Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

Haven't read the book, but I disagree. Humanity has survived on planet Earth for as long as it has soley by it's ability to adapt to almost any enviroment or situation, and if we can increase our abilities further we are still technically human and have dignity.

I think there's more to being human that just having the physical characteristics of a human...... there are.... psychological characteristics.... that are important to preserve as well. As far as surviving on planet earth.... the most direct threat to our continued survival on earth is..... us. specifically run away technologies like nuclear power and potentially biomedical technologies as well.

I think I would have to read how he defines human nature before I could agree or disagree with that.

If he believes that replacing body parts makes us less human, where does that leave people with prosethetics or pacemakers?

well in fairness I've only read the first 10 or 15 pages.... his argument is going to be more about psychological than physical characteristics. For instance if you could take a pill that could change your personality - make you outgoing instead of reserved, or vice versa, would it be ethical to do so? would it be ethical to make such a thing? His answer I'm pretty sure is no, since it would involve fundamental changes to our nature as humans.

But I couldnt say just how he defines human nature since I havent gotten that far.

Edit: Never mind, I don't really know what to say on a phsycological debate. as per your above post, I got nothin.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

I've read it. Fukuyama is probably my favorite conservative/neoconservative author. He really works hard to justify his positions on rational grounds, even if I generally disagree with him.

That said, I don't know that you have really encapsulated his thesis. To my mind it wasn't that general. I don't think he really extends the threat to anything beyond liberal democracy. Fukuyama would probably contend that liberal democracy is synonymous with human nature, but that is also, to my mind, one of the weaker elements of his amalgamated argument set (ie. things he has argued before).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well in fairness I've only read the first 10 or 15 pages.... his argument is going to be more about psychological than physical characteristics. For instance if you could take a pill that could change your personality - make you outgoing instead of reserved, or vice versa, would it be ethical to do so? would it be ethical to make such a thing? His answer I'm pretty sure is no, since it would involve fundamental changes to our nature as humans.

Fukuyama isn't particularly knowledgeable wit h regard to neuroscience, and I think that he leans on a division between the "mind and matter" that has been shown to be almost entirely non-existent. As such, it makes sense to view his argument in light of certain revelations regarding the nature of the mind that he may not be aware of (Searle would be a good palce to start).

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

The short answer? Fukuyama's a xenophobic idiot. The long answer: Humans are the dominant species on the planet due to our capacity to change. Refusing to adapt further means consigning ourselves to a slow death of our own making. Mind you, I've got no problem with people wanting to avoid transhuman technology themselves. They just need to realise that their refusal to change can't be the grounds to deny others access to the technology, and that they'll eventually render themselves obsolete.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think there's more to being human that just having the physical characteristics of a human...... there are.... psychological characteristics.... that are important to preserve as well.

If the mind and body are not truly separate, then how can you preserve psychological characteristics without preserving physical ones?

I mean, my way of viewing the world, and my resultant psychology, would be very different if I were able to fly. Airport stress would fade from my mind altogether!

Sounds like an interesting read at the very least.

I really should read non-fiction once in a while, so I'm more prepared to debate morality on the internet.

I honestly don't have a clear opinion on this, it would require more though on the matter, but taking the example you gave of a Personality changing pill (assuming it was a permanent change, rather than a temporary effect); I would equate that (loosely) to say plastic surgery people have to remove/change aspects of their appearance they don't like.

It's not something I would personally do, as I am comfortable with who I am*, but I am aware that there are people with psychological issues who cannot deal with aspects of themselves, and such treatment can be life-saving in some cases.

That said, once the technology becomes available I will certainly sign up to be "Faster, Better, Stronger"

Laughing Man wrote:
The short answer? Fukuyama's a xenophobic idiot. The long answer: Humans are the dominant species on the planet due to our capacity to change. Refusing to adapt further means consigning ourselves to a slow death of our own making. Mind you, I've got no problem with people wanting to avoid transhuman technology themselves. They just need to realise that their refusal to change can't be the grounds to deny others access to the technology, and that they'll eventually render themselves obsolete.

I think that's hyperbolic. Fukuyama fears transhuman technology for good reason; namely that it is an absolutely unprecedented phenomenon that has serious implications for our conception of things as basic as equal opportunity (regardless of whether or not you feel that such a thing exists).

After all, we can't settle on universal health care now. How does that compare to a reality in which designer babies are possible; especially if said babies can be 'encoded' to be predisposed towards a certain way of thinking (assuming such a thing is even possible)?

