More Cornerite Eugenics Apologetics
The eugenics string got kicked off the regular Corner dialogue, but I bring it to you here, if you are interested. Stuttaford calls Leon Kass a "crank" because he (Kass)claims that one of the things in life that focuses us, is the knowledge of our mortality. He also claims we should consider accepting the aging process gracefully. This isn't to say we should not treat illnesses. It isn't to say we should not pursue wellness. But it is to say that there is more to life than youthful vitality. But when describing Kass' wisdom, it is always better to allow the master to speak for himself:
"Let me suggest, then, that a flourishing human life is not a life lived with an ageless body or untroubled soul, but rather a life lived in rhythmned time, mindful of time's limits, appreciative of each season and filled first of all with those intimate human relations that are ours only because we are born, age, replace ourselves, decline, and die--and know it. It is a life of aspiration, made possible by and borne of experienced lack, of the disproportion between the transcendent longings of the soul and the limited capacities of our bodies and minds. It is a life that stretches towards some fulfillment to which our natural human soul has been oriented, and, unless we extirpate the source, will always be oriented. It is a life not of better genes and enhancing chemicals but of love and friendship, song and dance, speech and deed, working and learning, revering and worshipping. The pursuit of an ageless body is finally a distraction and a deformation. The pursuit of an untroubled and self-satisfied soul is deadly to desire. Finitude recognized spurs aspiration. Fine aspiration acted upon is itself the core of happiness. Not the agelessness of the body nor the contentment of the soul nor even the list of external achievement and accomplishments of life, but the engaged and energetic being-at-work of what nature uniquely gave to us is what we need to treasure and defend against the devilish promise of technological perfection."
A crank? One need not agree with Kass. But frankly, to call him a crank in my view is to demonstrate an extremely stunted moral understanding.
P.S. In a subsequent reply, Ramesh Ponnuru nailed it: He writes:
"Andrew, where exactly in that passage from Kass did he describe all possible life-extending interventions as wrong, or say that they should all be illegal? Besides, most of what he's talking about wouldn't be eugenic interventions anyway. So, yup, it's a strawman.
"Derbyshire's comments are almost purely rhetorical. 'We are the masters of government, not its slaves.' Nice to hear. Never denied it.
"To return to the actual topics in dispute: 1) The fact remains that Derbyshire leans heavily on the inevitability of eugenics when dismissing arguments against some types of it, while dismissing arguments for the inevitability of governmental eugenics for no particular reason. 2) Derbyshire made the familiar (though absurd) suggestion that anyone who is concerned that some types of eugenics can instrumentalize human life should be opposed to free choice in mate selection; I rebutted the idea; once again, he says nothing in response."
Well, that's John Derbyshire.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:43 PM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
"If Kass was merely a solitary crank, comments such as these could, as they should, be simply ignored, but he’s not. He’s influential, he has the ear of the White House, and he is taking aim at your medical future."
How absurd! I predict that the medical future for most of us will never arise to the level of medical interventions a la "the fountain of youth". Most of us, even those with good insurance, will be fighting for continuity of care, diagnostic testing and for the continuation of life-sustaining treatments for long enough to stabilize.
I suspect the problem with Kass is that he speaks a language that's alien to many today. He's part of the last generation of thinkers formed by a classical education and inclined toward lofty and poetic -- and truly humanistic -- philosophizing. That perspective is almost incomprehensible to today's more utilitarian mindset, particularly those in the techno-libertarian camp.
Kass is a great example of masking trite thought with flowery language. It's a mystery to me how anybody can take him seriously after his bold stand against ice-cream cones.
Take this sentence: "It is a life not of better genes and enhancing chemicals but of love and friendship, song and dance, speech and deed, working and learning, revering and worshipping." What reason is there to suppose that better genes and enhancing chemicals are inherently opposed to all those good humanistic things he lists?
As an exercise, try substituting "vaccines" or "antibiotics" or "anaesthesia" for "better genes" in the above. The argument is equally valid. Those medical technologies have also sadly distracted us from appreciating "what nature uniquely gave to us".
Would that Kass were merely a crank. Unfortunately he has the poltical connections to get the force of law behind his stupid prejudices.
Wow, Ramesh does nail it. Good for him, and he's so clear, usually I don't understand what the heck he's talking about.
Bernhardt Varenius:
Wasn't that like totally, you know, all that? I mean, he was like, and all, and I was just like, Oh man!
I pause to give you a moment to shudder.
Seriously, the problem is that there is such an emphasis on modern materialism in the given lifestyle of today's citizens that there is no time for reflection, meditation, or tranquility. It's no surprise to me to see the transhuamnism movement has taken the place of transendentalism. Fulfilling the need to go beyond the simple physical life of the human body, without needing to leave your X-box behind. Thoreau wouldn't survive in modern society.
mtraven:
When you compare tangibles (better genes, antibiotics, vaccines, etc) to the intangibles (love, frienship, freedom, personal experience), the first, while they may assist the last, cannot replace the last.
Suppose science unlocks the key to immortality. What does that accomplish? The overall thinking is that you can live forever, without fear, and do anything and everything. But what does that change?
