Alarms about Techno-Utopianism
from the utopian-dystopian-or-atopian? dept.
Senior Associate BryanBruns writes "Reason magazine has a story "Dystopian Fearmongers Strike Again" criticizing the "TechnoUtopian" advertisement recently run in the New York Times. (The ad is available online: technoad.pdf.) The advertisement has three paragraphs on nanotechnology, with reasonably accurate content, using nanotech as another example of technological optimism. The section on nanotech finishes by saying "[Bill] Joy has grave doubts about proceeding, citing dangers from escaping self-replicating nanomachines, and from military applications. (There are also terribly frightening surveillance and privacy concerns.) So far, Joy is one of the few major scientists to be openly critical." Read more for details and analysis. Bryan continues: This is part of a series of ads by the Turning Point Project, a "coalition of more than 50 non-profit organizations that favor democratic, localized, and ecologically sustainable alternatives to current practices and policies." In its conclusion, the ad says that calling for relinquishment is a good start, "But in a democratic society, we must also demand active public participation, full disclosure, debate, and referenda on every technological development beyond a certain scale."
On the face of it, they are asking for public discussion, very much in line with the Foresight Institute's goals, though they show no awareness of Foresight's attempts to promote discussion of the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology. They claim the process so far has been heavily biased toward pro-technology interests of corporations.
For those who think technological advance has some advantages worth considering in such discussions, The Ultimate Resource II, by the late Julian Simon is available online. Simon's work offers a systematic empirical and conceptual critique of flaws underlying much critical rhetoric about technology, a valuable contribution to more thorough deliberation about technical advance."
August 31st, 2000 at 6:10 AM
What's wrong with improving nature?
That ad seems to be very upset at the idea that someone would try to improve nature. Why? Did someone figure out when we weren't looking that anything that nature has done it has done in the best way possible?
Heck, humans aren't even the only species that improves nature. Any animal or insect that builds a home (anthill, beehive, nest) is improving nature. So what's wrong with us doing it on a bigger scale?
And there's that use in the ad of language that says little but seems to be there only to scare. "isolating and re-positioning atoms into entirely new products, machines, weapons, trees, plants, people, whatever." (original emphasis) What does "entirely new people" even mean? And isn't sexual reproduction the creation of entirely new people?
Maybe, after noticing that they mention uploading (without specific problems with it, as if the idea itself is wrong), maybe it's just the suggestion that we somehow try to improve ourselves via technology, instead of doing it the "right way" of only exercising and learning? Why is it a negative thing?
The article hit it right on the head…
August 31st, 2000 at 8:45 AM
Thanks, Turning Point!
These guys just did us a great service. They presented our favorite concepts–nanotechnology, genetic engineering, robotics, uploading–and the names of some of our technological champions–to a VAST audience, far beyond what Foresight, for instance, can currently achieve. While denigrating past "evils," such as antibiotics and the internet (uh, these guys have a website?) that most people are quite happy with.
I predict this ad, while galvanizing a certain number of backwards-ass death-mongers, will have an even greater positive effect by pushing these new technologies further into the public consciousness as reality (and potential reality) rather than sci-fi fantasy. Surely it's obvious that the majority of people have traditionally embraced new and even "scary" technologies, despite the protestations of Luddites, or else we'd still be riding horses to our jobs in the fields.
–Patrick
August 31st, 2000 at 9:25 AM
Re:Thanks, Turning Point!
Here is the text of an email I sent to the Turning Point organization (for all the good it will do). Perhaps others would like to join in and send them some friendly messages?
****
"The issues discussed are those that will be crucial in determining the quality of life on Earth in the near and distant future. Despite this, they have not been given the in-depth coverage in the major media that they deserve."
So true. Thanks for the publicity! You've just acquainted a vast number of people with some wonderful technologies that will improve their lives.
Rationality and enlightened self-interest will win. You'll lose. (Or more accurately, you'll embrace the benefits while denigrating them, just as you use a website and email to educate us about the evil consequences of the internet. Never believe that ordinary people can't see your hypocrisy.)
