Response: Replacing vs. Enhancing

In response to Andrew Nelson's post "Human-Directed Evolution" (5/5/2012):

I do not think that continuing to pursue 'artificial evolution' is at all a bad idea; in fact, I think it is a very good one.  While science-fiction novels and films frequently depict dystopian futures wherein 'normal' humans have to show that they have some kind of special quality that makes them better than 'enhanced' humans, in reality I think that taking advantage of technological enhancements would have relatively few negative effects.  Of course, such advancements could very lead to a class divide, but that is a problem of capitalism rather than of the technology itself.  In a socialist or communism society, the advancements would only be positive, and anyone who chose to could take advantage of them.

This last point is why I prefer the idea of technological enhancements to eugenics - because enhancements are available to pre-existing people, rather than to a new generation.  This would make them, I think, much more appealing to many people, because they do not make already-living people 'defunct.'  This makes the idea much more practical, as it is more likely to garner mass support.

Ancient Debates - Inherited Guilt

Many old texts, whether religious, fictional, or historical, exhibit a particularly interesting variation on LaMarke's invalid theory of evolution - namely, the idea of inherited guilt.  These texts suggest that if one's forbears committed immoral acts, one is guilty of those acts by proxy.  The Bible provides numerous examples of this; the concept of original sin (that is, all of humanity is guilty due to Adam and Eve's initial sin of eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge) illustrates it well, as does the statement that illegitimate children (and their descendants for nine subsequent generations) cannot enter heaven.  Contemporary examples of this type of thinking also, unfortunately, exist; the idea that descendants of Nazis (regardless of their own opinions of their ancestors' actions) owe the descendants of those who suffered due to the holocaust occurs with alarming frequency.  Subtler examples are even more widespread and perhaps more insidious; people may assume that, because one's parents were alcoholic, one will inevitably become an alcoholic oneself.  These cases do have some basis in fact - growing up around alcoholics may predispose one towards alcoholism oneself - but they are far from certain.  Many circumstances, both internal and external, can cause one to reject the lifestyles of one's guardians or mentor figures.

Response: Intelligence vs. Knowledge

In response to Katie Emerson's post "Are We Getting Dumber?" (April 28, 2012):

Before answering this question, I think one must distinguish between the related, but separate, concepts of knowledge and intelligence.  Knowledge refers simply to the amount of information one possesses about the world.  Intelligence refers to one's ability to understand, process, and learn new information, and come up with original ideas.  I do think that, in some cases, technology can result in decreased knowledge.  However, I do not think that it results in decreased intelligence.  Furthermore, much of the seeming decrease in knowledge which many modern Americans exhibit is likely due less to technology than to sub-par educational systems.  Regardless of the existence of spell-check, if schools require students to write a decent number of papers by hand or on programs without spell-check, the students will learn how to spell.  Similarly, reading a lot as a child significantly enhances one's spelling and grammatical skills later in life.  Incorporating higher-level reading instruction into lower-grade curricula would help young students develop both better spelling skills and a better grasp of correct grammar.

Q&A 10, Second Answer

My question is: What implications would radical freedom have for current ethical thought?

I think that accepting radical freedom would effectively demolish ethics.  Ethical theory often relies heavily on the idea that there is, or must be, an objective standard of morality, and radical freedom claims that such a thing is totally nonexistent.  This would cause ethics to deteriorate into an ultimately pointless study of individual codes of morality.

Of course, if the theory of radical freedom is actually true, then humanity should probably accept it as such.  Personally I do not think that it is true.  Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to prove that an objective morality exists.  Proof, however, may not be necessary; probability does seem to indicate the existence of an objective morality, and due to the problems which accepting radical freedom would cause, it is probably best for humanity to act upon the assumption that morality is in fact objective.