5 ms·

Why stop there? Clearly any kind of medical intervention is against nature’s wisdom.

by ericwood 1y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
Do I seem to argue against it? It is intended to ask a simple question: "At what point does it get silly?"
- renewiltord 1y ago
  The answer is obviously "it doesn't". We're in an eternal losing war against entropy but this is a battle we're winning.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    Interesting, are you stating there is no scenario under which you would consider those types of body modifications not quite acceptable? I am curious about your individual line. You state there isn't one, but I am relatively certain one exists.
    - owebmaster 1y ago
      > Interesting, are you stating there is no scenario under which you would consider those types of body modifications not quite acceptable? Yes! If some body modifications make someone more efficient at killing, raping, stealing, committing crimes we should all be against it. If it is just because it annoys some people's sense of nature, no.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
        Hmm, would you be in favor of gene editing technology if it allowed enhanced intelligence treatments to killers, rapists and thieves?
        ben_w 1y ago
        Once we can control fully developed adult brains, at the level you're suggesting for this thought experiment, that power will force us to reconsider criminality as a mental health issue — even if the personality disorders leading to criminality happen to be harder to fix in adults than boosting of IQ. But note how I phrased that: Being able to rewrite the DNA of killers etc. to make them smarter, in the absence of influencing developed adult brains, only makes their descendants (in the strictly genetic sense of the word) smarter. At some point in this century, and probably sooner rather than later, we're going to be able to cost-effectively write arbitrary human-length genomes. Simply printing a custom genome will likely happen well before it becomes possible to safely rewrite live adult genomes, which is itself a different task from understanding, controlling, or safely re-activating in adults, the developmental pathways that lead to healthy growth within a brain for things as vague as "lust", "empathy", or "intelligence". But to your previous question, "At what point does it get silly?": at some point, we're all made of atoms, and if we had a level of control over matter as in fictional narratives like The Culture or Star Trek, then (modulo weight changes) all your atoms can be rearranged to turn you into a copy of me, or anyone else on the planet, or any other species including fully customised not-found-in-nature varieties. I'm reminded of a cover of a Monty Python song: > Oh, I'm a lycanthrope and I'm okay, I romp all night and I sleep all day. - http://web.archive.org/web/20080509070613/http://www.swampfox.demon.co.uk/utlah/Humour/Furballs/lumber.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080509070613/http://www.swampfo... Silly is fine :)
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      It’s Sorites. I don’t have a line because the cost to identify it is much greater than the cost to move forward. When we cross it or approach a positive feedback loop, we will take a step back and re-evaluate.
_bin_ 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- akerl_ 1y ago
  > Those who are sickly or low iq or carry certain congenital conditions (if they are aware of them) definitely shouldn’t [reproduce]. > People love to straw man this obvious issue, saying, “oh so you support forced sterilization?” No, I didn’t say that. So what are you saying?
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    I am saying precisely what I said: it is wrong to do. Not all that which is legal is moral, nor is all that which is illegal immoral. The state is an enforcer of the social contract and a monopolist of violence, not an arbiter of morality. I believe people do plenty of immoral things but do not necessarily believe we ought to use that state violence to prevent or punish them. Adultery, for instance, is one of the more contemptible choices one can make, and yet goes unpunished by the state. Some jurisdictions don’t even consider it strongly in divorce proceedings.
    - akerl_ 1y ago
      So you don’t want eugenics to be legally required, but you think participating in collective eugenics is the morally right thing for everybody to do?
      - _bin_ 1y ago
        Precisely right, yes.
        tptacek 1y ago
        This is indistinguishable from what most eugenicists were saying at the turn of the 20th century. I hear you loud and clear: you don't want to forcibly sterilize anybody. OK, good on you for that.

Why stop there? Clearly any kind of medical intervention is against nature’s wisdom.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago

Do I seem to argue against it? It is intended to ask a simple question: "At what point does it get silly?"

renewiltord 1y ago
The answer is obviously "it doesn't". We're in an eternal losing war against entropy but this is a battle we're winning.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  Interesting, are you stating there is no scenario under which you would consider those types of body modifications not quite acceptable? I am curious about your individual line. You state there isn't one, but I am relatively certain one exists.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    > Interesting, are you stating there is no scenario under which you would consider those types of body modifications not quite acceptable? Yes! If some body modifications make someone more efficient at killing, raping, stealing, committing crimes we should all be against it. If it is just because it annoys some people's sense of nature, no.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
      Hmm, would you be in favor of gene editing technology if it allowed enhanced intelligence treatments to killers, rapists and thieves?
      - ben_w 1y ago
        Once we can control fully developed adult brains, at the level you're suggesting for this thought experiment, that power will force us to reconsider criminality as a mental health issue — even if the personality disorders leading to criminality happen to be harder to fix in adults than boosting of IQ. But note how I phrased that: Being able to rewrite the DNA of killers etc. to make them smarter, in the absence of influencing developed adult brains, only makes their descendants (in the strictly genetic sense of the word) smarter. At some point in this century, and probably sooner rather than later, we're going to be able to cost-effectively write arbitrary human-length genomes. Simply printing a custom genome will likely happen well before it becomes possible to safely rewrite live adult genomes, which is itself a different task from understanding, controlling, or safely re-activating in adults, the developmental pathways that lead to healthy growth within a brain for things as vague as "lust", "empathy", or "intelligence". But to your previous question, "At what point does it get silly?": at some point, we're all made of atoms, and if we had a level of control over matter as in fictional narratives like The Culture or Star Trek, then (modulo weight changes) all your atoms can be rearranged to turn you into a copy of me, or anyone else on the planet, or any other species including fully customised not-found-in-nature varieties. I'm reminded of a cover of a Monty Python song: > Oh, I'm a lycanthrope and I'm okay, I romp all night and I sleep all day. - http://web.archive.org/web/20080509070613/http://www.swampfox.demon.co.uk/utlah/Humour/Furballs/lumber.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080509070613/http://www.swampfo... Silly is fine :)
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    It’s Sorites. I don’t have a line because the cost to identify it is much greater than the cost to move forward. When we cross it or approach a positive feedback loop, we will take a step back and re-evaluate.

_bin_ 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
akerl_ 1y ago
> Those who are sickly or low iq or carry certain congenital conditions (if they are aware of them) definitely shouldn’t [reproduce]. > People love to straw man this obvious issue, saying, “oh so you support forced sterilization?” No, I didn’t say that. So what are you saying?
- _bin_ 1y ago
  I am saying precisely what I said: it is wrong to do. Not all that which is legal is moral, nor is all that which is illegal immoral. The state is an enforcer of the social contract and a monopolist of violence, not an arbiter of morality. I believe people do plenty of immoral things but do not necessarily believe we ought to use that state violence to prevent or punish them. Adultery, for instance, is one of the more contemptible choices one can make, and yet goes unpunished by the state. Some jurisdictions don’t even consider it strongly in divorce proceedings.
  - akerl_ 1y ago
    So you don’t want eugenics to be legally required, but you think participating in collective eugenics is the morally right thing for everybody to do?
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      Precisely right, yes.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        This is indistinguishable from what most eugenicists were saying at the turn of the 20th century. I hear you loud and clear: you don't want to forcibly sterilize anybody. OK, good on you for that.