Sincerely,
Patrick Underwood
August 31st, 2000 at 11:09 AM
"Improvement" by whom? toward what end?
Did you even read the ads? They state quite clearly that it is not technology per se they oppose, but rather technology that spirals out of democratic control, and the belief that technology will magically solve our problems. Obviously if you phrase the question as "improving" nature, it isn't a "negative thing." The very word "improvement" implies positive consequences. But do you really believe that technology is used solely for improving the human condition? Or that its development and use happens independently of political and economic power relations?
August 31st, 2000 at 12:21 PM
Re:"Improvement" by whom? toward what end?
I think it's pretty clear these people do not give a flying, er, hoot about democracy–any more than the old German "Democratic" Republic did. To them, "democracy" is only one of many advertising blurbs, a means to an end. And perhaps a self-deception, a rationalization, for some of their more naive followers.
Patrick
August 31st, 2000 at 1:37 PM
Don't send that e-mail
Don't e-mail them, because, on an off chance, someone there might have half a brain, realize that they are aiding the enemy, and stop. Why stop them from blissfully promoting rather than demoting our own ends?
Gotta love those luddites! (wow, that was some good aliteration and assonance)
August 31st, 2000 at 4:10 PM
Hysteria vs. Madness
Thanks, Bryan, for calling our attention to these ads and this coalition. I've looked over a few of the ads, and I have to agree that they contain quite a few hysterical and unfounded statements. On the other hand, I am glad to see awareness of the super-technology issues spreading beyond the cult of thoughtless enthusiasts to a wider range of people including some who have not lost all sense of human values.
It is unfortunate that these critics of technology do not have a better understanding of the issues they are decrying. But I think it is far more unfortunate that so many of the most technically sophisticated among us have so lost sight of our own humanity as to seriously entertain notions such as "uploading" or even the wholesale replacement of humanity by an "augmented" species.
And that so many are so deeply wedded to the doctrines of fundamentalist capitalism that they reject out of hand the call for democratic checks on the "free market" rush toward human extinction.
Just as the Unabomber had some good points, I have to agree that the TurningPointers are on target when they ask:
It would be well for the advocates of new technology to engage in a dialogue with people like TurningPoint. Both sides have something to learn from the other, and both have much to reconsider.
August 31st, 2000 at 4:17 PM
Everything is clear if you refuse to see
If you read the text of the ad, you will see that it is entirely a call for democracy, for the people as a whole to become more aware of these issues and to make collective choices. The advertisers have their own point of view, but the fact that their point of view differs from yours does not make them anti-democratic.
August 31st, 2000 at 5:11 PM
Re:"Improvement" by whom? toward what end?
I think it's pretty clear these people do not give a flying, er, hoot about democracy–any more than the old German "Democratic" Republic did.
I don't think that is clear at all. You may find the Turning Point Project's particular brand of democracy disagreeable, but democracy is nevertheless the political form they explicity support. By "old German 'Democratic' Republic" I assume you mean National Socialism. That is a ridiculous comparison. Does the Turning Point Project really frighten you more than consolidation of wealth in the hands of the very few?
I don't think it is wise, or even possible, to squash technological innovation. Governments could not control it if they tried. But it is precisely for that reason that I think it is so potentially dangerous. The industrial revolution led to an unprecedented accumulation of power and wealth in private hands. The continuing progress of technology will only accelerate such effects.
To them, "democracy" is only one of many advertising blurbs, a means to an end. And perhaps a self-deception, a rationalization, for some of their more naive followers.
To what end is democracy a means? And what is it a rationalization of? What exactly are you getting at?
August 31st, 2000 at 6:45 PM
Re:Hysteria vs. Madness
Hi Mark,
Any suggestions on how to have a useful dialog with these guys?
I agree that they are pushing towards democratic control, and this is certainly better than pushing for e.g. dictatorial control of technologies.
Bailey has a very good point when writing:
A lot of these technologies (e.g. genetic techniques availible to individual patients) don't pose a direct public threat. I'd prefer to see freedom of choice, rather than governmental control, however democratic, for these technologies.
