Transhumanism & Eugenics

Provided you have the slightest interest in transhumanism, you have no doubt heard the accusation: 'transhumanists wish to reopen the eugenics debate!'. This document deals with that issue.

It's very informative, so I warmly recommend it (and the rest of the H+ FAQ) as reading for all group members.

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]3.2 Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]Eugenics in the narrow sense refers to the pre-WWII movement in Europe and the United States to involuntarily sterilize the “genetically unfit” and encourage breeding of the genetically advantaged. These ideas are entirely contrary to the tolerant humanistic and scientific tenets of transhumanism. In addition to condemning the coercion involved in such policies, transhumanists strongly reject the racialist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the notion that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful timeframe through selective human breeding.[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica] Transhumanists uphold the principles of bodily autonomy and procreative liberty. Parents must be allowed to choose for themselves whether to reproduce, how to reproduce, and what technological methods they use in their reproduction. The use of genetic medicine or embryonic screening to increase the probability of a healthy, happy, and multiply talented child is a responsible and justifiable application of parental reproductive freedom.[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]Beyond this, one can argue that parents have a moral responsibility to make use of these methods, assuming they are safe and effective. Just as it would be wrong for parents to fail in their duty to procure the best available medical care for their sick child, it would be wrong not to take reasonable precautions to ensure that a child-to-be will be as healthy as possible. This, however, is a moral judgment that is best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law. Only in extreme and unusual cases might state infringement of procreative liberty be justified. If, for example, a would-be parent wished to undertake a genetic modification that would be clearly harmful to the child or would drastically curtail its options in life, then this prospective parent should be prevented by law from doing so. This case is analogous to the state taking custody of a child in situations of gross parental neglect or child abuse.[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]This defense of procreative liberty is compatible with the view that states and charities can subsidize public health, prenatal care, genetic counseling, contraception, abortion, and genetic therapies so that parents can make free and informed reproductive decisions that result in fewer disabilities in the next generation. Some disability activists would call these policies eugenic, but society may have a legitimate interest in whether children are born healthy or disabled, leading it to subsidize the birth of healthy children, without actually outlawing or imposing particular genetic modifications.[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]When discussing the morality of genetic enhancements, it is useful to be aware of the distinction between enhancements that are intrinsically beneficial to the child or society on the one hand, and, on the other, enhancements that provide a merely positional advantage to the child. For example, health, cognitive abilities, and emotional well-being are valued by most people for their own sake. It is simply nice to be healthy, happy and to be able to think well, quite independently of any other advantages that come from possessing these attributes. By contrast, traits such as attractiveness, athletic prowess, height, and assertiveness seem to confer benefits that are mostly positional, i.e. they benefit a person by making her more competitive (e.g. in sports or as a potential mate), at the expense of those with whom she will compete, who suffer a corresponding disadvantage from her enhancement. Enhancements that have only positional advantages ought to be de-emphasized, while enhancements that create net benefits ought to be encouraged.[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]It is sometimes claimed that the use of germinal choice technologies would lead to an undesirable uniformity of the population. Some degree of uniformity is desirable and expected if we are able to make everyone congenitally healthy, strong, intelligent, and attractive. Few would argue that we should preserve cystic fibrosis because of its contribution to diversity. But other kinds of diversity are sure to flourish in a society with germinal choice, especially once adults are able to adapt their own bodies according to their own aesthetic tastes. Presumably most Asian parents will still choose to have children with Asian features, and if some parents choose genes that encourage athleticism, others may choose genes that correlate with musical ability.[/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]It is unlikely that germ-line genetic enhancements will ever have a large impact on the world. It will take a minimum of forty or fifty years for the requisite technologies to be developed, tested, and widely applied and for a significant number of enhanced individuals to be born and reach adulthood. Before this happens, more powerful and direct methods for individuals to enhance themselves will probably be available, based on nanomedicine, artificial intelligence, uploading, or somatic gene therapy. (Traditional eugenics, based on selecting who is allowed to reproduce, would have even less prospect of avoiding preemptive obsolescence, as it would take many generations to deliver its purported improvements.)[/FONT]

Link

So, what do you HPG comrades think of this? Do our transhumanist members feel that they can identify with the views presented in this document? And how does it sound to our non-transhumanist members..?

Personally, as a transhumanist, I feel that this makes a lot of sense and describes my own position rather well.

I've been doing some research on eugenics, and I want to know what technocrats/transhumanists think of it. What circumstances do you think it is justified and how far should we go with it?

Basically, eugenics is fine as long as it is non-coercive. The problem with is with it's name, or rather the historical baggage that comes with the name. Forms of eugenics such as germline engineering only raise eyebrows among the anti-GM nutcase crowd, but raise the question of eugenics and everyone and their bleeding dog calls you a monster and the next Hitler.

A related phenomenon is the whole "designer babies" scare dreamed up by an irresponsible, sensationalist media. I think it is the task of transhumanists everywhere to combat this nonsense as well as the aforementioned "you-said-eugenics-therefore-you-Hitler" fallacy.

Well, what do you mean by eugenics? What positive applications do you think it has?

Topics merged -- I had just recently started a thread on transhumanism and eugenics, so no need to have two threads on this open. I think the opening post excerpt from the transhumanist FAQ explains the transhumanism-eugenics connection pretty well, and I agree with it personally. Hopefully it's helpful for your study, RO.

