Comment on this entry
Transhumanism and Eugenics
I encountered an opinion piece in the Catholic San Francisco Online Edition written by Sandro Magister. He was, according to the head notes, summarizing part of a talk by French philosopher Fabrice Hadjadj. Fabrice argues that the term “transhumanism” was coined by Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley, of Brave New World fame); the first director of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and supporter of eugenics.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by GKBielz on 04/08 at 06:02 AM
Quote: “First, as the wiki linked above indicates, eugenics was a respectable idea up until the end of WWII, when the Nazi’s perverted the idea and applied it to traits that most people don’t see as defects.”
Mentioning only wiki links as a resource can be a bit problematic sometimes. Respectable idea! Hmmmmm
Regarding the respectability of eugenics pre Nazi Germany, there are other narratives. See here a link (only one of many) about the so called harmless concepts of eugencis in the US pre Nazi Germany: http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
Here another link that gives quite a good overview: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/eugenics.aspx
Regarding autism. Hmm. Do you think that some of the scientists or transhuman thinkers who are stating that they are on the autistic spectrum disorder would have wanted their traits genetically eliminated? This causes a dilemma, doesn’t it?
Posted by Abolitionist on 04/08 at 11:30 AM
It’s too bad that the idea of genetic health has been associated with the pseudoscience of the past.
@ GKBielz;
Autism is one of those traits that would not meet the criteria of 99% exclusion : more than 1% of the population might choose that trait intentionally.
Unless we are absolutely sure that something is a genetic disease we should leave it alone, this is one positive legacy of the ‘eugenics’ of old.
Please replace the ‘hmmmms’ with your rationale.
Posted by GKBielz on 04/08 at 11:46 AM
Oh, here again.
@Abolitionist
Fair comment, I won’t do hmms anymore.
So, in your opinion (or power), autism is permitted as a genetic ‘aberration’.
Good. I am sure that there a more traits that do not have to be removed. I will not come up with a list.
The pseudoscience of the past was the science of the past. And we should not forget that the science of the present might become the pseudoscience of the past. I would advise you to think about this.
Posted by Abolitionist on 04/08 at 12:04 PM
@ GKBielz ;
No one is in power here, we’re debating ideas. I hope you will be ok with this.
When you formulate ethical approaches they are meant to be systemic. Some people feel more ok with emotional bartering, but that is not the same as rational debate.
Should emotional bartering be the basis for laws?
Actually I have thought about those past mistakes, and posted alot about it. That is why I am promoting the “99%” heuristic - to help avoid those mistakes of the past.
Now if I were to say something like ; “and you aren’t aware of those posts because you don’t know everything” - that wouldn’t be very cool of me would it?
(see how this statement is just annoying and inflammatory, presumptive and meant to taunt?)
I’m putting it there to show you an example of what I see coming from you. Like the comment ” so in your opinion (power)”
I think that kind of thing just gets in the way of debate.
Posted by GKBielz on 04/08 at 01:56 PM
@Abolitonist
It is also about how one debates ideas.
Quote: “When you formulate ethical approaches they are meant to be systemic. Some people feel more ok with emotional bartering, but that is not the same as rational debate”
What you call emotional bantering is not bantering. I am pretty rational in my answers, but I am not linear. I am an emotional being, too and unlike some rationalist narratives I do not deny it.
I can acknowledge that you would like a certain style of debate. And I would like you to acknowledge that this debate can be led in a different way, without being irrational. If you think that rational has to comply to your mode of thinking or to a certain way of scientific or philosophical debate you have adhered to or learned at uni, I can assure you that there are other models of debate.
Perhaps, we both should acknowledge that we do not belong to the same ‘philosophical schools’.
ad your example:
“Now if I were to say something like ; “and you aren’t aware of those posts because you don’t know everything” - that wouldn’t be very cool of me would it?
(see how this statement is just annoying and inflammatory, presumptive and meant to taunt?)”
If you say this to me, I would answer, yes, I am not aware of these and I know that I do not know (Socrates). And then I would ask you to refer me to these posts. I would not see this as inflammatory.
I must say, I am worried that you do. The language ‘inflammatory, annoying’ is something I have connected more to conservative/right wing/patriarchal/religious doctrines who dismiss other opinions or ideologies via using some of these words without have to deal with them.
Perhaps we can agree that we are different and have different ideas about debating.
Posted by GKBielz on 04/08 at 02:26 PM
Sorry have to add this:
Quote Abolitionist
“Should emotional bartering be the basis for laws?”