Unfortunately, one recent example where the political process did get involved, cloning, looked like a miserable failure. As far as I could tell, half the politicians in the western democracies jumped over each other to see who could ban it first. All of this fury was spent on a technique that would have merely have mildly slowed the rate of genetic change in our populations. Here in New York State, one of our local politicians had the brilliant idea of coining a brand new felony, all for the crime of creating a time-shifted identical twin… As nearly as I could tell, the politicians were running entirely on "Ick", and never got around to discussing whether anyone would actually be harmed at all.
After that performance, there are times when I think I'd rather see the government do nothing, and just have industry implement the technologies and see what happens. It is, admittedly, one hell of a dice roll.
August 31st, 2000 at 7:46 PM
Re:Hysteria vs. Madness
"But I think it is far more unfortunate that so many of the most technically sophisticated among us have so lost sight of our own humanity as to seriously entertain notions such as "uploading" or even the wholesale replacement of humanity by an "augmented" species."
This is quite telling and relevant to the discussion at hand. The fact is that many people are unwilling to accept that there can be something beyond "our own humanity". Yes, there are many very scary things about our current rush of technology. The potentials for bad are equal to the potentials for good. Though the question of what is bad and what is good is subjective.
I'm not an expert on this, so I'll hazard a guess and accept correction if I'm wrong, but I would say that more species became extinct before man came into the world than have become extinct since. Assuming that this statement is true (and even if it isn't, it still illustrates the point), is it unnatural for a species to become extinct due to the competition from man?
Not at all, that's evolution at work. Some species out compete others for resources, and hence some survive and some become extinct. Man himself has evolved, and will continue to do so. If you had asked a neanderthal what he thought about losing out to this new-fangled homo sapiens, he would have probably been no happier than many homo sapiens are today about the possibility of losing out to the next evolutionary step.
The real difference today, is that man believes that he can control such evolution. Some believe that they can decide how to evolve, and some believe that they can prevent evolution. It's possible that both are right, but it's also possible (and evolutionarily speaking, probable) that neither are right.
I appreciate the irony of Turning Point on one hand decrying the media and the Internet, while using these very media as a vehicle to carry their message. What is significant to me is that the propaganda of "political activism" is a very powerful tool, and that is not lost upon those at Turning Point. It is relatively easy to impart an alarmist attitude via such media.
Hope vs. fear is the battle for which the lines are being drawn. Already there are "techno-utopians" spreading hope, and now in response Turning Point is spreading fear. The deeper problems are obvious. Bill Joy (Hi Bill!) suggests relinquishment, but even he must realize that there is a race to achieve these technologies. That race is between nations. Even if a democratic nation such as the U.S. voted to relinquish, we would have no real power to stop other nations from continuing. It is for this very reason that we cannot relinquish. It was this same dilemma that fostered the Cold War.
I have no doubt that had the Germans or the Japanese acheived the A-bomb before the U.S., that the world would be a very different place today. Even though the Cold War is over, and even though the "SuperPowers" have come to terms and agreed that mutual destruction is dumb, there are still nations that are at this very minute working diligently to join the nuclear club. And they are succeeding, despite our disapproval. This will hold true with these emerging technologies.
It would be unfortunate if Turning Point succeeded in their mission and actually caused a vote to happen that made relinquishment a national policy. Eventually, we would be subjugated to some other nation that did not relinquish. We would then be living in their world, on their terms, and it most assuredly would not be democratic.
But Turning Point cannot succeed. They are operating in mediums which they cannot control. The large corporations that control print and television and even substantial portions of the Internet are the same corporations that stand to make profits from the new technologies. Turning Point is using newspapers to carry their message. For every negative ad they run, there are dozens of positive articles in the science and technology sections. The very reason they have to run these ads is that those who produce the news do not see them as newsworthy. They are at the whim of the advertising departments of the newspapers. If any large and powerful corporation who advertises in that newspaper were to threaten to pull their millions of dollars a year out of that paper unless the paper refused to run the Turning Point ads, then that newpaper would stop returning calls from Turning Point.
This dissention is inevitable, and useful. It serves as a catalyst for discussion, and therefore education. I doubt that it will eventually lead to science courts, and I doubt that it will lead to a vote for relinquishment. In any case, it won't deter evolution.