Nothing.
Here's trite for you - it's not the years in your life, it's the life in your years. What good is immortality? Yes, you have more time to play video games and make out with your husband and all that, but you're still not going to have eternal life until you come to grips with what eternal life really is.
Kass was so much more eloquent than I, but I agree with him. It's living in the present moment, the ever/never-changing existence that we inhabit right here, right now. It's the Buddhist notion of non-attachment - do not brood about the past or worry about the future, but live in the space and time which you exist.
People who feel immortal don't mature. You don't start thinking of things outside of yourself until you realize that yourself is a temporary state of being. That's why young people are brash and dangerous - they don't think things through. They don't care to. They feel immortal and nothing outside of themselves matters.
This life would not be precious if it were not temporary. We would never learn how to live in the moment.
One last thought - "If one has lived well, even death need not be feared." Buddah.
But it's a false dichotomy to assume that somehow better genes are opposed to things like love or personal experience. Why can't we have both? Immortality is also a red herring -- nobody is offering it, and while a small minority of transhumanists might desire it that's not what we're talking about here. The actual here-and-now issues of biomedicinge genetics, and enhancement are much more mundane.
To repeat myself, all of Kass's arguments against enhancement apply equally well to the benefits of modern medicine that we are used to. So are you ready to give up antibiotics and anesthesia so you can better live in the moment? I didn't think so.
mtraven: My point was that when the new eugenicists discuss the attributes they would like to enhance, it is almost always intelligence, and rarely, if ever, love.
I say leave well enough alone. If we evolved, that is an awesomely effective trial and error method of improveing species. If we were created, we shouldn't mess with the Creator's handiwork in such a profound way that would flow down the generations. In either case, we lack the wisdom to do such profound tinkering.
mtraven, you're making a false dichotomy too, implying that unless we give new people better genes, we have to give up vaccines and anesthesia.
The harm to good living that would come from using genetic engineering to conceive new people is different from anti-biotics and anastesia that treat existing people. It isn't really a valid comparison at all. The stuff you describe is medicine that we use to keep us healthy and keep away pain, just like a hug or a kiss is. But unlike hugs and kisses, medicine that comes from other-worldly experts does disconnect us from the rhythm of life and our sense of mortality, though most of us accept that trade off. Even if we might accept the trade-off with GE (on behalf of the people to be created with it, that is), we shouldn't, we don't need to, and we certainly don't have to.
None of your business, Wes, or Kass' -- and he is a crank. Why are those afflicted with the busybody gene so determined to tell me how I must live and die? If I can afford a long and relatively pain-free, vigorous life, how is it POSSIBLY anyones business to deny it to me? It's the same claptrap behind all prohibitionism. The "tradionalists" are afraid -- and with good reason -- that if the alternative is available, no one will embrace their approach. Then they'll be left wringing their hands and portentously bemoaning "the post-human future." And maybe when there are so few true believers left, they'll be forced to face the possibility that their whole philosophy is a crock. Could their opposition be grounded in fear of irrelevance? You know, it's one thing to urge rejection of life-enhancing biotechnology based on a philosophical argument (even if the argument is fatuous). We can always close the newspaper (or web page) or change channels if we don't want to hear it. But to presume to influence the law to deny ones fellow citizens the liberty to choose long healthy life is unspeakably arrogant.
Ah, Joe. If I have a busybody gene, that means I can't help myself, now can I?
And what are the legal prohibitions you are railing against? True, a few countries ban on all human cloning, e.g., Canada, France, Norway, Germany, and several other countries, as well as about 7 U.S. states. And in the USA you aren't allowed buy some destitute person's kidney of liver. And you can't yet harvest those with cognitive disabilities for their body parts.
And who is rejecting "life enhancing biotechnology?" You see tremendous support here for adult stem cell research, gene therapy, and other forms of ethical biotechnology which offers tremendous potential. Also for aggressive pain control and other measures, whether medical, social, psychological, spiritual, or other, to help suffering people.
What is unspeakably arrogant is presuming the right to design progeny and "seize control" of human evolution. Now, there's the crock.
Thanks for coming by, Joe. And have a glass of red wine on me. A lot of good antioxidants there.
Joe:
Who would you sacrifice for your long, healthy life?
I'm for damn near anything that prolongs life and eases pain, as long as NOBODY else is hurt in the process.
A human being is a creature that possesses one of several variations on the 42-chromosom pattern, and it has human DNA. A profoundly disabled human being still has human DNA, as does a zygote. To me, they are both people and do not deserve destruction in the vain attempt to achieve immortality.
And there are plenty of people who do seek immortality.
There are plenty of people who want to download themselves onto a diskette and live out the billions of years in their own private holodecks, but that's neither here nor there at this point.
Why should I be concerned about whether or not a zogote or a profoundly disabled human is a person?
The moment we allow ANYONE to be excluded from the club of humanity, we open the doors to total exclusivism. You're the wrong color, you can't be here. You're the wrong religion, you can't be here. That's why I hate Dawkins and Dennett as much as I hate Faldwell. They're not just saying, "I have my beliefs and let me share them with you, because I want us all to be happy and healthy togehter." No, they're saying, "Let's erradicate this group becuase it's not worthy of existence."
