. But should everyone be perfect? Do we need to have "designer babies"? The answer is of course no. It'll happen, I"m sure.

I guess I just don't have the competetive gene everyone else has. I don't want to be super smart genetically. I want to do my best with what I was given. I want to be admired for something I accomplished, not for some trait my parents picked out of the "design your kid" catalouge. Having wings would be fun, swimming with fish would be fun, being really really smart would be fun, and maybe usefull. But I'm fine being myself.

So, to summarize: I don't think genetic modification to make humans really super will help society, and it won't help me. Therefore the only thing it will help is certain other people who want it. They are free to want it, and free to try and get it. But I will in no way help or support them. Just as in I do not help or support PETA, or the NRA.

But in the end, since this will not happen, at least to the extent I'm discussing, within my lifetime I don't really care.

[fried beef sandwich]

"transcending our bodies through technology?"

Well, as many other posters point out, we already do that every single day in every single operating room in every single hospital. We are creatures that strive for survival and thrival. We've been hugely successful at that too.

Perhaps a better question would be, "what makes altering our natural bodies morally questionable, if at all?"

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by James Hamlin
So do I. I have no problem with genetic engineering to prevent disease, but I thought we were discussing more theoretical alterations (not as extreme as wings and "designer lungs", but some performance-enhancing change that is neutral to health).


Well, aging is a disease.

In fact, anything that keeps us from reaching our full potential can reasonably be classified as a disease. If we discover that a genetic manipulation can give us a better memory -- it is fully within our standard use of the term to call the condition that prevents the memory reacall we COULD have a 'disease', and removing this barrier a 'cure'.

As for "wings" and "designer lungs" -- why would there be a moral question with these that does not also apply to mechanical wings and SCUBA gear? It is not a difference in kind, but merely a more convenient version of something we already have.

[dk]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Well, aging is a disease.

In fact, anything that keeps us from reaching our full potential can reasonably be classified as a disease. If we discover that a genetic manipulation can give us a better memory -- it is fully within our standard use of the term to call the condition that prevents the memory reacall we COULD have a 'disease', and removing this barrier a 'cure'.

As for "wings" and "designer lungs" -- why would there be a moral question with these that does not also apply to mechanical wings and SCUBA gear? It is not a difference in kind, but merely a more convenient version of something we already have. Full potential? If people altered their progeny to become a new species, the new species wouldn't be human progeny at all, but something else.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by dk
Full potential? If people altered their progeny to become a new species, the new species wouldn't be human progeny at all, but something else.

So what? I always wanted to be a Vulcan. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

[dk]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
So what? I always wanted to be a Vulcan. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

I had assumed you were human, but live long and prosper.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by dk
I had assumed you were human, but live long and prosper.

Of course I'm human today. I just do not see that aspiring to be a non-human is necessarily a bad thing.

[Huzington]

Alonzo Fyfe said:
One significant objection that I have seen raised to this is its unfairness. The rich will get these advantages; the poor will get sick and die. I do not see this as an objection specifically to these technologies, but concerns the problems of poverty in general. It applies to even existing medical technology, so it should not be considered a special problem.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of Capitalism. Capitalism must be got rid of first. Transhumanism, genetic engineering, cloning, eugenics, etc -- sadly, they can only be most detestable things under Capitalism.

[dk]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Of course I'm human today. I just do not see that aspiring to be a non-human is necessarily a bad thing. I suspect you and your kin would object to becoming subhuman, so would naturally aspire to become superior to human. As a superior being would that make you a species of NAZI or a Comm, or maybe both. Why or why not.

[Yangja Isuko]

But in the end, since this will not happen, at least to the extent I'm discussing, within my lifetime I don't really care.


actually, you are almost certainly wrong about that, unless you are allready like 80 to begin with. most of these technologies are predicted to come to fruitition within the next 20-40 years. this is not the far-off future.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by dk
I suspect you and your kin would object to becoming subhuman, so would naturally aspire to become superior to human. As a superior being would that make you a species of NAZI or a Comm, or maybe both. Why or why not.

"NAZI" and "Comm" are not biological categories.

[dk]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
"NAZI" and "Comm" are not biological categories.

Seems to me the basis for NAZI and Communism rests upon a dialect articulated by a "superior people"(species/NAZI) or "people with superiior abiity"(to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities). A new and superior species would naturally have a lot offer the lesser beings from any number of perspectives.

I'm not sure why the superior member of the hominide family would favor humans, chimps, gorillas or orangutangs. Humans make little distinction. By many expert accounts early humans exterminated Neanderthals precisely because they shared the same kind of big brain. Why do you expect a new member in the family to act differently?

[Albert Cipriani]

Alonzo says:
Aging is a disease.

Tell that to a harried mother washing diapers. Aging is a blessing that allows for toilet training.

In fact, anything that keeps us from reaching our full potential can reasonably be classified as a disease.

“Full potential” is itself an unreasonable term to base your argument upon, a chimera. The term cannot be defined for, by definition, we cannot know it, only explore our genes in the vain hope of discovering what seems like more potential. For example, from wolves we’ve bred all the dog breeds. Did the wolf reach its “full potential” in any of these breeds individually or collectively? I, for one, would prefer to be a wolf, thankyou.

If we discover that a genetic manipulation can give us a better memory -- it is fully within our standard use of the term to call the condition that prevents the memory reacall we COULD have a 'disease', and removing this barrier a 'cure'.