-=dwh=-
August 31st, 2000 at 11:23 PM
Re:"Improvement" by whom? toward what end?
I am also suspicious of Turning Point. It is quite obvious that they put a negative spin on emerging technologies. Sure they simply question the possibilities that maybe we all sometimes see through rose-colored lenses. Turning Point seems simply devoted to educating the masses. But is not Foresight devoted to the same goal? How many of these public interests groups have tried to contact Foresight? To get in on the discussions and arguments and fears that go on within Foresight. Do not tell me that these public interest groups and Turning Point as a whole are completely ignorant of Foresight. I think maybe they simply dismissed Foresight outright as a bunch of "techno utopians". And remember they did say they were a politically motivated organization and all politics have underlying agendas. Sometimes these agendas are not so obvious. I feel though we should not dismiss them as a bunch of "technophobes ". Instead we should e-mail them, snail-mail them, call them up, and ask to be included in whatever they have to offer us. I feel Foresight should ask to be included in their Turning Point. Is not Foresight just as valid a public interest group as International Center for Technology Assessment? We should keep are friends close but we should keep organizations like Turning Point even closer.
September 1st, 2000 at 1:25 AM
Engaging in dialog
First, I'd like to mention that Tom Mc Kendree had prepared a thoughful submission about same ad, covering pretty much the same ground as I did. So any credit should be shared.
I'm slowly coming to the realization that Turning Point and Bill Joy may be as good as we can expect to get in terms of critics, which at least clarifies the challenges for engaging in dialog. I don't have any good answers about how to do so. However as a friend was suggesting to me in a recent discussion about biotech and other issues, part of it may be to recognize that dialog will occur on two levels, in the media and smaller forums. The media process may well be full of loaded rhetoric, alarmist claims, etc. while at least some groups may be willing to discuss things more carefully in other forums.
The implication would be the need to engage on both levels. In the public forum this may mean doing more of what Raymond Kurzweil is already doing, asking why we should slow down technologies if this means perpetuating pollution, poverty, death and other problems. That would go under the category of trying to turn the tables, the best defense is a good offense, etc. and realizing that the Reason article's "riddled with errors" approach is only one of several available tactics. It seems to me it might be useful if one of the long-time Foresight luminaries sent a letter to the NY Times noting that Foresight has been promoting public discussion of new technologies for many years now.
The other level would probably be more informal, and as I understand it, often goes on in environmental debates, which combine public posturing and substantive dialog. The focus there might be on trying to find areas of agreement, such as use of nanotech for environmental clean-up and resource conserving innovations. Such discussions might build relationships and some mutual understanding that would then help deal with tougher issues like criteria and processes for assessing new technologies. At an institutional level, Foresight could play a role in this. However I think many of us might also do this personally (or are doing it already), to the extent we know people who care about the environment and quality of life (as we also do), and can be engaged in low key, open-minded discussions about the role nanotech might play in making things better.
Yesterday I ran across another useful resource, The Center for the Study of Technology and Society. They have good coverage of nanotech and other innovations and a special page on the relinquishment debate.
September 1st, 2000 at 7:14 AM
Re:"Improvement" by whom? toward what end?
Well, no… the GDR was East Germany, a communist totalitarian state with the word "Democracy" in its name. See the irony?
Accumulation of power and wealth is _exactly_ why the West has a high level of technical innovation in the first place, and Russia and China are still struggling to catch up. The profit motive.
What I meant was that using the _advertising blurb_ "democracy" is a means to an end. Perhaps I shouldn't make a general, blanket statement about all involved–I know there are plenty of wonderful, well-meaning people in these organizations–but I have noticed a tendency on the part of groups like this to desire everything from rigidly enforced command economies to drastic forced reductions in the human population (i.e. genocide).
By rationalization, I mean some people may be fooling themselves when they say they want a democratic solution, when in fact what they want is the power to enforce their own programs in a non-democratic manner.
That's what I'm getting at. I don't know if I can say it plainer.
