There are two kinds of ethicists. The first kind makes you think about what it is you want, and why. The second kind tells you what you should want. The first kind of ethicist is very valuable. The second can be damaging.
An example of the second, damaging kind of ethics can be found in a recent publication by Dr. Donald Bruce, head of the Church of Scotland's Society, Religion and Technology Project. Writing in the latest (and first) issue of the Institute of Nanaotechnology's NanoNow (available free as PDF), Dr. Bruce explains why we should not want nanotechnology to make us healthier.
Of course, he doesn't phrase it that way. He starts by skimming past a standard set of questions: Will the technology make life better? Will it encounter enough ethical problems or skepticism to require an extra layer of approval? Then he sets the stage for the real discussion: "One of the most profound questions is about whether humans should begin to enhance themselves." He quickly follows that up with a concern about humanity being "redefined by a techno-logic, driven primarily by technical and economic feasibility."
Dr. Bruce's proposed response: "This suggests we may need to draw lines to limit some technological possibilities but promote others." As I said, this is not the kind of ethics that asks probing questions, but the kind that tells you what to think. Let's see what else we are supposed to think:
Beyond a certain basic point of physical survival and necessity, what matters most to humans are not functional and material things but the relational, the creative and the spiritual.
Well, I can survive for months with a toothache, but both I and those I'm in relationships with would prefer that I didn't suffer severe pain -- it makes me distracted, self-centered, and crabby. Now, if I were happy and sunny 100% of the time, my friends might get bored with me; it could be argued that modifying myself so that I'm never upset would be too much of a good thing. But do I need to have a diagnosis of depression before I'm allowed to modify myself?
That last question uncovers a major flaw in Dr. Bruce's argument. All through the article, he contrasts enhancement with healing as though the two were separable. In fact, they are not. Not, that is, without forming an arbitrary and artificial line between 'healthy' and 'sick' and declaring that people who are healthy should receive no further assistance. As Dr. Bruce says, "On a global scale, enhancements for a privileged few may seem a misuse of resources when faced with potentially treatable diseases..."
In other words, Dr. Bruce does not want healthy people to benefit from medical treatment. He worries that "seeing humans as functions to be improved" is only a short step away from eugenics, which "accepted others in society only if they were seen as functionally 'fit'." Unfortunately, his solution is the negative mirror image of what he fears: it creates the same division between 'fit' and 'unfit' -- but for the purpose of denying treatment to anyone who is insufficiently sick. (And he accuses transhumanists of having "an impoverished view of humanity"!) Since he would have this regime imposed, limiting the applications of technology, this division would be created in fact, rather than existing as a nebulous possibility to be tempered by the complex interplay of broader society.
It is said that one should not criticize without offering a better alternative. My alternative does not consist of proclamations -- I have already said that ethics at its best offers questions rather than statements. So what is a good source of questions?
Modern science is showing us, in example after example, that moderation is more functional than extremes. Moderation does not imply stasis -- complexity and dynamism are necessary to keep systems from stagnating. So I would ask: How can medical technologies, including nanotechnologies, help us to reach our best potential as humans in human society?
Of course this question has no simple answer. Three things seem clear: First, that identifiable medical problems should be solved where possible. Here, Dr. Bruce and I would agree. Second, that where things are "good enough," change should be undertaken slowly and cautiously. Incautious or excessive amplification of human traits may lead to situations not dissimilar from drunkenness, mania, or even autism. Third -- and here I part company with a number of proclamatory ethicists -- that there is room for improvement in today's human societies, and that whether you call it treatment or enhancement, medical technologies have the potential to make things better if used wisely by non-sick people.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
A couple of points that didn't make it into the article, because they're my personal opinion and not ethical points:
At one point, Dr. Bruce asserted, "It is highly unlikely that technological tweaking will address what spoils and troubles people and societies..." This completely ignores neurotechnology. Neurotechnology is problematic, of course, but it seems unarguable that it has at least the potential to address what spoils people and societies.
Seems to me that Dr. Bruce's approach, and the problem with it, is beautifully described by Marianne Williamson:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix | February 28, 2007 at 05:24 PM
"One of the most profound questions is about whether humans should begin to enhance themselves."
