Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nortob t1_j4p16dn wrote

Reply to comment by arachnivore in Singularity Mods removed this post about Nick Bostrom defending eugenics by arachnivore

What is it exactly about Bostrom’s view that you disagree with? > In contemporary academic bioethics, the word “eugenics” is sometimes used in different and much broader sense, as including for example the view that prospective parents undergoing IVF should have access to genetic screening and diagnostic tools (as is currently the established practice in many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom). There is a rich bioethical literature on these issues (see e.g. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eugenics/), and it involves many complex moral considerations that cannot be captured in a single word or a slogan. I would be in favor of some uses and against others. Broadly speaking, I’m favorable to wide parental choice in these matters, including for some applications that would qualify as “enhancements” rather than “therapies”—to the extent that this distinction makes sense.

4

arachnivore OP t1_j4p3ars wrote

Why can't you people stay on one subject for more than one reply. It's like debating flat earthers, I swear!

Do you, or do you not understand the difference between Eugenics and Transhumanism?

To answer your question:I think Bostrom is intentionally muddying the waters. I'd love to see him actually point to a single person who believes that genetic screening and diagnostics tools for IVF alone constitute eugenics.

The term has a very clear definition:

>Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

It's not just medicine. It's about breeding a race of people. It necessarily means there is some authority dictating what is desirable and what is undesirable for an entire population.

It has historically been used to horrific ends and it's pretty difficult to see how Bostrom himself might "redefine" it to be something less troubling or how eugenics could be used toward benevolent ends. Why impose your decisions on an entire race of people? Why not let individuals choose for themselves what traits they want or don't want?

Bostrom seems to believe in some form of Eugenics. That's clearly implied by:"Do I support eugenics? No, not as the term is commonly understood."

So there is some other definition of eugenics that he DOES support?All we get for an answer is what he thinks is overly broad (which definitely is NOT "the term as it is commonly understood". IVF genetic screening isn't "commonly understood" to be eugenics by any stretch of the imagination and I think Bostrom fucking knows that!

Does Bostrom believe that people working on such powerful technology should NOT be weary of the possible ill effect their work could have on society? Does he think that chastising the use of racial slurs and bigotry in the academic communication of such science places too much burden on scientists? Really?! That sounds pretty dumb.

1

SoylentRox t1_j4p3nat wrote

Umm, think this came up a few days ago on here.

I support eugenics if the consequences of not doing it are significant and well known.

Like, it's one thing if your 'master race' is buncha people of a particular appearance who are still just humans and capable of losing.

On the other hand, if the edits make people, say:

(1) live for centuries (2) regenerate limbs (3) they are all smarter than the smartest people who ever lived (4) they are better in every sport all the time, with modified tissue that gives them superhuman strength and toughness (5) They all look like models, from age 15 to age 950.

Once you are talking about such vast improvements - something a super-intelligence could likely work out exactly how to do in a matter of a few years once one exists - it's arguably dooming any unedited child to, well, being retarded, ugly, and dead at 80.

In that situation, your "principals" have a crippling and large cost to someone not yet born.

1

arachnivore OP t1_j4p447n wrote

You've completely ignored the whole part of Eugenics that makes it fraught with problems:

>Why impose your decisions on an entire race of people? Why not let individuals choose for themselves what traits they want or don't want?

I've repeated this so so so many times. It's not rocket science.

2

SoylentRox t1_j4p4loq wrote

For the same reason we make parents vaccinate their children and send them to school. Because we know what happens if you don't do that.

1

arachnivore OP t1_j4p5pyf wrote

Jesus christ. There's a line between keeping your children from dying and dictating the color of their skin. Somewhere in the middle there is complicated ground where the answer isn't so clear if something is for the good of a child or eugenics and that definitely deserves discussion, but it's not this bullshit of:

>Hurr! durr! Transhumanism = Eugenics! Hurr! Durr!

That everyone in this post is replying to me with like a bunch of lobotomized dipshits.

The problem is: The mods seem to think burying discussion about the problems of eugenics is a good idea and Nick Bostrom seems to think the main problem is that its frowned upon in academia when you act like a huge bigot, use racial slurs, and spout debunked Nazi "science".

Like, yeah Nick, I'm sure we'd be making way more progress in the field if we just let a bunch of racist trolls publish their "work". That must really be the biggest problem facing the field. \s

1