This is why Salomon was such a wise judge. He understood people’s emotions and emotional being was part of his ‘legal framework’.
Here is a really great link
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/hastlj30&div=62&id;=&page;=
Especially the line there it connects Salomon with Woody Allen.
Posted by Abolitionist on 04/08 at 03:18 PM
@ GKBielz ;
“So, in your opinion (or power), autism is permitted as a genetic ‘aberration’.
Good. I am sure that there a more traits that do not have to be removed. I will not come up with a list”
——————————————————————————————————
do you think this is productive debate? I don’t see how you are getting your message across. If you want to express an emotion, that seems to be very different from being sarcastic and inflammatory.
Just because someone is trying to develop a rational way to determine how we should make decisions does not mean they are trying to control people, in fact the aim is to protect the rights of the people we would be creating with genetic engineering so that they can pursue happiness and be fully functional.
As a woman, I imagine you would want the best for your children and to protect them from people who would try to prevent them for being fully functional.
It’s the same kind of instinct that compels me to think about how we can protect those we create from people who would harm them (including their parents).
The problem with creating laws based upon emotions is that laws have to apply to all people, not just those who feel like they agree with them. So they have to be based upon a rationale that is delineated and potentially amendable.
A judge can’t give a different sentence for two people who commit the same crime because he likes them. We have to learn to evaluate emotions with rationality for these reasons.
Posted by GKBielz on 04/08 at 04:40 PM
Quote “@ GKBielz ;
“So, in your opinion (or power), autism is permitted as a genetic ‘aberration’.
Good. I am sure that there a more traits that do not have to be removed. I will not come up with a list””
You don’t see how I get my messages across. This message was directed at you, as you were quite categorical about the screening of all genetic diseases on other threads. At one stage you had introduced the 99% rule. So you are hovering between the ‘categorical imperative’ and more mercurial statements yourself. I had pointed out that autistic people would perhaps not like to know that they could have been genetically modified and your reply was that they do not fall into the 99% rule. So I stated my satisfaction that even you seem to allow for exceptions. We would have to negotiate now the percentage!
I am not anti-rational. I am against ‘rational’ being the king of everything, as I am against the narrative of science being the master of our lives. And, before you go ahead about me being anti-science, I am very pro-science.
I would also like to see the narrative of happiness and functioning in a different framework than a utilitarian one. This would need some more thinking and perhaps I should write a text about this. There are enough references around.
Quote :“As a woman, I imagine you would want the best for your children and to protect them from people who would try to prevent them for being fully functional. “
Abolitionist, perhaps it is this use of language: fully functional. I am a researcher, artist, PhD student in the last phase, lecturer and educator (Higher Education, plus a tutor for secondary education in the UK). I am feeling sorry for the kids here, who have to be so fully functional (within a societal and personal/family framework), that they are wasted. Walking by the French Lycee some days ago, made me think about these kids being far happier and less pressurised. The idea of functionality here must be a different one (it is, believe me) I am talking about middle class children mainly. So as a mother, I want to give my kids lots of love, freedom and guidance, understanding, empathy, enable them to do many things without pressurising them too much, be a good role model and guiding them perhaps to be not fully functional, but inquisitive, not obedient for obedience’s sake and be a bit anarchic. Does not harm, I can tell you. I would them to do as best as possible (this meaning they have a say too!!) to live and contribute to this society without forgetting that there are other opinions and other flavours)
So what is your definition of fully functional?
Parents can harm children, and so can educational institutions, uncles and aunts, strangers, religious groups/religions, etc. I understand that there have to be functioning frameworks to protect children. I hate to say that in the UK and the US and also many European countries this is connected to government funding, that has been cut extremely because of the austerity measures. Charities have to take over, and they are underfunded, too. At the end armament, economy for economy’s sake and other narratives seem to be more convincing for Conservative but also Liberal movements than the true well-being of their citizens, including their kids. This would also include health, of course.
Laws have to apply to all people. Here we have a bit of a dilemma. Technically they do, practically there is already a problem. Current legal systems seem to work basically, here in the West, but we all know that corruption, laziness, human error, etc. undermine these systems. They can only be frameworks.
Quote:
“A judge can’t give a different sentence for two people who commit the same crime because he likes them. We have to learn to evaluate emotions with rationality for these reasons.”
I think that only a robot with a perhaps sophisticated programme can do so.