I think the strictly physiological* implications of biotechnological advances aren't too worrying (with the exception of aging, I suppose). If everyone in the year 2070 has four arms, what does that matter?

I think a serious look into the issue would be centered on the psychological/neurological side of things.

*While there may not be a true bright line between the physiological and the psychological, I think a rough enough division can be made, for whatever purposes we need here.

well I hope he wont say that liberal democracy is synonymous with human nature..... we dont even know if its synonymous with an industrialized economy yet, let alone human nature. If there's any kind of political system that has a proven track record of being synonymous with human nature it is..... monarchy.

maybe I havent captured his thesis quite.... It's late night reading and I just started the book...

his view of human nature as a constant seems to me more or less accurate, but I'm not sure that I agree with his thesis that a change in that nature is inherently bad. Alot of our most basic problems arise from the contradictions inherent in that nature. Political problems, for instance, cannot have any end as long as states are composed of people with their current set of predispositions, because people always turn to their political leaders to help them solve their problems, but the root of their problems is.... themselves. their unrealistic expectations, their inability to limit their desires, etc. politics is in alot of respects a gigantic rearguard action fought against the insatiable demands of the electorate.

Without having heard his arguments out, and I'm really interested to see what he has to say, my position on this subject would be a transhumanist one: since our worst problems as a species have more to do with what we are than with what we do, those problems cannot have any lasting resolution without a permanent alteration in our human nature. That nature is not sacrosanct. It clearly has enormous capacity for evil. If we want to eliminate that evil and bring about the utopia that humans have been dreaming about ever since the beginning of time, then that goal can only be achieved by fundamentally altering our nature as humans. It is a profoundly ethical thing to do.
AF



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its the title of a book by Francis Fukuyama. I wonder if anyone has read it? I'm just starting and its pretty interesting. His thesis is that certain kinds of biotechnology are inherently dangerous to human nature and that the state should prohibit research into these areas, not on religious grounds, but on the grounds of human dignity - ie that any alteration in our basic nature as human beings would be morally wrong. Any thoughts?

The short answer? Fukuyama's a xenophobic idiot. The long answer: Humans are the dominant species on the planet due to our capacity to change. Refusing to adapt further means consigning ourselves to a slow death of our own making. Mind you, I've got no problem with people wanting to avoid transhuman technology themselves. They just need to realise that their refusal to change can't be the grounds to deny others access to the technology, and that they'll eventually render themselves obsolete.

I wonder. Only states and corporations have access to the funding necessary to carry out biomedical research. If the state prohibits it, how can it be carried out? One might argue that if 1 state prohibits it the others will just leave it behind, but I disagree. Globalization is wiping out regional jurisdictions - if a single set of conventions governs the whole earth, those forms of research would simply become impossible to carry out. AF

Of course, we could just destroy humanity in a nuclear holocaust as well. We certainly wouldn't have any problems to deal with!

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If we want to eliminate that evil and bring about the utopia that humans have been dreaming about ever since the beginning of time, then that goal can only be achieved by fundamentally altering our nature as humans. It is a profoundly ethical thing to do.

That sounds awfully similar to the justification behind the medication everyone was forced to take in Equilibrium, though I'm fairly certain your intent was different.

From what I remember from my very basic understanding of human psychology, wouldn't removing our capacity for hatred also have a strong possibility to remove our capacity for love? I seem to recall opposite emotions being essentially different ends of the same scale, though that may be something I simply imagined.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think the strictly physiological* implications of biotechnological advances aren't too worrying (with the exception of aging, I suppose). If everyone in the year 2070 has four arms, what does that matter?

I think a serious look into the issue would be centered on the psychological/neurological side of things.

*While there may not be a true bright line between the physiological and the psychological, I think a rough enough division can be made, for whatever purposes we need here.

yes I think its the psychological implications that worry him the most. although past a certain point physiological changes necessitate psychological changes too. I mean if you could breathe like a fish and started spending all day underwater it would change the way your mind worked on some level, bc you would have a totally different set of experiences than someone who didnt do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If we want to eliminate that evil and bring about the utopia that humans have been dreaming about ever since the beginning of time, then that goal can only be achieved by fundamentally altering our nature as humans. It is a profoundly ethical thing to do.

That sounds awfully similar to the justification behind the medication everyone was forced to take in Equilibrium, though I'm fairly certain your intent was different.