Patrick
September 1st, 2000 at 7:49 AM
Re:Everything is clear if you refuse to see
Mark, you are right. Having a point of view that differs from mine does not make anyone anti-democratic. It's the point of view itself that worries me!
And yes, I did read the text of the ad, every single word. May I quote? "Shouldn't we vote on technology too?"
Please, just think about that a minute. What that means is tying technical innovation to state control, far beyond what already exists. One need only look at NASA for an excellent illustration of how a government agency, created with the best of intentions, can monopolize and eventually stagnate technical advancement in a given area.
Look also at the current presidential campaigns. Both tickets are pandering with all their might to the religious fundies. The only major candidate that didn't do so got shot down (so to speak) in South Carolina. Do you really want to have to consider the voting power of the religious right when you decide what type of research to pursue or what kind of product to develop?
Virginia Postrel's book "The Future and Its Enemies" is the best take on what I'm talking about. She breaks the political spectrum down, not into left and right, but into stasists and dynamicists. Stasists include environmental reactionaries (like Turning Point), government technocrats, fundies–all those who think _they_ should control what people think, how people behave, what people study, what people buy, what people sell. Maybe you should read her book, she's a hell of a lot better at this than I am.
Patrick
September 1st, 2000 at 10:05 AM
Incredibly Frightening.
I would really like to know who is funding Turning Point. Their web site and ads are perhaps the most frightening, inaccurate and inflammatory things I've ever read. I can't begin to say enough bad things about this organization. Firstly, the democratization of technology is a bad idea. One of my high school history teachers used to have a saying, "The masses are asses." I'm not entirely sure if I believe that, but I will say this: the public in general is very easily swayed by scare tactics similar these being distributed by Turning Point. If the public were allowed to vote on every new technology, we probably wouldn't have vaccinations, antibiotics, and the internet — just to use a few of their own examples. Secondly, these people will be the first to claim that their intention is to save the world. I can only conclude that their real intent is to kill as many people as possible. A goal I'm sure they would not disagree with. Be it through "population reduction" (which I do not have a problem with) or slow mass murder (which I DO have a problem with). Their ideas couldn't possibly be more misguided. If the world went back to old methods of farming tomorrow, we would have to chop down every last tree on earth to sustain our population. Of course, this would be impossible so the result would mean gradual starvation and incredible suffering (slow mass murder). Either way, the environment which these morons profess to love would suffer enormously. Turning Point frightens me almost as much (if not more than) the extreme right. For the record, I am a liberal. However, because I know the Green Party shares many of the views of Turning Point, I will certainly not be voting for Ralph Nader in November.
September 1st, 2000 at 2:12 PM
their thoughts
I have found a chat transcript that explains a lot about them. In the chat transcript Amy Bricker and Miyoko Sakashita the project Coordinators of Turning Point are asked some questions about their project. The host is ENN (Environmental News Network).
September 1st, 2000 at 4:51 PM
Re:Engaging in dialog
First, I'd like to mention that Tom Mc Kendree had prepared a thoughful submission about same ad
I certainly don't feel bad that someone else's submission was used. After submitting it, I thought to myself "maybe I was too harsh." My submission title was "Ad Says Nanotech = Super Tech = Super Evil." Since these comments are probably not expected to maintain quite as high a quality threshhold as original story submissions, I feel ok repeating what I originally submitted. This is only an approximation, based on an early draft.
[Before repeating my story submission, let me mention the somewhat related point that Michael Dertouzos, in his The Peopleís Computer column at Technology Review, has just published an essay wherein he argues that Bill Joy's relinquishment strategy is fundamentally misguided, because we cannot reason out the future effects of technology with sufficient accuracy to to determine a priori where they will lead us. Rather, we must live life, and adjust as things unfold.]
The Turning Point Project, a non-profit that runs various advertisements decrying corporations, pollution, etc., has run a new ad, "Techo-Utopianism." The ad itself is in a .pdf file. There are a couple of paragraphs each on "Human Eugenics" (using biotechnology on human genes), "Nanotechnology" and "Robotics."