Begin? We've been enhancing ourselves for hundreds of years already. Bruce is asking whether we should continue, if anything.
Well put, Chris.
Posted by: Nato Welch | February 28, 2007 at 08:03 PM
I wrote a short article about the false dichotomies in Dr. Bruce's article and possible relationship to Christianity and Buddhism.
Posted by: M C | March 01, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Miron, thanks. I thought of pointing out the unfairness fallacy (everything is expensive at first, so Dr. Bruce's distaste for inequality would prevent us from developing anything at all), but decided to keep the article shorter.
I think another thing that might make Christians uncomfortable with enhancement is the idea that they should depend on God for betterment. You mentioned a yoga practitioner getting physically enhanced to improve their practice. But I think a lot of Christians would be uncomfortable with neurotech that let them focus better on prayer, or made them not want to sin as much. It would feel artificial and unGodly.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix, CRN | March 01, 2007 at 03:42 PM
The unfairness issue is a real fallacy. 20 years ago, only rich people had cell phones (in their cars) and they were considered quite the status symbol. Today, most of the "tweekers" you see on the streets have got cell phones, along with their MP3 players. There is no reason why bionanotech driven medicine should not follow the same progress, except for if governments try to regulate it out of existance.
As to the good doctor's argument that self-enhancement that "spritualism" is more important that functional and material concerns, I'll take the spiritual stuff when I get my ageless nanotech body and can live the material standard of living of Bill Gates. One man's spiritualism is another man's belly laugh.
I think the arguments of the good doctor are horse-pucky. Besides, who the F**k is he or anyone else to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body and life?
Posted by: Kurt9 | March 01, 2007 at 04:03 PM
Thanks, Kurt9, for the comment -- but please be careful about that profanity. Even in c*ns*red form, we discourage it on our blog.
Posted by: Mike Treder, CRN | March 01, 2007 at 05:09 PM
Incautious or excessive amplification of human traits may lead to situations not dissimilar from drunkenness, mania, or even autism.
While I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in this essay, I take issue with the grouping of autism in with "drunkenness" and "mania", as if it were so obviously a pathology.
Many autistic people lead very happy and productive lives despite needing to function in ways that differ from the norm and despite having different sets of abilities and needs. I don't think that the transhuman or posthuman future is, or should be, some sort of exclusive neurotypicals-only club.
Hopefully this doesn't come across as sounding hostile...that isn't my intention. Rather, one of my ongoing projects is to help to expunge subconscious or unquestioned assumptions regarding the existence of different neurotypes.
Posted by: Anne Corwin | March 01, 2007 at 08:03 PM
>>Many autistic people lead very happy and productive lives despite needing to function in ways that differ from the norm and despite having different sets of abilities and needs. I don't think that the transhuman or posthuman future is, or should be, some sort of exclusive neurotypicals-only club.<<
I think that the kind of increased control humans will have over the structure of the human body, including the brain, with or without MNT, will mean that we have to get used to a broader range of ways that people will be human. For me personally, the fact that these things will be: A) Volitional and B) In general not irreversible, makes me more comfortable with this. Of course, the joker in the pack is the question of just what it means to be "volitional" once we begin talking about the ability to start altering the substrate of human thought and decision at a fine-grained level.
Posted by: Greg | March 02, 2007 at 01:53 AM
Anne, many people seek out the state of drunkenness. And mania has its upside--several well-known authors were manic-depressive. Vernor Vinge wrote a book, I think _A Deepness In The Sky_, where he showed the potential benefits of a quasi-autistic state.
I agree that benefits can arise from autistic-spectrum brain mechanisms, and can extend quite far along that spectrum.
But none of these states is desirable if they are unintended. That was my point--that trying to extend the brain too far, without understanding, could lead to states that the self-experimenter would not want. (Schizophrenia is another state that human brain architecture flirts with, and I've never heard anyone suggest that schizophrenia might be desirable in any way.)