From what I remember from my very basic understanding of human psychology, wouldn't removing our capacity for hatred also have a strong possibility to remove our capacity for love? I seem to recall opposite emotions being essentially different ends of the same scale, though that may be something I simply imagined.

thats a good point. I dont have any practical ideas about in what ways it ought to be done. I just think that if its feasible, and it almost certainly is, then we ought to do it. Its really a subject we know very little about. On the subject of unintended consequences Fukuyama brings up the possibility of genetically selecting people for intelligence. I dont think it would work. A smarter brain is a more complex brain. A more complex brain is more prone to instability. Simply put a nation full of geniuses is potentially also a nation full of lunatics, since the smarter people get, often, the weirder they get..... if I had to guess the human mind is optimally tuned around an IQ of 120... at least for the environment that a middle class person in an industrial country has to deal with day in and day out. the optimal IQ for say a mideval peasant is probably well below that; environmental factors would have to be a huge component. Anyway past that you're pushing the limits - the performance specifications, if you will - of the human brain (here's where everyone on dakka who thinks they're a brainiac makes some snide remark about how smart they are.....)
AF

AF wrote:yes I think its the psychological implications that worry him the most. although past a certain point physiological changes necessitate psychological changes too. I mean if you could breathe like a fish and started spending all day underwater it would change the way your mind worked on some level, bc you would have a totally different set of experiences than someone who didnt do that.

True, but of course that extends beyond physiological changes entirely. For instance, literacy changed people's mental composition quite a bit, as have electronics I'm sure.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think the strictly physiological* implications of biotechnological advances aren't too worrying (with the exception of aging, I suppose). If everyone in the year 2070 has four arms, what does that matter?

I think a serious look into the issue would be centered on the psychological/neurological side of things.

*While there may not be a true bright line between the physiological and the psychological, I think a rough enough division can be made, for whatever purposes we need here.

To my mind the real issue relates to the unequal, or at least highly restricted, distribution of 'physiological' enhancements. Four arms may be an awesome adaptation to contemporary 'human' life, but if that adaptation isn't given equal distribution, then issues are likely to be significant. Probably even more so if 4 arms significantly hinder 'human' life. I'm not thinking so much with respect to 'physical' performance, as the psychological repercussions of 'physical' performance.

I suppose the nearest, present analogue would be amputees, and how they react to the distinct differences of their bodies. And how society reacts to them.

Ooh, that's a good point. I hadn't really considered it that far.

Orkeosaurus
yes a certain amount of psychological flexibility is inherent. I think fukuyama might be overestimating the continuity between human nature as the egyptians knew it and human nature as we know it, though its too early to be sure.

Orkeosaurus wrote:True, but of course that extends beyond physiological changes entirely. For instance, literacy changed people's mental composition quite a bit, as have electronics I'm sure.

But those differences are relatively difficult to perceive. A third or fourth arm bring the matter of varying capacity into the realm of race, or ethnicity.

And, for issues regarding artificial manipulation of one's own body, we need only look at things like steroids, or even something cosmetic like plastic surgery.

But now the amputees could be people, not who have lost something through an accident, but who have lost something because they compete with people who have it and never had an opportunity to acquire it in the 1st place.

Fukuyama's concern about political and economic inequality coming out of biotechnology are clearly well justified, although in truth that would not be a new process - it would be an acceleration of a process of the hoarding of economic and political power in the hands of the able and of their descendants that has been going on since the greeks at least. Class warfare at lightning speed.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:But now the amputees could be people, not who have lost something through an accident, but who have lost something because they compete with people who have it and never had an opportunity to acquire it in the 1st place.

True, I was merely speaking to their relative situation in society. Its not a perfect analogue, but I don't think we can do much better.

Possibly birth defect sufferers? I'm really trying to get at how individuals and society react to unusual physical characteristics, both possessively and observationally. The 'nuclear' (*chuckle*) example is a character like Doctor Manhattan, who losese his humanity because he becomes so incredibly distinct from other humans.

More subtly, cultural variations, even due to something as ephemeral as wealth, seems to produce significant differences in the way people perceive the world. A third arm could very well do something similar.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Fukuyama's concern about political and economic inequality coming out of biotechnology are clearly well justified, although in truth that would not be a new process - it would be an acceleration of a process of the hoarding of economic and political power in the hands of the able and of their descendants that has been going on since the greeks at least. Class warfare at lightning speed.