Yes, and this is it. We are human. And you want to erase aspects of humanity, calling these irrational. Irrationality respective emotion have as much a value as the rational ideal. It is about ideal situations. People and situations are not ideal.
I agree that it can be unfair and unjust. I trust our legal system so far that you can go to the higher court and challenge the sentence. This is one way of ‘control’ built into this system. If the first instance fails, there are mechanisms built in that allow to rectify this. Perhaps legal or ethical systems that allow this are the best possible ones.
Genetic engineering as well as social engineering won’t make a better world. They will make a different world. No objections against difference. Strong objections against removing unwanted traits. And I am not talking about horrendous and debilitating genetic diseases here.
PS @Abolitionist
Polemics is a permitted form of discourse!
Posted by Peter Wicks on 04/09 at 02:32 AM
Actually I find this to be quite an interesting meta-discussion about debating styles and what it means to be rational. I do appreciate the clarity and purity of Abolitionist’s thinking, even when I disagree with him. Polemics is indeed a permitted form of discourse, but not necessarily a very helpful one. It really depends what you are trying to achieve.
I’ve said this before on other threads, but what I find most interesting on this site is the opportunity it provides to provide clarity into the ethical debates we have here, and this kind of goes to Abolitionist’s point that on the whole we should avoid expressing a lot of emotion, since this doesn’t really help. However I do think it’s important to have some emotional dimension to these debates, otherwise they risk becoming terribly boring for most people.
Posted by Abolitionist on 04/09 at 03:17 AM
@ GKBielz ;
If you delineate your thoughts, I may be able to understand you better.
It’s also my right to tell you that I don’t want you to waste my time with social posturing, if you expect people to debate you, you should try to keep it clear and devoid of inflammatory remarks. I’m not telling you to leave the forums or shut up, that’s not my place here.
“At one stage you had introduced the 99% rule. So you are hovering between the ‘categorical imperative’ and more mercurial statements yourself. I had pointed out that autistic people would perhaps not like to know that they could have been genetically modified and your reply was that they do not fall into the 99% rule.”
Here you are distorting the facts and misplacing my statements. What I was saying is that autism should not be screened for because it is something than many may choose for themselves voluntarily. It does have certain advantages unlike genetic diseases that no one wants for themselves voluntarily.
“So you are hovering between the ‘categorical imperative’ and more mercurial statements yourself.”
You’ll have to be more specific if you want to prove that my stance from another thread is not cohesive. No one can know what you are referring to.
“I am not anti-rational. I am against ‘rational’ being the king of everything, as I am against the narrative of science being the master of our lives. And, before you go ahead about me being anti-science, I am very pro-science.
I would also like to see the narrative of happiness and functioning in a different framework than a utilitarian one. This would need some more thinking and perhaps I should write a text about this. There are enough references around. “
The ‘kind of everything’ - what do you mean by this? Do you think that public policy should have a rationale that is testable and objectively observable (scientific), or should it be based upon religious and cultural theories?
By ‘fully functional’ I was referring to the avoidance of known genetic diseases, like congenital deafness which reduce functionality. Developmental disabilities like Down’s syndrome which make people unable to care for themselves in society is also a genetic disease. I’m not saying we should cull these people, but that we should avoid causing that disability as we develop the technology to do so.
“Genetic engineering as well as social engineering won’t make a better world. They will make a different world. No objections against difference. Strong objections against removing unwanted traits”
It is difficult if not impossible to measure what makes the world better. At the same time, we know that Darwinian design is not in our best interest (if we accept the ‘selfish gene’ hypothesis).
Is it ethical to continue genetic roulette - to ‘roll the dice’ on those we create?
IMO, we should pursue genetic engineering thus;
1. remove genetic diseases that 99% or more of the population believe to be deficiencies. This will gradually raise the bar on genetic health.
2. allow individuals once they reach the age of consent to pursue ad hoc genetic manipulations of their choice as long as it does not threaten the fundamental rights of others. For example : making one’s self into a sociopath would not be permitted.
Posted by GKBielz on 04/09 at 04:26 AM
Good morning
@Peter Wicks
I did actually polarise—Don’t fall into the trap—my style is not that polemic.
