I am not sure where the moral outrage I see expressed fairly regularly here
about biology and technology comes from.
Is it that such things simply should not be known?
or
is it that folks don't trust people to act humanely if biology is well
understood?
or, I suppose
both?
I sometimes get the feelling that the ideas themselves are considered
anti-human and that demostrating that some of them are resulting in
consequential technologies is understood as morally bankrupt.
Am I misreading the position?
Should we be angry at the theorists, the technologizers, or the people who
consume the technology?
Instant caveat: I too am outraged by the idea of Soma; but, that outrage
has to share some place of honor with my outrage at the presence in the
lives of friends and relatives of Altzheimers, aids dementia, Parkinson's,
suicidal depression, and other, demonstrably organic, definitely
dehumanizing, conditions. Where does the baby end and the bath water begin?
John St. Julien
>Re our recent discussion on the emerging neo-eugenics:
>
>I just had to share this with you all. It's especially nasty. I've come
>across some insidious stuff lately, but this one really takes the cherry.
>It's from a piece by
>
>Coates, J. (1998). "The next twenty-five years of technology: opportunities
>and risks". In 21st Century technologies: Promises and perils of a dynamic
>future, OECD. (1998), (pp. 33-46). Paris: OECD.
>
>"Every mental characteristic, whether it is a matter of personality,
>cognition, or emotionality, will eventually be identified as a biochemical
>process which is itself largely genetically determined and hence a
>candidate for intervention. Those interventions may be pharmaceutical or
>they may be genetic, acoustic, visual, or by means yet to be developed [as
>if the former already had been PG]. A substantial step in the direction of
>brain technology is the current popularity (!) of the drug Prozac , which
>was developed to deal with depression. So far it is the closest approach to
>Aldous Huxley's soma, the "feel good" drug. It has in just a few years
>become one of the most widely sold drugs in the United States.
>
>The demand is there for mental improvement and enhancement, and the
>technologies are just beginning to emerge. Within the next decade,
>schizophrenia and psychotic depression will be history in World 1 [I assume
>he means the First World here PG], as the fundamental physiology, genetics
>and biochemistry are worked out and the appropriate cures =96 or more
>importantly, preventative strategies =96 are developed. Brain technologies
>will go well beyond disease, offering relief for the person who is
>short-tempered the person who has no sense of humour, the person who is
>overly emotional. And relief from these conditions will find a substantial
>market. Beyond that will be the possibility and later the practice of
>enhancing people's cognitive processes, enabling them to think more
>clearly, to have a better command of arithmetic, to have a better memory
>for faces, to be more generous and loving, or to be less prideful or
>slothful." (Coates, 1998, p. 42).
>
>Policy goons are formulating laws (the US has already ratified this
>perspective in law) on the basis of these fundamentalist lunatics' work.
>This guy _wants_ Huxley's Brave New World. He really believes in it. Huxley
>was also a eugenicist, wasn't he? Or was that his father? ... Arrrhgggggg,
>what the hell ..
>
>Phil
>Phil Graham
>p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html