Comments on: U.S. nanotechnology funds study ethics of human enhancement

By: Mark Thompson

Mark Thompson — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:09:04 +0000

The discussions on this topic have been interesting. However, I noticed that everyone sees the issue in terms of nation states. What about classes within a country, including America? If one believes that there is such a thing as an elite which exerts a greater influence on the political process, this elite could use the new developments in technology to further their interests, sometimes to the benefit of the ordinary man and sometimes to his detriment.

What are the views on this?

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:42:00 +0000

Hi Anders — We do think about this. The question is, which entity (existing or new) is the least risky in terms of being a responsible holder of such power? Tough question, but input from all is welcome! –Christine

By: Anders

Anders — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:14:21 +0000

In this particular thread the fear is that the results of this study will slow down the development of some areas of MNT. But ethics could also be seen as a form of guidance. A correct and good guidance might lead you faster to the goal than one without this guidance. Also I see a lot of “us” and “them” in here, where “us” seems to be USA and Europe, and them beeing the rest of the world. I don’t want to sound anti-american, because I’m not, but this is very typical for america. This is one world people – only one planet here, and we have to take that into consideration, and maybe we should put some efford into getting those countries who doesn’t apply ethics to their research, to do so. As well as we fear that some of those bad countries out there will gain the control of MNT before we do, some people fear: what will USA – or rather what will your government and your millitary, do with this kind of power… Think about it.

By: ERabani

ERabani — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:04:07 +0000

Christine wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps we can look at a right to protection from coercion and see where that takes us. We’ll need to define “compete”.
//////////////////////

This is sort of the point, or rather the implicit contention: some competitions can become coercive, such as competitions over means of survival under conditions of scarcity, military competitions, some status competitions, at least where competitiors are totally invested in them. To the extent that a victor can despotize the object of comptetition, to the extent other competitors lack alternatives, they are coerced. MNT could produce abundance, but it could also concentrate it if enough competitors are willing to get nasty and there’s nothing preestablished to stop them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Should non-enhanced humans be forced to compete with enhanced humans or human-technological hybrids?” Well, they already are, in the sense that people without computers, say, have to compete with those with them. The scenario is just that, for example, the computers will be inside instead of outside the body. Which leads us back to the first point regarding coercion and the definition of compete.
///////////////////////

Yes and no. No matter how good the computer, there are still limitations on the interface with a human, and what a human–even the very smartest–could possibly deal with. Deeply integrated neural interfacing with Nth generation AI is a qualitatively different thing.

A related but distinct point is that at some point “hybrids” become technology with decreasingly significant human appendages. So it’s not clear that even the victors win in any real sense.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:12:10 +0000

Hi Eric — About sf: in my recent talk for the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU, I recommended that those attempting to look at the long-term future of nanotechnology read some hard sf incorporating nanotech scenarios. It’s useful. –Christine

By: Eric Tulloch

Eric Tulloch — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:23:52 +0000

(I actually meant “uneasiness” or “unease”…don’t know where “easiness” came from…)
To expound on my first thought (after sleeping on it…):

Academics are going to discuss ethics (of all sorts, of course) regardless of whether an organization is funding them to do so. Granted, the money may facilitate a better-edited and more tightly focused report. Maybe they could use the money to hire a well-known author (Orson Scott Card or L. E. Modesitt, Jr. to cite two examples) to write a publicly-accessible/comprehensible version of the report.
I do know that the latter has incorporated various aspects and issues of nanotechnology in many of his novels.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:33:17 +0000

Hi Eric — It’s hard for me to see how there could be a right to be enhanced using tax dollars. But there are lots of things that tax dollars go for that I don’t see!

If someone chooses to enhance themselves into being a weapon of mass destruction, maybe that status takes precedence over their human status? Just as it would if I were to swallow a ticking bomb today, presumably…

This topic is lots of fun to discuss, as I mentioned in the original post! Thanks for writing.

–Christine

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:27:43 +0000

Hi ERabani — Great questions.

“Is there a right to compete at a level consistent with natural endowments for the means of survival and well-being which outweighs the rights of others to engage in a technological arms-race?” Perhaps we can look at a right to protection from coercion and see where that takes us. We’ll need to define “compete”.

“Should non-enhanced humans be forced to compete with enhanced humans or human-technological hybrids?” Well, they already are, in the sense that people without computers, say, have to compete with those with them. The scenario is just that, for example, the computers will be inside instead of outside the body. Which leads us back to the first point regarding coercion and the definition of compete.

I think humans will continue to value unenhanced human work, just as we value handmade goods and home-grown garden foods and original artworks today. One can picture that value growing. –Christine

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:17:02 +0000

Hi Pat — Rather than look at the situation as one where we can be either ethical or pragmatic, perhaps another approach is to include implementation issues and scenarios in the ethics debate. We can try to come up with positions which are both ethical and pragmatic. Worth a shot! Looking forward to it. –Christine

By: Eric Tulloch

Eric Tulloch — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:23:18 +0000

Regarding your easiness, I concur to a certain extent. Considering that this ethics research will likely result in a report that may or may not gain serious consideration by the powers that funded it in the first place, the application of $250,000 toward this endeavor is a bit difficult to stomach. Now, assuming a best-case scenario, the study will result in groundbreaking discoveries, and the NSF will immediately coordinate with various government organizations to establish a department within an eventual nanotechnology ethics governing body. Ideally, this department would have the authority to enforce ethical standards in human enhancement, or could delegate that authority. Like you said, if we lose the nanotechnology race, that authority to enforce anything is nullified.

As for the question, “Is there a right to be enhanced?” I’m already a bit nervous about the prospect of the ACLU stepping in and touting a a 1st Amendment right. Assuming that debate is resolved in favor of a right to enhance, I’m a bit more concerned about application of the 2nd Amendment…there’s no shortage of science fiction writings on that topic.