So is my style really that emotive, oh dear? This is really interesting. Did I express emotions by stating the case of the deaf parents, who want a deaf child, and try to discuss this on this thread? Was it highly emotional that I stated that minorities have a right, too and Abolitionist’s scenario is one that goes with the law of majorities? Was I emotional when I stated (and you can read this in his text) that it is obviously not only about genetic diseases and their eradication, but also about positively engineering a ‘super-human’, at least this has been indicated. Is it emotional when I pointed out that there is a certain Anglo-American (philosophical) narrative that might have its limitations? Is it emotional to point out the flaw in the narrative on this thread here, that states that the US eugenics programme was a respectable idea (according to a wiki link) pre Nazi Germany?
Is it really not helpful to be polemic?
It is not helpful, if one thinks along the lines of political consensus.
The whole topic is emotionally charged —As you said, you appreciate Abolitionist’s clarity and purity in thinking that in my opinion is sometimes broken, as he does write (if you would care to look through his posts) conflicting statements. I am not sure if he is a conservative, a neo-liberal or a techno-anarchist. He might be neither.
He definitely has a very strong idea and this is genetically screening the population and eradicating diseases (and perhaps not only diseases, because if you screen his texts, there is also the idea of producing an ethically better (!) human), if these fall into the 99%.
He has of course, and I appreciate this, the whish for the world (hopefully not only humanity+) to be a better, safer and happier place. He thinks that children have to be protected. So do I.
I am always amazed about the topic of emotions—it is often brought up if somebody does not like what they hear (guerrilla tactics) or if a certain form of narrative is involved.
Quote: “A crucial mandate of cognitivist theories is to avert the charge that emotions are merely “subjective.””
Some nice reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/
PS to do this thread some honour, and to introduce some more emotional stuff. The last paragraphs in John Niman’s text point towards a neo-liberal narrative that applies consumerist behaviours and the narrative of choice to genetic or medical alteration of physical, emotional, sexual, etc. human traits. Totally understandable as he is a child of the consumerist world that promises us choice NOW. He indicates that this will change our moral codes (the more traits can be changed), and that it is all about individual choice. I am looking forward to a world that will bombard me via aggressive commercials not only with the choice for heating systems, cancer medication and health insurance, but also for the cheapest possibility to alter my genetic make-up, as long as I have the money (or the choice).
Posted by Peter Wicks on 04/09 at 05:00 AM
@GKBielz I certainly didn’t mean to imply that everything you write is emotionally charged or polemic, but you were defending this type of discourse, in opposition to Abolitionist, so decided to add my own two-cents worth to this interesting debate.
I agree that people tend to accuse each other of being “emotional” when they don’t like what they are saying, and this can be annoying. I think the best way to deal with this, in general, is just to ignore it.
I’m now going to actually read the article so I can comment on it 
Posted by Peter Wicks on 04/09 at 05:09 AM
I’ve now read the article. I think it’s excellent. I also find it fascinating that transhumanism originally had that meaning (if this is true).
@GKBielz Re your first comment on this thread, I think by “respectable” the author meant “considered respectable at the time”. It was also considered respectable afterwards in societies that are often considered among the most enlightened: in particular, I understand that Sweden carried on with forced sterilisations until the 1960s or ‘70s (don’t remember which). I think it’s an important point of history.
By the way I quite like Abolitionist’s 99% heuristic, it sounds like a sensible rule of thumb?
Posted by GKBielz on 04/09 at 05:48 AM
@Peter Wicks
I was overdoing it a bit  in my reply to you. So, no hard feelings.
About the article—- thanks for pointing out that the author might have meant ‘respectable at the times’.
About the 99% —- fine.
The question is if 99% of people want to have a public hanging. Would you think the same.
I think, I want to be the itchy insect bite.
Enjoy the rest of the Easter holidays.
Posted by GKBielz on 04/09 at 08:26 AM
@ Abolitionist
I cannot delineate my thoughts. Perhaps we have to agree that for one reason or another you cannot follow my way of thinking and how I am writing.
‘Social posturing’ is a value judgement that is dismissive of my writing. With this statement you are disqualifying how I discuss and don’t even make an effort trying to understand, where I am coming from.
It is your right, though to stop reading my posts or engaging in any form of communication.
I am not going to scrutinise your texts now to show the ambiguity in some statements. There is definitely no ambiguity in 99% and screening for genetic diseases. I will leave it there.
With the king of everything I mean this applied to everything in life. I am saying that the implication that rational thinking is the only proper thinking and applying this to everything (just meaning everything that we know about) is problematic, if not faulty.
“It is difficult if not impossible to measure what makes the world better. At the same time, we know that Darwinian design is not in our best interest (if we accept the ‘selfish gene’ hypothesis).”