This single-dimensional perspective assumes that memory is intrinsically desirable, that more of it must necessarily be better. Tell that to victims of war and rape. I imagine that were it not for our relatively poor memories (as compared to elephants for example) the human race would have committed mass suicide eons ago. On that happy note, I’ll say goodnight. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by dk
Seems to me the basis for NAZI and Communism rests upon a dialect articulated by a "superior people"(species/NAZI) or "people with superior abiity"(to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities). A new and superior species would naturally have a lot offer the lesser beings from any number of perspectives.

NAZI ideology and other forms of racism and sexism attempt to derive moral conclusions from morally irrelevant premises. One's moral worth does not depend on how much one can bench press or how many questions one can answer correctly on a test. Regardless of these qualities, we are all remain morally equal.

So, seeking to be stronger, smarter, wiser, quicker, or have other abilities in no way implies being morally superior. Indeed, there is no physical change that one can make that will give one a natural right to rule over others or create in others a duty to obey.

The only way that one can obtain moral superiority is through the concern that one gives to the interests of others.

[Which is exactly where some present-day manifestations of Christian ethics, such as putting statues in in courthouse, plaques on walls, and ritualizing pledges of allegiance to the Christian God in public schools, show thier immorality -- in the interest that the proponents of these items disply in denigrating others.]

[Alonzo Fyfe]

To my statement "aging is a disease", Albert Cipriani writes:

Tell that to a harried mother washing diapers. Aging is a blessing that allows for toilet training.

You know what I mean, and you know that this is an equivocation -- a pun -- on that meaning.


“Full potential” is itself an unreasonable term to base your argument upon, a chimera. The term cannot be defined for, by definition, we cannot know it, only explore our genes in the vain hope of discovering what seems like more potential.

Actually, I think "full potential" can be defined. It is a value-laden term. Like all value laden terms, it must relate a state of affairs to a set of desires. "Full potential" then is one's full ability to fulfill the relevant desires. If we are talking about genetic manipulation, then this is the criteria to work for. Will a genetic alteration create or enhance abilities in ways to make them more desire-fulfilling?


This single-dimensional perspective assumes that memory is intrinsically desirable, that more of it must necessarily be better. Tell that to victims of war and rape.

I was actually using memory as an example -- not as the sole object that individuals may be interested in improving. And the value of the memory is clearly instrumental -- it has value precisely because it is a useful tool in fulfilling other desires. (Well, actually, some people may desire certain memories for their own sake as well, but that was not my primary concern.)

And as for your mention of the victims of war and rape, you are committing the fallacy of division. All I require is that memory is generally useful on the whole. There may be specific instances that it may not be good, but that does not disprove the general claim.

In just the same way, if I were to say that the Stock Market has risen since March, pointing out one or two stocks that have gone down, or a mention of those days when the stock market closed below its opening price, are is entirely irrelevant evidence against the claim that the stock market has, on the whole, gone up.

[dk]

Originally posted by dk
Seems to me the basis for NAZI and Communism rests upon a dialect articulated by a "superior people"(species/NAZI) or "people with superior abiity"(to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities). A new and superior species would naturally have a lot offer the lesser beings from any number of perspectives.
Alonzo Fyfe: NAZI ideology and other forms of racism and sexism attempt to derive moral conclusions from morally irrelevant premises. One's moral worth does not depend on how much one can bench press or how many questions one can answer correctly on a test. Regardless of these qualities, we are all remain morally equal.
dk: Please recognize I’m not accusing anyone of being a NAZI but of being human. Whatever the NAZI did of their own free will was human, so in those acts we all share some propensity… morally, ethically, emotionally and intellectually, regardless of our own personal character, circumstances and aspirations.


Alonzo Fyfe: So, seeking to be stronger, smarter, wiser, quicker, or have other abilities in no way implies being morally superior. Indeed, there is no physical change that one can make that will give one a natural right to rule over others or create in others a duty to obey.
The only way that one can obtain moral superiority is through the concern that one gives to the interests of others.
dk: Ok, then why does anyone aspire to become stronger, wiser… and for that matter why aspire to be moral at all?


Alonzo Fyfe: [Which is exactly where some present-day manifestations of Christian ethics, such as putting statues in in courthouse, plaques on walls, and ritualizing pledges of allegiance to the Christian God in public schools, show thier immorality -- in the interest that the proponents of these items disply in denigrating others.]
dk: I could as easily ask…“Why does someone aspire to climb Mt. Everest” and the canned answer is “because it is there?” Likewise… “Why do Christians aspire to imbue Government with Christian symbols and values? and the canned answer is “because Government is there?” I don’t see any relevance to my original statement which was, “To genetically alter human creatures to create a new species only deprives them of their humanity”.


In my world morality enables people to participate in their destiny, and quintessentially serves no other purpose. People that aspire to become slaves are free of all moral constraints, and only subject to the consequences they reap at the discretion of others or accidental happenings. Immorality forfeits freewill by abandoning moral constraints, or to escape moral constraints. Freedom is a state of mind that makes it possible for a person to find happiness, or at least pursue happiness by their directed action (work) or pursue happiness as the object of their labors. Intravenous drug addicts want happiness, but they become distracted, consumed and compelled by a false allure of happiness that deprives them of freedom. In effect the allure of drug addiction follows from a desire to escape moral constraint. I can’t tell you what it means to be non-human, only that a new species derived from a genetically modified human, wouldn’t be any more human than a Neanderthral, assuming the Neanderthral was in fact another species and humans of their lineage.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by dk
Please recognize I’m not accusing anyone of being a NAZI but of being human. Whatever the NAZI did of their own free will was human, so in those acts we all share some propensity… morally, ethically, emotionally and intellectually, regardless of our own personal character, circumstances and aspirations.

