3 ms·

> So can we please stop with the deification of the default and get on with progress? Well said! I fear, though, that a problem with this admonition is that so

> So can we please stop with the deification of the default and get on with progress? Well said! I fear, though, that a problem with this admonition is that some ascribe the default state to a deity. However, I'm not sure that the characteristics you mentioned are of the same quality. Hair color, gender, and other traits are neutral in quality - especially if there's risk in the procedure, it would seem wrong to select these superficial changes to fit the parents' preference. And while it would be nice to look into the future and determine what the human being created would prefer, we can't do that. A propensity towards colon cancer or a propensity towards drug addiction being added or removed would be another class of traits, having a quality based on removing observed defects. I imagine this class is the most likely to be experimented with first. The third class would be traits which are relative to baseline humans. Increasing intelligence, perhaps, would be the change that could most universally be described as an unalloyed positive change. What hypothetical future human would mourn their unborn mirror self and wish they were less intelligent? Perhaps the acuity of their vision and other senses would also be desirable. You might also consider changing aspects such as their respiratory or cardiovascular capacity - some humans like Chris Froome or Michael Phelps are extraordinary examples of not just training but innate talent, and wouldn't it be nice if we went beyond reducing the risk of heart disease to make everyone innately talented at breathing? And then you get into issues like whether or not to make them stronger (who's healthier, Froome or Phelps?), or taller, or more good looking (who decides what that looks like?). It would be great if we could help our kids be healthier. And I (and most people) would like it if my parents had made me smarter. But the technology opens the door to dangerous possibilities.

ethbro 9y ago
Every technology ever has opened the door to dangerous possibilities. Caution is merited, but inaction carries culpability in the preventable negative outcomes solved in a potential future that we deny through fear. And not disagreeing with your content, as I agree and think it's well written, but statements like "nice to look into the future and determine what the human being created would prefer, we can't do that" are part of what doesn't parse with me about this debate. As with the anthropic principle, life has no a priori preferences. It becomes and then it is. Before it is, it doesn't want anything. After it is, it wants to be as it is. Because what is it is its identity. There's a caveat for physical disabilities, and yes, that's a slippery slope as you've outlined. But how could one want to be another? If I told you that I could make you smarter, right now, with 100% certainty and safety, but that afterwards... you wouldn't be you as you are now... would you say yes? Possibly, but I feel there's a certain inherent unease with that question. What happens to me if I become other? My point being that this works in reverse too. If I am now as I was made, how would I feel about the choices made in my making? My assertion is that I wouldn't particularly care, because I am the result. So to wish otherwise would be to wish for the termination of my current identity. If there's a debate to be had, then let it be one the social or individual merits of the actual change sought, rather than in making changes or not.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >If I told you that I could make you smarter, right now, with 100% certainty and safety, but that afterwards... you wouldn't be you as you are now... would you say yes? Possibly, but I feel there's a certain inherent unease with that question. What happens to me if I become other? This is silly. I don't become some other person when I drink alcohol or wear contact lenses, nor when I break a leg, exercise my muscles, or make any other permanent alteration to my body. A theory of self/identity that "breaks" under new medical advancements because it also breaks under everyday conditions is just a bad theory.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    None of the examples you gave are permanent neurological changes.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      Technically the mild brain damage of drinking heavily over time is permanent. The nervous system is a biological system made up of organs: it's always changing, often permanently. You might identify yourself with a particular functional aspect if your mind, but you're going to have to do a fair amount of scientific work to pick out which functional aspect. Just gesturing to the meat doesn't really pick out anything immutable or specific.

ethbro 9y ago

Every technology ever has opened the door to dangerous possibilities. Caution is merited, but inaction carries culpability in the preventable negative outcomes solved in a potential future that we deny through fear. And not disagreeing with your content, as I agree and think it's well written, but statements like "nice to look into the future and determine what the human being created would prefer, we can't do that" are part of what doesn't parse with me about this debate. As with the anthropic principle, life has no a priori preferences. It becomes and then it is. Before it is, it doesn't want anything. After it is, it wants to be as it is. Because what is it is its identity. There's a caveat for physical disabilities, and yes, that's a slippery slope as you've outlined. But how could one want to be another? If I told you that I could make you smarter, right now, with 100% certainty and safety, but that afterwards... you wouldn't be you as you are now... would you say yes? Possibly, but I feel there's a certain inherent unease with that question. What happens to me if I become other? My point being that this works in reverse too. If I am now as I was made, how would I feel about the choices made in my making? My assertion is that I wouldn't particularly care, because I am the result. So to wish otherwise would be to wish for the termination of my current identity. If there's a debate to be had, then let it be one the social or individual merits of the actual change sought, rather than in making changes or not.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>If I told you that I could make you smarter, right now, with 100% certainty and safety, but that afterwards... you wouldn't be you as you are now... would you say yes? Possibly, but I feel there's a certain inherent unease with that question. What happens to me if I become other? This is silly. I don't become some other person when I drink alcohol or wear contact lenses, nor when I break a leg, exercise my muscles, or make any other permanent alteration to my body. A theory of self/identity that "breaks" under new medical advancements because it also breaks under everyday conditions is just a bad theory.
- ethbro 9y ago
  None of the examples you gave are permanent neurological changes.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    Technically the mild brain damage of drinking heavily over time is permanent. The nervous system is a biological system made up of organs: it's always changing, often permanently. You might identify yourself with a particular functional aspect if your mind, but you're going to have to do a fair amount of scientific work to pick out which functional aspect. Just gesturing to the meat doesn't really pick out anything immutable or specific.