I certainly hope that we don't have a neurotypicals-only club. But I don't think we are in much danger of that. I'd expect rather that people will exaggerate the tendencies they most value in themselves.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix | March 02, 2007 at 08:01 AM
Chris said: "But none of these states is desirable if they are unintended. "
And neurotypicality is?
The fundamental problem here is in seeking to define autism as a deviation from something that *should* exist by default, rather than a legitimate configuration in its own right. Autism is not a transitory "state", it's more of what I'd analogize to an operating system. Every operating system has its adherents -- some people prefer Windows, some prefer Linux, but that doesn't mean that either operating system is a defective or exaggerated version of the other. I'm not just being a voracious relativist here; I am pointing out that there is such a thing as a set of mutually exclusive yet equally valid configurations (which, of course, is not the same thing as claiming ALL configurations are valid -- I don't want Alzheimer's or cancer and I don't know anyone else who does, either, but I know of plenty of people who are fine with being autistic and don't feel slighted or sad for having been born that way).
I just find the argument that autism is somehow bad if it's "unintentional" to be insulting -- just as, say, a black person might find it insulting to hear that, well, black people are fine, but nobody deserves to be *born* black because that will restrict their freedom somehow from the get-go (and I know that neurology and skin color aren't really analogous, but attitudes surrounding both certainly are). It's a subtle kind of prejudice, and one that many people are probably unaware of having until the dominant culture changes to the degree that it is revealed -- try listening to a few old radio programs or reading a few old magazines from the 1950s, and see how women and minorities are talked about. It's likely much of it would sound very racist and sexist by today's standards, but it didn't to most people at the time.
I have observed what seems to be a very pervasive implicit assumption that neurotypicality represents a state of maximum "choice" -- when in fact, this is an illusion. The suggestion that autism should never be "unintentional" is, simultaneously, a statement to the effect of, "Only nonautistic people are qualified to determine whether or not being autistic is okay or not". Which is, of course, a very patronizing statement, not to mention one quite revelatory of the sense of illusion-of-choice that members of any majority tend to exhibit. When there are a lot of people like you around, it's a lot easier to see more of your behaviors and preferences as willful and intentional, and therefore the behaviors of people less like you as evidence of constraint or pathology. *You're* doing something (e.g., watching a soccer match) because you want to, but the autistic person is doing something else (e.g., lining up blocks or drawing detailed and realistic pictures) due to "obsession" or a "savant skill".
I'm not trying to go off on a tangent on "free will" versus determinism (though I consider myself a compatabilist, for the record) but rather, pointing out that when viewing a configuration different from yours as inherently constraining, it is important to look at and try to recognize your own constraints and not let them become invisible to you just because the dominant culture accomodates them so readily. I imagine a transhuman/posthuman culture of tremendous diversity and tremendous accomodation of, and recognition of, different ways of being. Certainly, it is best for people to be able to self-determine to the greatest degree possible -- and I agree that caution is in order when embarking on experimental journeys of self-modification and cognitive engineering -- but I also think that we need to be very wary of bias when attempting to define a "best possible baseline state" from which to start these journeys.
Posted by: Anne Corwin | March 02, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Anne, I tend to agree with what you have written, but I think Chris has a point in bringing up Vinge's 'A Deepness In The Sky.' In that book, the people in the autistic state were being used and even sexually abused by neurotypicals. Their level of autism was so high that they could not even stand up for themselves. So, I would say that the baseline for starting any journey should take into account your ability to look out for your best interests. I think entering a state like that should only happen if you are surrounded by people you can trust, or maybe no one at all. I think individuals on lone space missions would benefit from more interest in technical matters and less interest in people. Or, perhaps, with no neurotypical Svengalis around, an entire colony of autistics could thrive.
Posted by: NanoEnthusiast | March 02, 2007 at 06:01 PM
In that book, the people in the autistic state were being used and even sexually abused by neurotypicals.
Um...that definitely seems to indicate something seriously wrong with those neurotypicals. You'd think that as far as curing stuff goes, curing the desire to victimize, bully, and abuse others ought to be much higher on the list than it seems to be in this society.
I'll stop derailing this topic now, though...I think I can wrangle a blog post out of this discussion!