Your argument seems to be that being a NAZI is an effect which is caused by being stronger, healthier, smarter than others. And whereas the effect is undesirable, we must work against it's cause.

Such a thesis would find support in empirical evidence of a link between intelligence, strength, and the like with a tendency to adopt NAZI-like philosophies. Is there any such evidence? Is it reasonable to believe that such a link could be found?

Even if there is such a link, it would be reasonable to ask yet another question. Is there no option to preventing smarter and stronger people from being attracted to NAZI-like beliefs other than to make it a criminal offense for a person to seek to become smarter and stronger?

If there is such a concern, then perhaps we should outlaw exercise equipment and adult education classes.


Originally posted by dk
Ok, then why does anyone aspire to become stronger, wiser. . .

In general, because it is useful. A stronger person can do more -- they can accomplish more of the things they want.

It's the same reason we buy hammers and chain saws, get jobs, and even get out of bed in the morning. There are things that we want, and these things help us to get them.


Originally posted by dk
. . . and for that matter why aspire to be moral at all?

The same reason. As I have been arguing on these boards, morality concerns with conditioning individuals to have good desires, where good desires are those desires that are useful for the fulfillment of other desires.


Originally posted by dk
I can’t tell you what it means to be non-human, only that a new species derived from a genetically modified human, wouldn’t be any more human than a Neanderthral.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. My reading is that "a non-human would not be human." But this is a tautology -- like "things that are not circular are not round." True, but what makes you think this is important?

If you say that a genetically modified human is not human. But, let us take one person, John Smith, and modify his DNA so that it is identical to the DNA of John Jones. Does it not follow that if an alteration in DNA is not sufficient to say that the person is non-Human. Rather, the change must be significant enough and of the right type in order to justify calling the new being a new species.

A third interpretation is that any alteration in genes creates a feature that is morally inferior to humans, regardless of its characteristics. A non-human being as intelligent as humans (or smarter), or as kind as humans (or kinder), if it is not human, it must be considered as having a morally less than human. But this would be the same type of NAZI-like ideology being condemned above.

Since none of these three interpretations make any sense, then there must be a fourth interpretation -- but I do not know what it could be.

[dk]

Originally posted by dk
Please recognize I’m not accusing anyone of being a NAZI but of being human. Whatever the NAZI did of their own free will was human, so in those acts we all share some propensity… morally, ethically, emotionally and intellectually, regardless of our own personal character, circumstances and aspirations.
Alonzo Fyfe: Your argument seems to be that being a NAZI is an effect which is caused by being stronger, healthier, smarter than others. And whereas the effect is undesirable, we must work against it's cause.
dk: No, I’m saying that was what NAZIS believed, they believed in Arian Superiority. We can decree we are not NAZIS, but the degree would only make us like NAZIS. We share the same human propensities.


Alonzo Fyfe: Such a thesis would find support in empirical evidence of a link between intelligence, strength, and the like with a tendency to adopt NAZI-like philosophies. Is there any such evidence? Is it reasonable to believe that such a link could be found?
Even if there is such a link, it would be reasonable to ask yet another question. Is there no option to preventing smarter and stronger people from being attracted to NAZI-like beliefs other than to make it a criminal offense for a person to seek to become smarter and stronger?
If there is such a concern, then perhaps we should outlaw exercise equipment and adult education classes.
dk: Sure, by learning, living and teaching moral values and truths. There’s no sense in outlawing NAZIS…any more than heaping praises upon the humble. Truly humble people don’t want praise and NAZIS view the Law as a weapon. Recognizing human flaws doesn’t detract from a person’s dignity, perfection, work or power, any more than avoiding evil deprives a person of experience.


dk: Ok, then why does anyone aspire to become stronger, wiser. . .
Alonzo Fyfe: In general, because it is useful. A stronger person can do more -- they can accomplish more of the things they want.
It's the same reason we buy hammers and chain saws, get jobs, and even get out of bed in the morning. There are things that we want, and these things help us to get them.
dk: Can we please cut to the chase and agree that people pursue happiness, and actions, work, pleasure, pain, desire, appetite, virtue, intelligence… are a means to happiness.


dk: I can’t tell you what it means to be non-human, only that a new species derived from a genetically modified human, wouldn’t be any more human than a Neanderthal.
Alonzo Fyfe: I do not understand what you are trying to say here. My reading is that "a non-human would not be human." But this is a tautology -- like "things that are not circular are not round." True, but what makes you think this is important?
dk: At some point a generically engineered human being would become a new species, there’s no other way to justify the expenditure. The same goes for livestock infused with human DNA, eventually genetic engineers will produce a new species of pig or rat infused with human DNA, for human purposes. Economics will drive the technology to a non-cloning cheap solution. The ethical concern here, is new microbes that might hop from the new species to humans. To engineer a human with a chimp or bird DNA raises additional ethical issues, but the economics remain the same, and drive the science to a new species. This raises a whole new set of moral and ethical questions.

Alonzo Fyfe: If you say that a genetically modified human is not human. But, let us take one person, John Smith, and modify his DNA so that it is identical to the DNA of John Jones. Does it not follow that if an alteration in DNA is not sufficient to say that the person is non-Human. Rather, the change must be significant enough and of the right type in order to justify calling the new being a new species.
dk: Ok, the economics make John Johns possible but implausible, now if John Jones had a mate, and could produce offspring, a new species, John and Jean Jones becomes revolutionary.

