Morality, Responsibility, Technology.

Some previous thread mentioned the potential usefulness of a large 
database containing private medical information, and possibly genetic 
detail as well.

While I agree on the tremendous constructive potential of such a 
hypothetical data-mine, I seriously doubt that Mankind has the moral 
integrity to use this type of knowledge responsibly.

Supposing for example, a particular genetic "defect" were found with 
such a database to have a 90% correlation with the presence of epilepsy.  
Immediately, doctors & scientists would strive to find a way to gain some 
leverage against this "defect."  We might for example see a testing 
procedure for human fetuses to determine whether a particular pregnancy 
"should be" terminated.  People would become famous, and much money would 
change hands due to this "discovery."  Generally people will conclude that 
Science has given them more control over their lives than they previously 
had.

The problem is, nobody really understands just what this "defect" really 
means.  Nobody understands why it is there, or what kind of a choice we 
are really making my attempting to remove it from our gene pool.

Remember that Sickle Cell Anemia is caused by a genetic "defect".  We are 
lucky enough to know that the carriers of this "defect" are uniquely able 
to survive certain plagues.  This so-called "defect", as troublesome as 
it may be to some individuals, is really a latent strength, which is how 
natural selection reinforced it in the first place, and we may need it 
again.

The term "defect" is therefore entirely out of line.  We have no business
placing judgements from our own limited material value sets onto 
something which has the definite potential of affecting all future 
generations of Humanity.  It's none of our business.

Further, when such a database is eventually created, I ask not "who" but 
"what" will have access to it?  What kind of non-sentient group mentality 
will have sufficient authority and be presumptuous enough to declare itself 
morally objective?  What kind of a larger process might such an entity be 
unwittingly serving?

We already have many times more material knowledge than we are morally 
capable of handling as a species.  Here's one tiny example.  The most 
widespread use of the knowledge of psychology is guess what?  Advertising 
and Marketing.  Our average American sits entranced watching hours of 
television daily, unwittingly absorbing countless impressions by 
advertisers with more money than morality.  Can he identify the 
"glittering generalities" or the "bandwagon appeals" or any of the other 
effective forms of propaganda?  Does he know the truth from a 
lie when sexual titillation is part of the presentation?  May he 
readily accept what is presented, and most of all: Does he see himself 
sitting there, absorbing these impressions?

We don't see our selves in action.  We can't know what we're doing.  None 
of us have developed sufficient "presence" to know what we are really doing 
most of the time.  We can't possibly be objective, except in extremely 
rare, life-changing moments, and even then only if we're lucky.

Just thinking about yourself thinking isn't enough, because where are 
your emotions?  Do you really understand why your thoughts are what they 
are?  Did *YOU* put those thoughts in your head intentionally, or did they 
sort of happen on their own... one thought following another through some 
combination of association and external stimuli?  And while you've been 
busy reading this, with your attention directed outward, why haven't 
you been aware of the sensation in your feet, or the tension in your 
face, or your posture, or your breath?

As westerners we have directed so much of our attention "outward" that 
we develop little or no objective knowledge of what goes on within us.  
Can we break this cycle?  If there really are esoteric schools, with 
disciplines and methodologies of obtaining self-knowledge, then this 
knowledge must be such that by its very nature, it cannot possibly be 
communicated successfully in any large, public manner.

But I digress.  As a reader of this list, have you ever asked yourself 
Why, why is it that you personally want strong encryption to be widely 
available?  It's a very powerful emerging technology, and it's in the 
palm of your hands.


Douglas B. Renner
dougr@usa.globelle.com

> The term "defect" is therefore entirely out of line.  We have no business
> placing judgements from our own limited material value sets onto 
> something which has the definite potential of affecting all future 
> generations of Humanity.  It's none of our business.

The problem however, is that artificial selection maybe the only way to
select beneficial attributes at all. What is presently being selected
for in western societies is all the factors that lead to a lack of
practice or belief in birth control. I'll let the reader think for a
moment on just what those are. Perhaps we can also somehow test for and
abolish the "Catholic" gene?

-- 
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely  exercised for the good of its victims  
 may be the most  oppressive.  It may be better to live under  robber barons  
 than  under  omnipotent  moral busybodies,  The robber baron's  cruelty may  
 sometimes sleep,  his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who  
 torment us for own good  will torment us  without end,  for they do so with 
 the approval of their own conscience."    -   C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ 
+---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+
|Julian Assange RSO   | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union        |
|proff@suburbia.net   | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID =     |
|proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 |
+---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

>> The term "defect" is therefore entirely out of line.  We have no business
>> placing judgements from our own limited material value sets onto 
>> something which has the definite potential of affecting all future 
>> generations of Humanity.  It's none of our business.
> 
>The problem however, is that artificial selection maybe the only way to
>select beneficial attributes at all. What is presently being selected
>for in western societies is all the factors that lead to a lack of
>practice or belief in birth control. I'll let the reader think for a
>moment on just what those are. Perhaps we can also somehow test for and
>abolish the "Catholic" gene?

You offer the humorous example of Catholicism.  But this is really a 
deceptively clear example of exactly what I was saying: that we aren't even 
close to having any kind of objective faculties which would be required 
to competently make these kinds of decisions.  Catholicism: is it Nature 
or is it Nurture?  This example would effectively equivalent to just one 
ideology gaining "leverage" over another, and using the technology of 
genetics to gain this leverage.  I'll finish this up below.

I don't want to miss your real counterpoint behind the example.  What I hear 
you really saying is that you can open your eyes, and look around at the 
processes of natural selection in action, and you can see all kinds of 
social forces at work, many of which would appear, given our value set, to 
be functioning to the disadvantage of the species.  But again, this 
proves even more brutally how deeply our lack of objectivity runs when we 
try to evaluate such matters.

We tend to value traits such as industriousness, and yet we see some social 
welfare programs which effectively reward the absence of this quality.  
This example, as well as your own example, are issues which we can't 
even reach a consensus on socially.  And since *we* can't even deal with 
such things socially, how could we ever presume to claim the moral 
competence to address them genetically?

For example, our western society is less than 9,000 years old.  As 
participants we assume our western society is "good."  But a traditional 
Australian Aborigine, coming from a 35,000 to 60,000 year old society, 
might have a completely different perspective.  He might view our 
European lifestyle as one very big mistake, and a recent one at that.  
Maybe, just maybe, we have culturally taken a very large step away 
from what our inherent natures really are.  If this were true you might 
expect to see a larger amount of latent grey matter evolved into all of 
our skulls than any of us really use.  But then, this *is* the case.

So as we are, nobody really knows what the effect of widespread crypto 
will be, any more than we could have predicted the impact of cars or 
transistors or nuclear fission.  The future is literally in your hands.


Douglas B. Renner
dougr@usa.globelle.com