Posted by: Anne Corwin | March 02, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Anne, the reason I brought up the book
... SPOILER WARNING ...
was not that the autistic people were abused (though some of them certainly were). The premise of the book was that people could be put into a quasi-autistic "focused" state and essentially used as computers or robots.
Several of the people are rescued and brought out of the state. But it is a gradual process. One of them, once she is brought out enough to make choices for herself, decides she likes herself the way she is--less able to relate with people than neurotypical, but better able to accomplish her work goals. This was distressing to her former romantic partner, but her wishes took precedence over his.
I certainly agree that the desire to victimize, bully, and abuse others should be, if not cured, at least diagnosed and contained. Just as a drunk should not be an airline pilot, a sadist should not be a prison guard or teacher.
When I wrote in my first comment that neurotech has the potential to address what spoils people and societies, it was exactly this that I was thinking of.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix | March 04, 2007 at 08:40 AM
Anne wrote:
"Chris said: "But none of these states is desirable if they are unintended. "
And neurotypicality is?"
No, I think if I had a 160 IQ, and tweaked my brain in a way that unexpectedly gave me a 100 IQ, I'd be pretty upset. Or worse (from my starting point of view), I might _not_ be upset in my new state, and might not want to change back.
When I talked about "unintentional" I was talking about the results of a deliberate change that had unexpected consequences. If I was aiming for great math skills, and made myself deeply autistic by accident, I wouldn't want that at all.
On the other hand, if I had grown up autistic, I might enjoy the freedom from complex emotions. If, starting from a comfortable state of autism, I tried for better memory of faces and wound up making myself subject to feeling jealousy, I might not like that at all.
I agree that considering "neurotypical" to be the only valid baseline is an inadequate way to grapple with the issues. I agree that, when writing about unintentional invocation of autism, I was writing from a neurotypical-centric viewpoint. But having a self-centered viewpoint is different from prejudice.
Put it this way. If I, being white, walked into a black section of town without realizing it, I would accidentally have the wrong skin color. Not that it's inherently bad, but it would certainly be sub-optimal for that context, and not something I'd choose on purpose.
Or suppose I could change my height by eating a pill and waiting an hour. I might talk about the inconvenience of forgetting to take the pill to return myself to my accustomed height--I'd be unable to reach things I'd put on shelves, or I'd bang my head on door frames. Your response seems analogous to, "Oh, so you think that 6'3" is the best height? You are prejudiced against short people?"
Perhaps I'm a little defensive here. Your point that autism is not necessarily bad--any more than deafness is necessarily bad--is well taken. And perhaps I should have been clearer about what would make autism--or normalness--or deafness--undesired: if it happened unexpectedly as a result of a careless brain manipulation.
But you seem to be assuming that I was presenting neurotypicality as the standard of good. I was not. I am not neurotypical, and I would not want to be. I'm not even sure "neurotypical" exists; I think we're a lot more mentally diverse than we realize, as we go around simulating normality (for our own benefit as much as others').
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix | March 04, 2007 at 09:17 AM
Chris said:
...was not that the autistic people were abused (though some of them certainly were). The premise of the book was that people could be put into a quasi-autistic "focused" state and essentially used as computers or robots.
OK, that definitely makes things a bit different. If the people started out one way and then were modified (either without consent, or without sufficiently informed consent), I'd say the situation being described above constitutes a violation of the cognitive/morphological autonomy and liberty of those involved. Regardless of how a person is configured, I don't think it's appropriate to use them as a tool; it's depersonalizing.
Several of the people are rescued and brought out of the state. But it is a gradual process. One of them, once she is brought out enough to make choices for herself, decides she likes herself the way she is--less able to relate with people than neurotypical, but better able to accomplish her work goals. This was distressing to her former romantic partner, but her wishes took precedence over his.
I consider that to be a reasonable outcome.
I certainly agree that the desire to victimize, bully, and abuse others should be, if not cured, at least diagnosed and contained. Just as a drunk should not be an airline pilot, a sadist should not be a prison guard or teacher.
When I wrote in my first comment that neurotech has the potential to address what spoils people and societies, it was exactly this that I was thinking of.