Alonzo Fyfe: A third interpretation is that any alteration in genes creates a feature that is morally inferior to humans, regardless of its characteristics. A non-human being as intelligent as humans (or smarter), or as kind as humans (or kinder), if it is not human, it must be considered as having a morally less than human. But this would be the same type of NAZI-like ideology being condemned above.
dk: Infusing human’s with chimp DNA raises the same red flags as rats infused with human DNA, new super microbes. The ethical concerns become infinitely more complex because we can ethically cage a rat, but not a human being.

(snip)

[Keith Russell]

Greetings:

I'm not ready to be downloaded to the Internet just yet, but if that becomes an option at some point before I die, I would certainly choose that, opposed to outright death.

It's a logical progression from crutches, to peg-legs, to tatoos, to hooks for those who've lost hands, to metal plates to patch skull fractures, to piercings, pain-relieving drugs, to eyeglasses, to hearing aids, to artificial joints, to psychotropic medications, to computerized pacemakers, to body augmentation--

--to artificial organs, digital memory augmentation, skeletal improvements, total body replacement, the modular body, and--

--ultimately--

--non localized digital personalities.

We're not becoming 'non-human', we're just taking our potential to its logical extreme.

K

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Alonzo,
You insist that “aging is a disease,” calling my objection my "equivocation."

Our bodies are a single continuum of change from conception until death by natural causes. So while they are getting bigger and stronger you call the changes growth and while they are shriveling up and getting weaker you call the changes a disease? Seems arbitrary to me.

Seems the hidden assumption is your view that life and life unending is necessarily preferable to death. If our value-laden assumptions allow us to arbitrarily segment a continuum of change and call one necessary segment bad (a disease) and the other necessary segment good (growth), we loose language.

For example, since all us lovers love the full moon, it’s waning phases illustrate a diseased moon, while its waxing phases represent it on the road to recovery. In short, I consider you guilty of anthropomorphizing the aging process.

You define the indefinable when you say:
'Full potential' then is one's full ability to fulfill the relevant desires.

First off, you are using the term “full” to define the term “full.” Next, you define the term in terms of “relevant desires.” This just begs the question of what is relevant.

For example, a “relevant” desire might be to feel ecstasy when I suck my thumb. Should I be genetically programmed to be able to do this? Those who think so spend their lives in the corner sucking their thumbs till the day they die and by your “definition” they’ve obtained their full potential.

All I require is that memory is generally useful on the whole.

I’ve given examples of how an increase in memory can have deleterious consequences to one’s well-being. But that doesn’t count cuz “memory is generally useful.” OK. Now be consistent.

Guns are generally useful too. So how many more innocent children need to be killed by guns before we re-think the desirability of our having free access to guns? Ditto for free access to the genetic engineering blunderbuss that will explode our naturally poor memories. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional

[Keith Russell]

Albert:

It's a logical (and natural) progression from crutches, to peg-legs, to tatoos, to hooks for those who've lost hands, to metal plates to patch skull fractures, to piercings, pain-relieving drugs, to eyeglasses, to hearing aids, to artificial joints, to psychotropic medications, to computerized pacemakers, to body augmentation--

--to artificial organs, digital memory augmentation, skeletal improvements, total body replacement, the modular body, and--

--ultimately--

--non localized digital personalities.

We're not becoming 'non-human', we're just taking our potential (and our natural proclivities) to its/their logical conclusion.

K

[Keith Russell]

Albert, your 'examples' of why memory is not always a good thing, rely on particularly bad things having happened, which one would not necessarily wish to remember.

Memory is not intrinsically bad, but I agree that there are 'bad memories'.

Yet, here you are, posting your views on the Internet, the largest repository of human knowledge--human memory--yet devised.

Now I ask you, is that a bad thing, and if so, what are you doing here?

K

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Seems the hidden assumption is your view that life and life unending is necessarily preferable to death.

There is no such assumption.

Such an assumption would be required if I was arguing for compelling people to undergo such changes, even against their will -- that doing so would realize something of intrinsic merit independent of the wishes of the person on whom it is imposed.

But that is not what the original post asked. It asked about banning or prohibiting the relevant research. And I am writing in that context against such a ban.

I am arguing against a prohibition. I am arguing that it would be wrong to prohibit those people who wish to obtain these benefits from obtaining them.

The fact that some people may not want to drive 70 mph from one town to another, or the fact that the occasional wreck might result, does not support the conclusion that roads and cars should be outlawed.

Similarly, those who do not want, or might not ultimately find advantage in, the types of changes that are presently under discussion are also not arguments against the development and use of this technology.

All I need to make my point is the entirely reasonable assumption that some people prefer life over death (and so on) -- and that there is nothing intrinsically bad (because such things do not exist), or that harm others, in their obtaining these things.



Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
If our value-laden assumptions allow us to arbitrarily segment a continuum of change and call one necessary segment bad (a disease) and the other necessary segment good (growth), we loose language.

First, the whole point of the discussion is that these are not NECESSARY changes. We can separate one from the other, allow one, and prohibit the other. If you are arguing that these genetic changes must necessarily be of the type that prohibit an infant from being potty trained, then I think you misunderstand the question, or you are in need of some evidence to back up these assertions.

Second, the distinction is not arbitrary. It is drawn along those lines from what thwarts our desires (disease) and what fulfills our desires (health). Aging (or, more specifically, those aspects of aging that I am clearly referring to given the context in which I am using the word), is desire-thwarting. It is something that people generally seek to avoid.