Yes, we cannot measure it. And this is the tragic if one puts empirical systems over the world. You cannot measure everything. This is the tragic of somebody who thinks you should and could achieve a world where you can measure everything. The great thing with complex systems is, that even if you or we or whoever are trying to control evolution, it will find its way out of our control. I am looking forward to his.
I do not accept the selfish gene hypothesis as THE truth. It is an interesting concept, and Dawkins himself has warned that it might be misread and misused in societal contexts.
Quote: “Is it ethical to continue genetic roulette - to ‘roll the dice’ on those we create?
IMO, we should pursue genetic engineering thus;
1. remove genetic diseases that 99% or more of the population believe to be deficiencies. This will gradually raise the bar on genetic health.
2. allow individuals once they reach the age of consent to pursue ad hoc genetic manipulations of their choice as long as it does not threaten the fundamental rights of others. For example : making one’s self into a sociopath would not be permitted.”
This is interesting, there is a god-narrative – throwing the dice on those WE CREATE ..
First, this could become a form of intelligent design narrative, highly disputable … there is an evangelical flavour to this.
Second, if we all can be what we want to be (and this is what I like here, because I want to be what I want to be) – do you imply that this would have to happen in a value-free scientific not culturally or religiously infused setting … This is not reality. We are products of our environment as much as we shape it. …
I do not like the concept of a future, where evolution is controlled by individuals (after they have been given the choice by either governments, business interests, etc.) and their taste-buds. Do you see the irony, it won’t be their choice as they will be controlled by or dependant on interest groups (like today). So a future, where we seemingly have overcome this narrative homo sapiens (by design) – and by default have formed new groups and societies (this is in human and perhaps also in posthuman nature) - where the greatest happiness for the individual will create the greatest happiness for the world —- Will it create the greatest happiness for the world? Perhaps this can only happen after emotions have been standardised (greed, envy, anger, the wish to kill have been removed) …. , etc. I do not even want to think that somebody wants to go this way. I am not implying that you want to do this, by the way.
I am sceptic!!!!!
Quote:
“The ‘kind of everything’ - what do you mean by this? Do you think that public policy should have a rationale that is testable and objectively observable (scientific), or should it be based upon religious and cultural theories?”
I am highly disputing that public policy should be scientific. It will always be based upon cultural backgrounds and loyalties. (Unfortunately also religious ones). We are the products of our culture and our upbringing (and our genetic make up). We cannot live and act in a culturally empty space and decide that science is going to replace culture and religion. Funnily enough science comes out of philosophy (and religion). That’s just a nice social comment from me (forgive my irony, but you do ask for this) – it is actually a historical fact. I could be cynical and say, freely adapting a quote (Saturn is eating his children). The child is eating Saturn.
Perhaps, we can agree that you want the linearity of your narrative, and I want to open up the discussion. These are two diametrically opposing forces.
PS. I am actually answering your questions or statements. I am making an effort. Perhaps it is not what you want to hear …
Posted by rascheR duB on 04/15 at 09:01 PM
Dear Mr. Niman—
It is simply untrue that eugenics prior to WWII primarily was aimed at alleviating “the tamer idea of ‘undesirable traits’ including traits like hemophilia and Huntington’s disease.” According to the New York Times, eugenics programs in the United States were allowed to perform over 15,000 sterilizations of American citizens between the years of 1907 and 1933 (and the immediate reason that the sterilizations came to a halt in 1933 was not from moral repugnance, but from the exhaustion of funding for eugenics programs as a result of The Great Depression). In fact, during the early years of the Third Reich the Nazis keenly took note of, and envied, the purported advances in American eugenics and upheld the American brand of genetic cleansing as a template for their own racially-infused version of it.
The tutelary spirit behind American eugenics in the early 20th century was not the eradication of disease but, rather, enforcement of conformity and social prejudices by the political and judicial mandarins of the time who felt that the deliberate attrition of human beings was justifiable on the basis of such blustery and vague pseudo-science notions as “genetic pedigrees” and “blood laws” that they believed would ascertain and help winnow out “social wastage,” “imbecility,” “habitual criminality” and “moral turpitude.” (see Nourse, In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near Triumph of American Eugenics, 2008: W.W.Norton).
I agree with you that screening for hereditable disease and “changing one’s own traits . . . is fundamentally different from telling other’s [sic] that they are not allowed to reproduce for the good of the species.” However, please don’t whitewash history in your efforts to distance new eugenic aspirations from the old stigma.
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog