tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post116268247192055563..comments2011-09-14T04:54:27.341-07:00Anne Corwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1162870915125591462006-11-06T19:41:00.000-08:002006-11-06T19:41:00.000-08:00George - <BR/><BR/><I>Most transhumanists, I would argue, tend to be 'biolibertarian' which often translates to an admission that parents should choose what they think it right for their offspring.</I><BR/><BR/>Ideally, yes, parents should be the best judges of what is best for their child, but I think that society itself needs a bit of an overhaul so that parents are not unduly influenced by social pressures rooted in bigotry and fear of things and people who are "different" in some way. <BR/><BR/><I>...fertility clinics (and possibly the state) will at most try to convince people to choose certain traits, but that they could never compel them to make those choices (at least not in liberal societies). </I><BR/><BR/>While I certainly hope you're right about this (and given the history of eugenics so far, and the pseudoscience a lot of it was based on, what with notions of inherent racial superiority and such), one of the things very important to keep in mind is how easily pressured people can be, particularly when the pressure is coming from someone they see as an authority or professional (such as a doctor). <BR/><BR/>Coercion is often not overt. This is where the "normalization" of diversity comes in -- and as I've mentioned before, this is something transhumanists need to be vigilant about promoting, since the advent of morphological modification technologies are going to result in a "diversity explosion" as it is. (Look at SecondLife for an example of this...you very rarely see two people who look the same, even when people have the choice to look basically however they wish).AnneChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1162851069224438902006-11-06T14:11:00.000-08:002006-11-06T14:11:00.000-08:00Great post, Anne. I think we're largely on the same page. Most transhumanists, I would argue, tend to be 'biolibertarian' which often translates to an admission that parents should choose what they think it right for their offspring.<BR/><BR/>I have a question for you, though: in my mind, procreative beneficence is at best an ideal or guideline. I'm not under the impression that anyone is making the coercion argument. My prediction is that fertility clinics (and possibly the state) will at most try to convince people to choose certain traits, but that they could never compel them to make those choices (at least not in liberal societies). That would be top-down eugenics. I think there would be an obvious outcry should something along those lines start to occur.<BR/><BR/>What we can do in preparation for this is to normalize such things as physical and neuro diversity in hopes of preparing future society.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>GeorgeGeorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1162797839740021362006-11-05T23:23:00.000-08:002006-11-05T23:23:00.000-08:00Good question (regarding the self-aware doubles/children). As far as we know the first self-aware electronic being hasn't yet been created (or hasn't emerged from a complex system, however you want to look at it). I certainly don't think it would be a crime to bring any kind of self-aware being into existence, so long as the purpose of that bringing-into-being wasn't any form of exploitation. <BR/><BR/>I'm very leery of the idea that "allowing" someone/something to exist can be a form of abuse in and of itself, regardless of the configuration of that thing/person. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I think that once the means of creating electronic self-awareness is established, we will need to figure out how to *avoid* the development of self-awareness in things primarily required as utilities. <BR/><BR/>I'll try to write a more cheerful post next time. :P Thanks for the food for thought, though...you've given me an interesting idea for a future post. I am very intrigued by the idea of "rules" governing the creation of self-aware beings, even in software.AnneChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1162796838817134812006-11-05T23:07:00.000-08:002006-11-05T23:07:00.000-08:00Hi Anne - what a nice light post :) j.k. about the light What rights/obligations of abortion/deletion should we have with our electronically created self-aware doubles/children?LaBloggahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11279685172995764828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1162682507038617752006-11-04T15:21:00.000-08:002006-11-04T15:21:00.000-08:00Test commentAnneChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.com