Acquiring more of those things that are useful, and avoiding those things that are detrimental, is good.

Generally speaking . . .

. . . for most of us most of the time . . .

. . . as a rule . . .

. . . usually . . .

. . . it is often the case . . .

. . . people tend to find . . .

. . . there are those form whom it is true . . .

. . . some find it to be the case . . .

that increased strength, memory, intelligence, flexibility, and life are useful tools in obtaining whatever it is that they desire. For such people under such circumstances, there is no wrong in them obtaining these things through mechanisms such as genetic manipulation.

We already acquire them mechanically. There is no qualitative difference between acquiring the ability to breathe underwater by strapping on a SCUBA outfit on the body, implanting a mechanical device in the body that serves the same effect, attaching a biological device, and making a genetic alteration that causes the device to develop on its own.

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Keith,
You say: It's a logical (and natural) progression from crutches, to peg-legs, etc.

Logic, like mathematics, like zero, is a human invention, an abstraction of nature and not nature itself. Just like my name is a placeholder for me and not me myself. Your confusion of what’s logical with what’s natural is a kind of syncretism.

You assert: We're not becoming 'non-human', we're just taking our potential (and our natural proclivities) to its/their logical conclusion.

Here you confuse extrapolation with logic. There’s nothing logical about and no “logical conclusion” in making us able to see bettER, run fastER, thinks smartER etc. These comparatives are just that. Genetic enhancement simply give us more of what we already have and do not touch upon our potential.

For example, we have the ability to see, not the potential to see. If our eyes were genetically enhanced with an inverted retina to see as sharply as an eagle’s eyes, our ability to see will have been comparitively enhanced. Our potential to see would remain the same and be momentarily reduced to zero with every blink.

You say genetic engineering take us beyond extrapolation of our present abilities to: total body replacement, the modular body, and – ultimately -- non localized digital personalities.

Catholicism predicted this 2000 years ago. It’s called the doctrine the resurrected glorified body and in lieu of that event, the disembodied state of our souls upon the death of our body but prior to the Last Judgment.

But as always, Satan, the most intelligent being in creation, attempts to imitate God’s works with intelligent counterfeits. It’s the highest form of flattery. Unfortunately, the cost of such diabolical flattery is infinitely expensive. I urge you to avoid incorporation into the someday “localized digital personality” that will beckon you away from God’s plan. Resistence is not futile. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Robert Anthony]

Technically speaking, there is nothing at all 'lawful' in nature. We use the word merely to denote what regularly actualizes itself according to sense-perception. Now the concept of 'natural law' is thoroughly botched, sophistically welding the claims of morality with the realm of scientific validity. There are no 'laws' operative in the universe; there are actions and reactions. (This is the Achilles' heel and downfall of the medievalist dogma of Catholicism.)--Explanations are childish and pointless; descriptions are relevant and real.

It is a loose-speaking bumbler who asserts that humans have a stomach 'for the purpose of' digestion, that this is the stomach's correct, invariant, and final 'function'. Voltaire had something to say about this form of theological ineptitude; the example of Dr. Pangloss is instructive.

Therefore, let true philosophical inquiry relinquish this kind of conceptual and communicational error.

Dear Albert,

Since Nietzsche has already successfully pinned down your type, I will offer nothing of my own and merely quote his words on another 'believer', Blaise Pascal:

"His faith resembles in a terrible fashion a protracted suicide of reason..."

More Nietzschean wisdom:

"The Christian faith is from the beginning sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, and at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation."

Anyhow, as Keith rightly pointed out in spite of your quibbling, the biotic system we have evolved into is delightfully and dynamically chaotic, ever-self-transcending--all is permitted.

[dk]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
(snip)

Logic, like mathematics, like zero, is a human invention, an abstraction of nature and not nature itself.

(snip)

Your confusion of what’s logical with what’s natural is a kind of syncretism.

(snip)

Genetic enhancement simply give us more of what we already have and do not touch upon our potential.

(snip)

But as always, Satan, the most intelligent being in creation, attempts to imitate God’s works with intelligent counterfeits.

(snip)
Very elequent. But how does logic connect to creation, and if man is a rational creature then doesn't that make logic part of the creation therefore natural. I assume the "Whatness" of the object I know differs from the Object itself.

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear DK,
You ask, How does logic connect to creation.

Logic, like all abstractions, connect to creation via consciousness, which is quite a mystery. Unconscious aspects of creation (rocks, raindrops) can and do REACT to creation (by falling for example). But only very select clumps of creation (what we call living things) have consciousness with which to RESPOND to creation. The act of responding to creation is necessarily negotiated by abstractions (e.g., logic, language, memories, sensory cognition).

To answer your question in less accurate but more familiar terms, logic connects to creation like how the soul connects to the body or how supernatural things suffuse natural things. That is, logic, like the soul, like spiritual verities, and like zero, is the image and likeness of physical creation. No one has ever seen a zero or zero anything (i.e., nothing.). Likewise no one can see a soul. Because these things are not physical, they are not see-able. Their connection to what is see-able is purely a function of our ability to abstract, that is, of our consciousness.

You seem to be saying that logic is natural because it is part of natural creation. But isn’t that the equivalent of arguing that my piano is an elephant because its keys are made of ivory which comes from an elephant? The word natural loses its meaning if we see it as subsisting in all things.

Any and all abstractions, including logical ones, are reality once removed. They are the second-hand fruits of consciousness. They are derivatives of reality, and therefore can be erroneous, that is, they may not be in conformance with reality. Reality cannot be wrong; but our abstractions of it are at best intellectually correct distortions of reality.