You can't exclude anyone without risk. It's better to be inclusive, protect all people, and work toward all people having rich, full, and healthy lives.
Now, how is it POSSIBLY your right to risk the life of even one person? Most everything transhuanism talks about involves serious, serious risk to the life of someone.
Wesley: I didn't know "love" was an attribute that could be enhanced genetically. If it was, I'm sure people would be clamoring for love-enhanced children. The focus on intelligence is simply an early-adopter phenomenon, I would guess -- the people who are most avid for new technologies probably put more value on intelligence than love, but that won't be the case if and when such technologies become widely available.
TE: When has Dennett or Dawkins advocated the eradication of any group? They may advocate eradication of some beliefs but that's hardly the same thing.
Nobody really believes that zygotes are full-fledged human beings. If so, we'd have to have emergency rescue teams for the millions of fertilized zygotes that fail to implant and get flushed down the toilet -- about 50% of them.
So I suspect that people who take this position have hidden agendas.
1. Genetic engineering of humans will surely become as routine as vaccination if the benefits thereof are adapative. The non-engineered branch of humanity will go the way of the Neanderthal.
2. To assign moral standing to a pre-sentient zygote flips human exceptionalism on its head. Until there's someone "there," it's just flesh.
Joe. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. You will turn blue.
As long as people like Joe believe that genetic engineering of people is a possibility, there will be lots of strife and missed opportunities for making the world a better place and caring for people. We can't just tell Joe that it probably won't happen, as your "don't hold your breath" comment suggests, we need to take control of the situation and write strong laws that make sure it will never happen. Then we all, Joe included, will have to care about each other (Joe included) if we want to live long healthy lives, instead of sitting back thinking that technology will do it for us.
There is way too much money and resources being spent developing genetic engineering, we need to tell all those scientists that they should work on something else.
And we need to assert that the people CAN control what other people do, we aren't helpless to just watch those with power do whatever they want. I think lots of people like Joe will say it is a matter of principle that "the people" should not be allowed to control the powerful, but that is a terribly disheartening and frightening principle, and it's wrong. We need to show that we can enact laws that limit other people's actions, just as a matter of principle, so that we aren't rendered powerless serfs, free to choose our product brands, but with no control of our world's future.
Joe:
"1. Genetic engineering of humans will surely become as routine as vaccination if the benefits thereof are adapative. The non-engineered branch of humanity will go the way of the Neanderthal.
2. To assign moral standing to a pre-sentient zygote flips human exceptionalism on its head. Until there's someone "there," it's just flesh."
1. For that to happen someone must take the fall, because only those who can financially afford genetic engineering will be able to get it for their kids, meaning that those who aren't altered will be seen as sub-human, and if they go the way of the Neanderthal, it won't be until after they've been made into second-class citizens at best, or outright slaves at worst. If you think it can't happen, I can link you to a number of pictures from Nazi concentration camps, from Serbia, and from the Middle East that attest to the fact that people right here right now are trying to do that to those they feel are "inferior."
2. A baby in the womb can recognize its father's voice, react to music, and be influenced by food its mother eats. At what point does a baby's ability to respond to outside stimuli start? There's no guarantee that it begins only when a brain is formed because. If a plant can respond to being pruned and has no more "brain" than an embryo, then the burden of proof rests with the materialist; prove that there really isn't anybody home and I'll agree. But what I see is a functional living creature, which consumes, eliminates, and grows, and has active DNA. I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk actually killing a small person.
Thanks, John Howard, for your remarks. I can't decide whether they're more reminsicent of Stalin or Orwell. It truly disturbs me to think that folks hold the point of view you express. My life belongs to me -- period. For you to impose the sort of laws you suggest is morally equivalent to making me your chattel slave. Man has crawled up from divine right of kings (and the concomitant ownership of the citizenry by its rulers), kicked and screamed his way to democracy in the more enlightened quarters, and is struggling toward a society where individuals truly rule themselves. I have hope that before I shuffle off, we will embrace Mill's notion that the law should only intrude where the actions of a citizen infringe another citizen's liberty. And, TE Fine, we need to agree on what sentient is. It's a lot more than the ability to respond to stimuli. I'd like to advance the development of the ego as the threshold, but some psychology suggests that happens post-birth so we'll need a better standard. (Please don't throw out conception.) What I do know is that prior to development of neural tissue, the question is not even close.
Joe, you have to realize that the prevailing view around here is that any clump of cells with 46 chromosomes is to be considered a full-fledged human being. Yet if you argue for a definition based on sentience, you are called a "materialist". I don't quite get it, but there it is.
Joe, there are things called laws. They restrict what we are allowed to do. What is Orwellian is to suggest that laws, in principle, should not be enacted, because "your life belongs to you" and you should be able to do what you want. Now that's like Stalin. He used his power to do whatever he wanted to people, just as you want to do.
We can enact a law to prohibit conceiving people from GE'd genes, even if Joe doesn't like it. This is a democracy, and more importantly, we have a government, not anarchy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home