Episode 11 of Existence is Wonderful Audio has been posted and is ready for download—click here if you are interested and not already subscribed. Sorry it took so long to produce a new episode; the last one came out in March, and things have been pretty busy since then. And this one was very tricky to produce—mostly because of the content, which lies somewhere outside my primary areas of focus. I didn’t touch much on life extension specifically in this episode, so those of you who are ONLY interested in hearing about longevity science might want to skip it. My main topic of discussion this time was the notion of a “genetic divide”—that is, the notion that advances in genetic and reproductive technology might lead to a schism between the biological “haves” and “have-nots”.
And so far I don’t think that my opinion on this subject is likely to be shared by, well, anyone. I am not in favor of banning all genetic technologies, nor do I think there is anything “sacred” about the human genome. Every one of us is a mutant, after all; there’s no such thing as a “standard” human to begin with. But at the same time, I do think that there are some caveats that ought to be kept in mind when approaching things like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It is very difficult to write (or talk) about this because I feel like I need to hang massive disclaimers on everything so as to avoid being generalized into a “pro-technology” or “anti-technology” faction when my views cannot possibly be simplified in that way. And I also realized when preparing the script for this podcast that I have what I consider to be two primary areas of focus in my own flavor of transhumanism: life extension, and the use of technology to improve and enhance the lives of people who already exist.
I actually have tremendous difficulty addressing certain areas of bioethical discourse. And part of the reason I have so much trouble writing about these topics (like “designer babies”) is because frequently in such cases, we are dealing with hypothetical/theoretical beings as opposed to living individuals. It is a lot harder, in my mind, to make a case for configuring future generations a certain way than it is to make a case for helping people in the present generation access technologies and modifications that would help them live longer, happier, more functional lives. I think that outside trying to allow people to live longer lives and suffer fewer illnesses like cancer and heart disease, it is exceedingly difficult to claim that we truly know what future generations are likely to thank us for. And I don’t think that utilitarian calculations, or decisions made on the basis of prejudice, are valid means to make choices and institute policy regarding the fate of all those hypothetical embryos swimming in potential-space.
So, with that in mind, I hope Episode 11 at least comprises some sort of food for thought.
Links of Interest Pertaining To This Episode
1. Nice writeup on ‘The Gimp Parade’ on the subject of “race as disability” following an interesting mishap at a fertility clinic.
2. An abstract on “procreative beneficence”, something I have a fair number of philosophical problems with. It seems like one of those “sounds good on the surface, but actually has a lot of flaws” terms—sort of like “pro-life”.
3. James Hughes on, Ensuring Universal Access to Enhancing Technologies.
Listen/View
IEET Blog