That is why we ought to preserve the conceptual distinction between nature and our notions. What is, is one thing. And everything we think, feel, remember or can prove about what is, is quite a different thing. Those two categorical realities are held distinct from one another by refusing to conflate such terms as the supernatural with the natural, or the subjective with the objective, or the real with the abstract. But in these end-times with virtual realities spawning like maggots on the putrefying remains of Christendom, such distinctions are being blurred over to our own intellectual demise. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Biff the unclean]

It seems to me that human beings are at a unique time in their history. There is a present only a single species of human on the planet. That's weird, all the other species of human went extinct.
But we were on our way to becoming numerous species again just like all the animals do. By breeding in groups closed off from one another by geography. Like the Darwin finches on their separate islands we were moving towards separate species. We are at the point where you can even tell a persons location of origin by just looking at them. But not far enough to become separate species yet. And thanks to our technology we've eliminated the separation that geography causes.
Physiological changes that are the result of technology are still evolution. It may be the first time in history that it's happened quite like this but it's still nothing more than the end result of having evolved such large brains. If it means a split into different species because some are more intellectually "fit" or financially "fit" there is little difference to being "fur covered fit" when an ice age comes.
Is it fair? No, evolution isn't fair. But hey we were splitting already before technology stopped it.

[Albert Cipriani]

Robert asserts:
There is nothing at all 'lawful' in nature… There are no 'laws' operative in the universe; there are actions and reactions.

Nope, I don’t make this stuff up. You guys supply it all on your lonesome. Amazing stuff. What a fella will do to try to refute the Natural Law. Throw out the babe with the bath water, that is, throw out all the laws of the universe just so he won’t have to deal with the one I am pointing to that points a way for him out of his sordid lack of moral criterion.

You don’t have to call them laws. You can call them rules. Or how about principles? You can call them causation but that gives you no cause to consider them non-existent. There’s the (law, principle, rule, cause) of gravity. There’s the (law principle, rule, cause) known as the, well, “law” of thermodynamics. There’s the universal constant of the speed of light, quantum mechanics, and the Plank scale. But, hell, Robert knows what he knows and who am I to set him straight?

Robert wrote:
Since Nietzsche has already successfully pinned down your type, I will offer nothing of my own and merely quote his words on another 'believer', Blaise Pascal: ‘His faith resembles in a terrible fashion a protracted suicide of reason...’

More Nietzschean wisdom: ‘The Christian faith is from the beginning sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, and at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.’

In other words, Robert cannot distinguish between inferential thought and rhetoric. ‘Tis a pity. I suggest he do less quoting and more Intelligence Quotient building exercises.

Nietzsche was a romantic, not a philosopher. That’s why his life ended up as it did, him having a mental breakdown over a horse that he felt shouldn’t be whipped. He could work up more sympathy for animals than for humans. That’s behind his inhuman notion of a superman that Hitler picked up on and resulted in people getting their skin made into lamp shades. Spare the horse, but not the sub-humans.

Robert concludes: The biotic system we have evolved into is delightfully and dynamically chaotic, ever-self-transcending--all is permitted.

He is positively enthralled with being lost! Look at all the directions it opens up! Why any direction could be the right direction! For joy, for joy.

As Robert traipses off, zigzagging through the tulips, I’ll adjust my compass for true north and continue on the same old boring path of my forefathers that just happens to be the only way out. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[dk]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
It seems to me that human beings are at a unique time in their history. There is a present only a single species of human on the planet. That's weird, all the other species of human went extinct.
But we were on our way to becoming numerous species again just like all the animals do. By breeding in groups closed off from one another by geography. Like the Darwin finches on their separate islands we were moving towards separate species. We are at the point where you can even tell a persons location of origin by just looking at them. But not far enough to become separate species yet. And thanks to our technology we've eliminated the separation that geography causes.
Physiological changes that are the result of technology are still evolution. It may be the first time in history that it's happened quite like this but it's still nothing more than the end result of having evolved such large brains. If it means a split into different species because some are more intellectually "fit" or financially "fit" there is little difference to being "fur covered fit" when an ice age comes.
Is it fair? No, evolution isn't fair. But hey we were splitting already before technology stopped it.

Woooh! back up horsey. It seems to me every point (age) in human history has been unique, and contingent upon the previous age. Humans have always been the only species of humans. Darwin’s finches vary by micro units, and there has yet to be a coherent theory to explain Macro Evolution, but its clear Darwin’s adaptive radiation lacks plausibility. . Darwinism gradualism was challenged by Gould’s punctuated equilibrium, and walla, successive speciation. But successive speciation amounts to constructing 77,600+ ton aircraft carrier inside a 1 liter bottle.

After a 100 years of Darwinian musing, surpisingly, it still follows that human beings must be human beings, and whatever else we might be or have been remains a mystery cloaked by a metaphysical reality. You’ve simply mistaken human intellect for evolution, and in doing so detached human beings from the rest of creation, and deposited them into The Land of Darwin. I suspect you now seek to escape from the Land of Darwin, and if you must maintain this fiction I recommend Tolkin's land of Mordor.

[dk]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Dear DK,
You ask, (snip)

Any and all abstractions, including logical ones, are reality once removed. They are the second-hand fruits of consciousness. They are derivatives of reality, and therefore can be erroneous, that is, they may not be in conformance with reality. Reality cannot be wrong; but our abstractions of it are at best intellectually correct distortions of reality.