It seems we're in agreement here, then. I just tend to get somewhat defensive when autism is brought as an item in a list of pathologies/questionable states, but problems like psychopathy and bullying aren't even mentioned. I think this conversation is clearing up a lot of what I was defensive about, though.
When I talked about "unintentional" I was talking about the results of a deliberate change that had unexpected consequences. If I was aiming for great math skills, and made myself deeply autistic by accident, I wouldn't want that at all.
That's understandable and I agree with it; you've actually touched on one of the reasons why I'm leery of autism "cures" (not that any exist yet) -- there's a mentality among many that it doesn't matter what is lost in such a "cure" so long as the appearance of normality is gained.
When altering traits, you don't necessarily know what traits are attached to others, and how tweaking one thing might affect something else that you didn't necessarily want to affect. If this was the central premise of your original post, we're probably in even greater agreement than I originally thought.
On the other hand, if I had grown up autistic, I might enjoy the freedom from complex emotions. If, starting from a comfortable state of autism, I tried for better memory of faces and wound up making myself subject to feeling jealousy, I might not like that at all.
Makes sense.
My argument was in part a response not directly to you, but to a common attitude I see that seeks to assume that all people are better off starting from the standpoint of not being autistic.
When you used the word "unintentional", I (possibly erroneously) extrapolated this to also apply to pre-born potential persons as well as existent persons capable of evaluating their circumstances and acting accordingly. I apologize if this construed an inappropriate jumping-ahead on my part.
I agree that considering "neurotypical" to be the only valid baseline is an inadequate way to grapple with the issues. I agree that, when writing about unintentional invocation of autism, I was writing from a neurotypical-centric viewpoint. But having a self-centered viewpoint is different from prejudice.
I guess maybe we're talking about the difference between prejudice and bias here. The self-centered viewpoint is definitely a bias, but not necessarily one that inevitably leads to prejudice. I know there's no way to completely get rid of bias (and there are useful and ethically appropriate biases, e.g., "innocent until proven guilty" that we wouldn't want to shed), but I'm sensitive to biases that involves reference to autism, for obvious reasons.
Put it this way. If I, being white, walked into a black section of town without realizing it, I would accidentally have the wrong skin color. Not that it's inherently bad, but it would certainly be sub-optimal for that context, and not something I'd choose on purpose.
I think that perhaps language and culture comprise a better analogy than race here, but I get what you're saying. If I were planning a trip to Japan I'd probably endeavor to learn some Japanese first, and I certainly wouldn't endeavor to purposely forget any Japanese I did happen to know.
Or suppose I could change my height by eating a pill and waiting an hour. I might talk about the inconvenience of forgetting to take the pill to return myself to my accustomed height--I'd be unable to reach things I'd put on shelves, or I'd bang my head on door frames. Your response seems analogous to, "Oh, so you think that 6'3" is the best height? You are prejudiced against short people?"
In the context of easily-changeable characteristics, I think it's perfectly appropriate to discuss strengths and weaknesses associated with those characteristics. When I need a haircut, I might complain about the inconvenience about getting hair in my eyes, but this doesn't indicate a prejudice against long-haired people.
When I can't find my glasses, I might complain about not being able to see as well as I can with them, but this doesn't indicate a prejudice against other nearsighted people.
There is, however, a subtle distinction to be aware of here -- that between objectively pointing out the good and bad things about a given configuration, and trying to claim that one configuration is always superior (particularly when you have no experience with the supposedly "inferior" configuration, and when that configuration is less valued socially than the one you favor).
I am not saying you were necessarily making the second claim -- I don't think you were -- but many people do make that claim about various things, from height to autism and everything in between.
A lot of the conversations I end up in seem to go back to the idea of what kinds of people *should* exist in the first place, and I will admit it's really refreshing to finally be in a conversation that's about personal, individually-directed modification rather than focusing on reproductive tech.
That said, I think it would be wrong if there was a society in which, say, parents were socially pressured to select only babies likely to grow to 6' or taller (and in which shorter people were systematically devalued and not accomodated, and accused of "asking for special treatment" and "being a drain on the system" if they wanted clothing that actually fit them to be available), but I would welcome a society in which people were able to change their height at will to suit their personal preference. There's an important difference between those two scenarios.
Perhaps I'm a little defensive here. Your point that autism is not necessarily bad--any more than deafness is necessarily bad--is well taken. And perhaps I should have been clearer about what would make autism--or normalness--or deafness--undesired: if it happened unexpectedly as a result of a careless brain manipulation.
We're in full agreement here, for the same reason that I think it's important for, say, doctors to be very forthcoming about medication side effects. If you take a pill to treat your high blood pressure, I'd understand being peeved if this pill ended up also making udders grow out of your forehead. The point isn't that there's a value judgement being made regarding that end configuration, but whether that end result was wanted or anticipated.
But you seem to be assuming that I was presenting neurotypicality as the standard of good. I was not.
Thanks for clearing that up...I wasn't sure if you were making that assumption or not, but I responded as if you were because I figured even if you weren't, someone else reading might.
I am not neurotypical, and I would not want to be. I'm not even sure "neurotypical" exists; I think we're a lot more mentally diverse than we realize, as we go around simulating normality (for our own benefit as much as others').
I've been using neurotypical as shorthand for "not autistic" but that isn't the only possible meaning of the word, and I agree that we're more mentally diverse as a species than we realize.
I think that all personhood exists on a spectrum -- not a linear one, mind you, but one in which there are different colors and sub-spectra of cognitive and perceptual styles. There are some identifiable groupings to be sure, but the diversity that exists within those groupings is tremendous.
Good discussion!
Posted by: Anne Corwin | March 05, 2007 at 07:36 PM
One question about genetically (or otherwise) engineering out evil traits; if you don't have any of that evil in yourself how can you recognize it in others and take action against them?
Posted by: NanoEnthusiast | March 05, 2007 at 08:36 PM
Anne said: Good discussion!
I agree!
I wasn't sure if you were [presenting neurotypicality as the standard of good] or not, but I responded as if you were because I figured even if you weren't, someone else reading might.
You're probably right, and I'll keep that in mind in the future.
I won't address most of the rest of your post in detail because I basically agree with it. One funny note: Minoxidil was originally a blood pressure medication, and did in fact make something grow from people's foreheads: hair! That's how Rogaine was discovered.
I think it would be wrong if there was a society in which, say, parents were socially pressured to select only babies likely to grow to 6' or taller (and in which shorter people were systematically devalued and not accomodated, and accused of "asking for special treatment" and "being a drain on the system" if they wanted clothing that actually fit them to be available), but I would welcome a society in which people were able to change their height at will to suit their personal preference. There's an important difference between those two scenarios.
I agree with this. But let me suggest a couple of more difficult cases. It's not enough just to say that people should be able to make choices. I think part of the reason the discussion goes to reproductive tech so often is that reproduction involves people who can't make choices.
A comparison you might find interesting is the choice of deaf parents to install a cochlear implant in their deaf children... or not. The documentary "Sound and Fury" showed me that there's a lot more to the choice than I thought. It's not whether to keep the kids just like the parents or give them an additional, very useful sense. It's more like choosing whether to have your kids live with you, or send them away to another country for a better educational opportunity.
So, a few more difficult choices/options. Some, but not all, involve children.
1) People can choose their height at will. But for convenience, babies and toddlers are all set to the same standard size until they are old enough to start setting their own height.
2) People's height can be chosen at conception but is thereafter fixed. To avoid a race to unhealthy extremes, society picks an arbitrary standard height and frowns on parents choosing their kids taller (or shorter) than that.
3) A candidate genome is such as to make it difficult for people to choose their mental state--for example, it leads to severe communication difficulties, extremely low intelligence, or some form of insanity. Do you support parents choosing a different opportunity? Does your answer change depending on whether competent adults can sample and choose the limited mental state (thus letting it persist in the population or vanish by choice) or the state cannot be chosen (thus making it vanish from the population by fiat)?
4) There are two different sets of mental states, both appearing sane and functional to their adherents, both appearing insane or otherwise undesirable to each other, so that people rarely if ever choose to cross over. (The Right and Left in US politics may be a good present-day comparison. :-) If both can coexist in society, should it be the parents' choice? What if they can't coexist?