Topics merged -- I had just recently started a thread on transhumanism and eugenics, so no need to have two threads on this open. I think the opening post excerpt from the transhumanist FAQ explains the transhumanism-eugenics connection pretty well, and I agree with it personally. Hopefully it's helpful for your study, RO.

Thanks, I didn't see that thread when I made mine. The article helps a lot with my understanding of eugenics, and I agree with it.

i agree with that position aswell its only logical to give our children every possible benefit that we can.

I just made this post, which I feel sums up my take on transhumanism and eugenics pretty well, in the CC:

How would society go about "improving our species"

You seem to assume (or at least it sounds like that way) that society would forcefully impose something on people. This is not the purpose of transhumanists, as a matter of fact it's the prime difference between the eugenics fascists and other nutters advocate, and the kind we support.

They attempt to improve (it should be pointed out here that the eugenics performed by these criminals has seldom actually 'improved' jack shit, but has rather been based on racist pseudo-science, like Jazzratt already pointed out) the human genepool by authoritarian methods -- such as deciding who gets to procreate and who doesn't with forced sterilisations etc.

We, on the otherhand, wish to do it by providing all human beings with the opportunity to cut the biological chains imposed by them on 'nature' with the help of technology. They wish to restrict people, we wish to set people free.

The improvements we stand for would not be forced upon people by the society -- other than in the same fashion you already are forced to use technology to be an equal and functioning member of society today. This is just the way technological progres works, and that's something inevitable and unstoppable, something we should accept and embrace as welcome.

When it comes to the improvement of the genome of the unborn, it's obviously impossible to ask for consent. But I for one would thank the people who had 'saved me' from the terrible fate of living 200 years instead of 70, and having perfect vision instead of my current -4.75, with a fist in the eye.

and what do you mean by "improvement"?

Eliminating hereditary diseases and weakness, enhancing the intellect and physical capabilities, curing damage caused by physical trauma or aging, and prolonging life -- with the help of a combination of genetic engineering and cybernetics -- sounds like a good start to me.

It is not clear to me why this should rebuttle should even be necessary. Eugenics in the strictest sense refers to either killing or sterilizing individuals deemed to be "unfit". Unless one claims the embryo should be considered an individual, and "embryonic screening" is tantamount to killing genetically unfit individuals, the analogy between transhumanism and eugenics fails. Since we don't consider the foetus/embryo to be an individual endowed with the same human rights as the rest of us, the analogy is a mute point.

Therefore it is troubling to me that this passage proceeds as follows:

[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica]Some disability activists would call these policies eugenic, but society may have a legitimate interest in whether children are born healthy or disabled, leading it to subsidize the birth of healthy children, without actually outlawing or imposing particular genetic modifications.[/FONT]

This passage fails to address the concerns of the disabilities rights advocates. Subsidizing the genetic eradication of congenital disabilities from the gene pool is less draconian than traditional eugenics.

However, it still assumes a perspective of "some humans are better than others". This assumption deeply contradicts to our egalitarian ideals.

The argument pays lip-service to the idea of diversity, but there is a serious problem of a slippery slope. What about those with a genetic "defect" (say, someone with six fingers) whose parents didn't elect to have gene therapy? Are we telling them that society is willing to expend money and resources to see that freaks of their kind are eradicated? What about people born with < 100 IQ points? Or somebody who doesn't appear as conventionally attractive? Or someone with dark skin? What is considered an "acceptable" genetic defect that could be eradicated, at social expense?

This is a very serious gray area that the articles does not deal with well.

It is not clear to me why this should rebuttle should even be necessary. Eugenics in the strictest sense refers to either killing or sterilizing individuals deemed to be "unfit". Unless one claims the embryo should be considered an individual, and "embryonic screening" is tantamount to killing genetically unfit individuals, the analogy between transhumanism and eugenics fails. Since we don't consider the foetus/embryo to be an individual endowed with the same human rights as the rest of us, the analogy is a mute point.

Therefore it is troubling to me that this passage proceeds as follows:



This passage fails to address the concerns of the disabilities rights advocates. Subsidizing the genetic eradication of congenital disabilities from the gene pool is less draconian than traditional eugenics.

However, it still assumes a perspective of "some humans are better than others". This assumption deeply contradicts to our egalitarian ideals.

The argument pays lip-service to the idea of diversity, but there is a serious problem of a slippery slope. What about those with a genetic "defect" (say, someone with six fingers) whose parents didn't elect to have gene therapy? Are we telling them that society is willing to expend money and resources to see that freaks of their kind are eradicated? What about people born with < 100 IQ points? Or somebody who doesn't appear as conventionally attractive? Or someone with dark skin? What is considered an "acceptable" genetic defect that could be eradicated, at social expense?

This is a very serious gray area that the articles does not deal with well.

I don't think we should stop recognizing that disabled people can all contribute greatly to society, which is why people wouldn't be forced to do these things. If someone with 6 fingers was happy with six fingers, society wouldn't track them down and amputate one. But if that person decided they would like one less finger, society would give them the proper resorces to have that.

But if that person decided they would like one less finger, society would give them the proper resorces to have that.

What if the person, or their parents, decided to have this person go down to ONE finger? If we say society will pay for people to have five fingers, no more no less, we are still basically saying "Four legs good, two legs better".