That is why we ought to preserve the conceptual distinction between nature and our notions. What is, is one thing. And everything we think, feel, remember or can prove about what is, is quite a different thing. Those two categorical realities are held distinct from one another by refusing to conflate such terms as the supernatural with the natural, or the subjective with the objective, or the real with the abstract. But in these end-times with virtual realities spawning like maggots on the putrefying remains of Christendom, such distinctions are being blurred over to our own intellectual demise. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic I find this a little too Kantian for my tastes. While its plausible to detach oneself from reality mentally, doesn't that create more problems than it solves. It appears to me once detached from reality we replaced one obscurity for another, and come no closer to the truth. Why do you find it necessary to denigrate the concept of a unified body and soul?

[abe smith]

My standard ole stuff to Alfred Cipriani and to any one else who isn't onto the fact:
That there are (at least) TWO different sorts/definitions of the (manmade) term "LAW"; and trying to bully-down opposition to one's position, by confusing the two meanings, won't get you too-far at this site.
There is the sort of LAW which we label "physical laws", as The Law of Gravity; which are based on human observation, of certain regularities/repetitions at-least-not-yet found to be contradicted by human experience (but that's not too reliable, you know; Water does sometimes run up hill. What do you brush your teeth with?). This sort of law is known as DESCRIPTIVE law; because it *describes *what human beings (think that they) have observed & recorded.
Then there is another sort of law altogether; what we (human beings = the organism who presumes to fix labels to wordless stuff) agree to label PRESCRIPTIVE LAW; this sort is MANMADE; written-down, put in place , imposed by some people upon other people, in order to require them to OBEY. (For example, "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." and "Thou shalt not steal." Oh yess indeedy = MANMADE laws. If you deny that the Ten Commandments are MANMADE, let's fight.)
Our discussions here will proceed more smoothly and with less rancor/rancour? probably, if we keep a firm grasp upon the DIFFERENCE between these TWO VERY DIFFERENT meanings of the term "LAW"; and not confuse them.

[dk]

Originally posted by abe smith
My standard ole stuff to Alfred Cipriani and to any one else who isn't onto the fact:
That there are (at least) TWO different sorts/definitions of the (manmade) term "LAW"; and trying to bully-down opposition to one's position, by confusing the two meanings, won't get you too-far at this site.
There is the sort of LAW which we label "physical laws", as The Law of Gravity; which are based on human observation, of certain regularities/repetitions at-least-not-yet found to be contradicted by human experience (but that's not too reliable, you know; Water does sometimes run up hill. What do you brush your teeth with?). This sort of law is known as DESCRIPTIVE law; because it *describes *what human beings (think that they) have observed & recorded.
Then there is another sort of law altogether; what we (human beings = the organism who presumes to fix labels to wordless stuff) agree to label PRESCRIPTIVE LAW; this sort is MANMADE; written-down, put in place , imposed by some people upon other people, in order to require them to OBEY. (For example, "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." and "Thou shalt not steal." Oh yess indeedy = MANMADE laws. If you deny that the Ten Commandments are MANMADE, let's fight.)
Our discussions here will proceed more smoothly and with less rancor/rancour? probably, if we keep a firm grasp upon the DIFFERENCE between these TWO VERY DIFFERENT meanings of the term "LAW"; and not confuse them. hmmm, good point. I was watching a little league game last week, good game. The wind was blowing out of the south at gusts up to 30 miles/hr. These two 4 ft kids that looked 10 years old were amazing. It was uncanny how they could track down and catch fly balls without any knowledge of prescriptive, descriptive or manmade laws. What kind of knowledge did those kids have?

[abe smith]

...with chopsticks? If they were Little Leaguers playing a little league game or preparing to play it, they were certainly aware of the PRESCRIPTIVE laws/rules governing the playing of Little League ball. They may have had only a loose knowledge of the specifics of those rules; but they wd be aware of those's existence; and their *Coach* wd be in-charge of teaching the boys those rules. Youngsters, boys, primarily (oh that opinion is outa line and chauvinist) are really big-hot to make sure that their Group do know & do enforce The Rules of play, under all circs. (I will presume to hazard the additional opinion that young (Um, probably prepubertal) females either structure their play more loosely...... No I withdraw that also.)

And fer sher, by the time children of all the sexes reach puberty, they do know & STRONGLY ENFORCE the gender-group rules; and the age-group rules; altho their parents may think the youngsters are into anarchy. They are NOT into anarchy, at all!

Take a good long look at what children do, to those whom they categorize as Outsiders/Deviant.

[dk]

Originally posted by abe smith
(snip)
And fer sher, by the time children of all the sexes reach puberty, they do know & STRONGLY ENFORCE the gender-group rules; and the age-group rules; altho their parents may think the youngsters are into anarchy. They are NOT into anarchy, at all!

Take a good long look at what children do, to those whom they categorize as Outsiders/Deviant. [/B] Very few 10 year olds have any concept of projectiles, vectors, acceleraton or velocity. Yet they tracked pop fly balls down with uncanny precision. How kind of knowledge is that?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by abe smith
Then there is another sort of law altogether; what we (human beings = the organism who presumes to fix labels to wordless stuff) agree to label PRESCRIPTIVE LAW; this sort is MANMADE; written-down, put in place , imposed by some people upon other people, in order to require them to OBEY. (For example, "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." and "Thou shalt not steal." Oh yess indeedy = MANMADE laws. If you deny that the Ten Commandments are MANMADE, let's fight.)