5) There is a state that people may choose to try, but find it difficult to choose to switch back, but to outsiders they don't appear as happy or functional as before the switch. (An analogy would be addictive drugs.) Should there be limitations on the ability to dabble in that state?
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix, CRN | March 05, 2007 at 08:38 PM
NanoEnthusiast wrote: "One question about genetically (or otherwise) engineering out evil traits; if you don't have any of that evil in yourself how can you recognize it in others and take action against them?"
Is an earthquake evil? It's the wrong question to ask. Certainly it's destructive, and we can recognize that destructiveness, and take action to protect ourselves from it. I'm not at all sure that defining human attributes as "evil" makes us more effective at taking action against them.
If we managed to get to the point where cruelty was as alien to us as earthquakes--where we neither romanticized nor criminalized it, but simply addressed it as an often-destructive force--I think we'd be a lot better able to deal with it usefully.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix, CRN | March 06, 2007 at 08:37 AM
For most of the above discussion, "bad" and "good" aren't the right terms to use regarding human capabilities. "Functional" is a better terminology, as it avoids creating a false appearance of judging the moral state of persons with atypical and unchosen functionality.
On the issue of deafness by parental choice - if those children were given the opportunity to experience both deafness and hearing, and at age 21 had to freely but permanently choose one or the other, which would they choose? I think the radical deaf-culture advocates know the answer, understand what that implies, and still seek to deny their children the opportunity to experience hearing.
Recall that some parents used to deny their children the opportunity to become educated. The U.S. has mostly decided to strip parents of that right, considering deprivation of educational opportunity to be a form of child abuse. Whether or not that was a correct decision, I think that will ultimately be the model society takes for deaf children that can be cured. (Personally, I'm not ready to declare it child abuse for parents deny their deaf child the chance to hear. But I won't pretend to "respect their choice".)
Could there be a society made up of only severely autistic persons? If not, why should we consider severe autism merely "differently functioning", rather than "severely less socially functional"? Is human society an unimportant part of what it means to be "human"?
Once we have a way to cure autistic children (or prevent autism, if it is innate), then even if we have no way to allow them to later experience their natural state and decide to revert to it, parents have a responsibility to make the best choice for their children.
Again, whether any parent should be forced to have their autistic child cured (if it were possible) is a separate question.
Another question of interest - once allowing a relative disability becomes a matter of parental choice, does society owe the parents support or accomodation beyond perhaps assistance in implementing a cure? And does society even owe them that much, if the parents deliberately choose to have a child with a disability?
The latter question gets especially interesting once we have full pre-natal genetic analysis, and parents have to decide whether to propagate only their own genes, or accept an artificial alteration in some cases.
And if we allow "society" (government) to demand or economically "encourage" certain genetic choices, where is the cut-off? Health? Intelligence? Appearance? Genetic match to the Perfect Leader?
Posted by: Tom Craver | March 06, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Regarding removing "evil" from people - I think the question is backwards, perhaps biased by the Christian mythology that knowledge of good and evil was the source of all human evil. I rather suspect that evil in humans is a *lack* of the things that we think of as making us human - empathy, understanding and anticipation of the world around us (including other people), etc.
The cure for evil won't be a matter of taking away the emotional ability to be aggressive, but rather adding greater ability to understand and empathize with others. Not a rigid enforcement of empathy that overrides survival instincts, but a greater empathic capacity and greater mental swiftness to arrive at the understanding that, in a social context, personal survival does not generally rely on aggressive behavior - while still being able to recognize and react appropriately to the rare instances where that context does not apply, and violence is warranted.
Posted by: Tom Craver | March 06, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Chris, the problem I see is with identifying cruelty when we see it. Take domestic abuse as an example. In order to see the signs one must have either been victimized, had someone close to you victimized or had the same types of dark thoughts that abusers have. Since we've all felt like hurting or, even killing, people at some point in our lives, we can, in some sense, identify those traits in others. This is a good thing as it helps the police solve crimes. People like Jeffrey Dahmer are a good example of the sort who don't think like anyone. Catching that kind of person poses greater difficulties because no one can get in their heads. Then you start to look for the real-life Hannibal Lecters to help you.
Tom, it is an open question whether a society of autistics can survive. Only if you conducted such an experiment could you find out. Being mildly autistic could be no more a "disabillity" than being short. It is obvious that short people have great difficulties in our world, on account of everything being made for average height people, but it is also cear that this is does not have anything to do with the short person and everything to do with the world. In a world built around short people, they clearly would thrive. The same might be true for autistics. Much of the social make-up of our society is probably unnecessary. Even "normal" people can see that the human desire to play political games has a huge downside. Maybe people starting with a blank slate of social conventions, could find something that works better than our current society. However, this goes to the game-theory aspect of my question about engineering out evil traits; there's plenty of incentive to cheat. If we make ourselves sheep we will find ourselves on the diner plate of the hold-out wolves.
Posted by: NanoEnthusiast | March 06, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Nano: Note that my question was whether there could be a society of *severe* autistics. I think not - almost by definition.
Posted by: Tom Craver | March 06, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Tom, I agree on that point. The most severely autistics don't usually even have any savant talents that would be useful to a heterogeneous society that contained minders for them. But for those that do have special talents, the question is, will they be coerced into doing the bidding of their minders? I think even the most normal and well-adjusted among us would be tempted to abuse that sort of relationship. Think of the Tom Cruise character in the movie Rain Man. However, if the minders are all people with, say, Asperger's the thought to exploit the others might not even cross their minds. In this way, a slightly heterogeneous society comprised entirely of people in the functional part of the autistic spectrum could work without exploitation.
Posted by: NanoEnthusiast | March 07, 2007 at 09:41 AM
Tom, I think I would have agreed with you on deafness--before I saw the "Sound and Fury" documentary.
As US citizens and residents, we may think that--all else being equal--people would rather be born in the US than in Mexico. But that is *very* different from saying that Mexican families should try to get their kids adopted into US families.
The argument that someone who'd experienced both would choose a certain way ignores the fact that it's impossible for one person to experience both. The options are not directly comparable.
The documentary convinced me that deaf culture is not just an abstraction or an excuse. It is real and it has value. To say that deaf parents should make their children hear is to take two steps, not just one: First, it is to say that hearing culture is more valuable than deaf culture--and second, it is to say that the disparity is great enough to justify requiring parents to send their own children "away" to a foreign culture.
Something I hadn't realized is that kids with cochlear implants are discouraged from learning to sign. That puts a whole different spin on it. It means that the implant creats a substantial barrier between parent and child.
As an outsider looking in, it seems to me that there should be a middle ground: give kids cochlear implants, let them learn to hear sounds (and words if it works out that way), but also let them learn sign. Just like raising kids in a bilingual house: hit them with both languages and let them sort it out.
But in the current situation, based on what I now know, I have to respect parental choices not to use cochlear implants.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix | March 07, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Chris:
I don't think your analogy with US/Mexico is quite accurate - children aren't being physically separated from their families - they can remain physically and emotionally close.
It's more like an immigrant couple, forced to move into the US, who isolate their child from US culture, knowing that this will leave their child at a disadvantage in US society.
Only it's worse, as hearing is a more fundamentally personal attribute than culture.
It's almost as if the deaf community were a cult - anyone getting an implant is considered a traitor. I can only guess that this is due to common feelings on the part of the deaf that society considers them inferior. But that's almost backwards - yes most people consider the deaf to be disadvantaged - but most also regard them as a bit more "noble", for having to overcome that. Too bad some of them are disproving the latter theory.
Still, barring extremes of mental or physical abuse, our social compact (in the US) is that the parents have the right to determine what is best for their children - even if the majority believe they are wrong. While it's in the gray area, I don't see this as crossing the line into child abuse.
Defending that fuzzy gray line will likely soon be more important to us all. We may find ourselves making choices about enhancing our children. Someday we may be asked "Why aren't you willing to wire your child into GroupMind? We're all happy in here - really we we we are are are are."
Posted by: Tom Craver | March 07, 2007 at 07:14 PM