To an extent I agree with you, but I'm also inclined to think that this is a bit different. Adding an extra hand, or innoculating yourself to cancer, is not quite the same as going through painful treatment of cancer that others cannot afford. And, even if they are essentially the same, it seems that the public perception of these things is very different.

#1: People already ingest substances that change their personality, and I'm not just talking about illegal drugs. what would happen to society if you all of a sudden banned caffeine and alcohol? Also, there is fluoride in the water, which was first given to concentration camp inmates by the Nazis to make them docile.

#2: With regards to dignity, have you watched TV lately? Dignity is going the way of the dinosaurs.

#3: We're becoming more and more merged with machines and mechanical components all the time, genetic engineering is gaining ground in sophistication faster than most people are aware of, and there will always be a market for it regardless of the ethical concerns.

I'm not going to get into the authors apparent political leanings, because I think that all politics is gak, but it seems like however right or wrong he is, his opinions are irrelevant to reality.We are no longer part of the process of evolution. Our progress as a species and a civilization is linked to technology.

What creates, and demands, technology?

Our brains make us human. If you argue its our physical form, then are horribly disfigured or deformed people less human?

Screw that man, soon as the technology becomes available I want a robot spanking arm.

Just saw this thread. Sorry I'm late. I have a $25 gift card for Borders and I think I know what to use it for now.

Having not read it, I have to say I am, and have been for a long time, very conflicted about the idea of human alteration. The movie "gattaca" paints a pretty bleak view of it. Working with handicapped people or terminally ill people also affects the weighing of compassion versus evolution. We would all like to be perfected, for our kids to be perfect, and who can blame us? It must suck to wake up every day and know that you have some congenital disease that is no fault of your own that just makes you a burden on everyone around you. It must also be horrible to realize that you are smarter than your teacher but forced to just deal with it because everyone else has to play on the same field.

I think moral/technological advancement is the new evolution, and in a way, the end of real biological evolution. Were it not for medical technology and compassion, all of the inferior traits like mental retardation, paulsy, muscular dystrophy, heck even near-sightedness; They all would have been bred out by now. Instead we have to coddle the weaker out of a sense of righteous moral obligation. I don't have a problem with that mind you, from a personal perspective, but from an objective point of view regarding our species in a bigger picture, these things are not helpful to physical evolution, in fact quite contrary to it, but perhaps helpful in a sense of social evolution.

The animal world favors the big and strong and healthy. The human world understands more value in less tangiable or quantifiable things like love, pity, compassion, duty, and faith - but many great people (my friend just recently) just get a crap lot in life and sooner or later you don't want to keep the failure genes going, their undeserved struggle going, and you pull the plug instead of trying to fix someone who can't be fixed. It sounds cruel on a personal level, but from a species level, our technology keeps a failed geneaology going, for very good and compassionate reasons that anyone who isn't a sociopath would be able to appreciate. Our compassion is a matter of evolution now, more than if we are near-sighted, cancer prone, diabetes prone, birth defects, and so on which make up a large number of people who would have died off long ago in the animal world.

Imagine that you had an adult human brain growing from conception in a jar; the jar supplied it with oxygen, nutrients, etc, but the brain had no sensory organs at all; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc, and there was no further method of transferring information into this brain. Could this thing be considered human? I don't think so. If nothing else, some form of perception going beyond the brain is a necessity.

mattyrm wrote:Our brains make us human. If you argue its our physical form, then are horribly disfigured or deformed people less human?

Screw that man, soon as the technology becomes available I want a robot spanking arm.

Yes, people with prosthesis are inhuman monsters that are more man than machine.

The brain is a biological computer, no? Your personality and memories are merely firing neurons. Does that not make everything you are as a human tied to your physical form?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Imagine that you had an adult human brain growing from conception in a jar; the jar supplied it with oxygen, nutrients, etc, but the brain had no sensory organs at all; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc, and there was no further method of transferring information into this brain. Could this thing be considered human? I don't think so. If nothing else, some form of perception going beyond the brain is a necessity.

On a similar note, what about people who are missing what is usually considered to be a vital human quality, such as empathy?
In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Bladerunner), empathy is basically what seperates the replicants from humans; they can emulate it to an extent, but they dont really understand it.

So, are sociopaths human? By my understanding, a true sociopath will generally lack empathy and compassion; If it were possible to chemically create these qualities, would that make them human?