Actually, prescriptivity is not a man-made concept at all.

I wish to direct your attention to the most recent post (September 6) in the Formal Debate: Is Morality Relative or Objective? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59835) which argues that prescriptivity is a property of desires, which are brain states, and are made by nature, not by humans.

[dk]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Actually, prescriptivity is not a man-made concept at all.

I wish to direct your attention to the most recent post (September 6) in the Formal Debate: Is Morality Relative or Objective? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59835) which argues that prescriptivity is a property of desires, which are brain states, and are made by nature, not by humans. What do you mean by impose, what does a Christian parent impose?

[Albert Cipriani]

DK says:
While its plausible to detach oneself from reality mentally, doesn't that create more problems than it solves. It appears to me once detached from reality we replaced one obscurity for another, and come no closer to the truth.

Admitting a distinction between sensory inputs and mental outputs, i.e., abstractions regarding our sensory inputs is not a to admit to being “detached from reality.” Rather, it is a commonsensical description of what abstract thought entails.

Why do you find it necessary to denigrate the concept of a unified body and soul?

I denigrate nothing. I find the meat-cleaving of body and soul inelegant. I prefer to conceptualize the body-soul as a continuum between the material and the abstract. By the soul we ought to mean the body’s abstractions.

For example, when my body’s brain wonders, imagines, questions, believes, assents, denies, hopes, or loves, it is performing an abstraction, acting supernaturally, or, if you will, acting soulfully. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Holy Heretic]

For example, when my body?s brain wonders, imagines, questions, believes, assents, denies, hopes, or loves, it is performing an abstraction, acting supernaturally, or, if you will, acting soulfully.

So, when one takes some Acid one is in fact sending the drug into a parallel supernatural dimension where it proceeds to magically induce spiritual hallucination. Awesome.

[Albert Cipriani]

Holy H says:
So, when one takes some Acid one is in fact sending the drug into a parallel supernatural dimension where it proceeds to magically induce spiritual hallucination. Awesome.

No. Taking Acid is predicated upon mental abstractions that you assent to which induce further abstractions (that are, like, far out) that you may not assent to nor deny.

Ergo, your assent to take Acid was immoral, for it was a willful surrendering of your brain’s inalienable right to assent. Sort of like how going bodysurfing in a straightjacket would be immoral, not to mention stupid.

Maybe that’s Holy H's problem: too much body-surfing in his straightjacket headfirst into pier pilings – Albert the Traditional Catholic

[abe smith]

if your position is that what we like to think are our own *choices*
are in fact imposed upon us by *Nature* (What the hell do you mean by *Nature*?), then why are you here arguing-away about these matters?
If you like to assert that you do not control *your* own choices, assertions etc, you are of course free (sic) to say that; but if I choose (sic) to believe that my thinking & choices are mine, then I reject your assertion that I am RUN by "Nature" or by whatever you like to call that.
I assert that prescriptive law(s) is MANMADE; my position about this is not subject to being eradicated by your contrary assertion.

[Holy Heretic]

No. Taking Acid is predicated upon mental abstractions that you assent to which induce further abstractions (that are, like, far out) that you may not assent to nor deny.

Ah. So it's not the Acid that does it but my abstracting about it? Maybe I'll just abstract about getting drunk tonight so I don't have to spend my precious savings.

Ergo, your assent to take Acid was immoral, for it was a willful surrendering of your brain?s inalienable right to assent.

My brain has inalienable rights? Wow, dude, like you should write a constitution. What about my arms and legs? We won't be biased now, will we?

-Holy Heretic- traditional and blessed infidel.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by abe smith
if your position is that what we like to think are our own *choices*
are in fact imposed upon us by *Nature* (What the hell do you mean by *Nature*?), then why are you here arguing-away about these matters?
If you like to assert that you do not control *your* own choices, assertions etc, you are of course free (sic) to say that; but if I choose (sic) to believe that my thinking & choices are mine, then I reject your assertion that I am RUN by "Nature" or by whatever you like to call that.
I assert that prescriptive law(s) is MANMADE; my position about this is not subject to being eradicated by your contrary assertion.

My position is that prescriptivity is written into the nature of desire.

If I have an aversion to pain (which I do) then this aversion prescribes for me, among all possible worlds, those in which I am not in pain. If I have a desire to have sex, then this desire prescribes for me those possible worlds in which I am having sex.

The same holds true with respect to my desire to see my children graduate from college.

I agree with you that there are no 'moral laws' in the sense of there being requirements that are independent of desire. The idea that, no matter what people may want, there is some sort of natural intrinsic prohibitoin against genetically improving the body, is an idea to be rejected.

But, to deny the existence of natural prescriptivity takes this objection too far. Denying the existence of desire-independent prescriptivity still leaves room for desire-dependent prescriptivity.

Prescriptivity is a part of the nature of desires.

[dk]

DK says:
Admitting a distinction between sensory inputs and mental outputs, i.e., abstractions regarding our sensory inputs is not a to admit to being “detached from reality.” Rather, it is a commonsensical description of what abstract thought entails.
Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
I denigrate nothing. I find the meat-cleaving of body and soul inelegant. I prefer to conceptualize the body-soul as a continuum between the material and the abstract. By the soul we ought to mean the body’s abstractions.

For example, when my body’s brain wonders, imagines, questions, believes, assents, denies, hopes, or loves, it is performing an abstraction, acting supernaturally, or, if you will, acting soulfully. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic [/B]

You rang my bell with commonsensical. Thank you for your soulful comments.