The idea of altering human genes to provide more desirable traits is clearly intended to revolt the reader. Nanotechnology is summarized reasonably well (for the space), but they seem to fall for Bill Joy's perspective that critical thought about Nanotechnology largely started with Bill Joy. Robotics are summarized by referring to Hans Moravec on downloading and robots replacing homo sapiens. The tone approaches "Nothing important should ever occur until after it has received explicit political authorization, and technology should be scrapped if anyone can imagine how it might be dangerous." While a very useful listing of potentially dramatic future technologies, and pointer that "hey, this is important to think about," it unfortunately conveys divisive extremism with lines like "Bill Joy has recommended 'relinquishment' as far as eugenics, nanotechnology and robotics are concerned. Just say no? That's a good start."
The ad says near the end "Right now, the only hindrance to deployment of this new generation of technology is whether or not corporations can profit, or the military can make weapons." The major hindrance to deployment currently is obviously technical limitations. Admittedly there are people trying to overcome these limitations.
In a "What You Can Do!" section on the website, they say:
Writing a letter to the editor calling for stories about future technology is probably a good idea. I would specifically mention Foresight as a first recourse for information on nanotechnology.
Finally, Ronald Bailey critically reviewed the ad.
September 5th, 2000 at 1:47 PM
reply to jeff
Hi Jeff,
I only meant to suggest that opportunities for dialogue will arise, and that they should be taken, instead of saying, "Why waste time on those idiots," or some such statement which I think tends to reveal one's own limitations.
I strongly support the ban on human cloning, although I support the British proposal to permit cloning of embryos up to 2 weeks for stem-cell harvesting.
I see no compelling need for production of babies by cloning. I don't see how you could call this "creating a time-shifted identical twin." The cloner would not be a sibling, but a weird kind of parent, one clearly bent on creating a continuation of his/her own identity, rather than respecting the separateness of the child. The issue of child abuse arises at once.
Democratic control of technology, even at the expense of forgoing or delaying some opportunities, is better than no control at all. As one now in the process of becoming a parent, I am not willing to let anyone roll dice with our common future.
September 5th, 2000 at 2:11 PM
response to dwh
Neutron stars, for example. They are as human as any robot you might make.
Yes, and we humans are the subjects. It would be nonsense to say that something bad for us was really good in some other way.
Is is not somewhat regrettable that so many species went extinct before we had a chance to see them? We might not like having tyrannosaurs running around our neighborhoods, but surely it would be nice if they still survived on some island somewhere. "Evolution" is not inherently good. Particularly not if it would mean never hearing birdsongs, picnicking in a field of wildflowers, or watching a mama black bear and her cub from a respectful distance.
You seem to think "the next evolutionary step" has already been programmed… by whom? Why do we have to "lose out" to our own creations?
We can try to set an example of responsibility in the use of technology, and negotiate international standards for safety and agreements for arms control. This has worked in the past. With the spread of democracy and communications, it should be easier to achieve in the future (though still not necessarily easy).
What is really hardest to overcome is not the hostility or greed of others, but the kind of perversity expressed in your post. Why are you so in love with heavy-metal negativism? You think this is a sophisticated worldview, but it is really quite ignorant and juvenile. Sorry to be so harsh, but I am hopeful that you will continue to think and learn about the issues you addressed in your post. At least you took the time to write.
September 8th, 2000 at 9:51 PM
Re:reply to jeff
Hi Mark, you wrote:
Well, I call clones time-shifted identical twins because, if you look at them genetically (which is what all the fuss is about), they have the same relationship as identical twins. To contrast to other possibilities: This isn't genetic engineering, either curative or enhancing. All cloning does is to take an existing genotype and make another copy. In comparison with concerns about genetic engineering arms races (which in turn are minor compared to MNT's potential effects), its a nit.
Mark, you speculate on the motives of would-be cloners, then extrapolate from that speculation to an "issue of child abuse", then use the extrapolation of the speculation to strongly oppose the freedom to clone. In at least one case that I'd read of, a couple wanted to clone a child of theirs who had either died or was expected to die, not to clone either parent. The first stage in your chain of reasoning was wrong in this case.
Frankly, I personally see no use for cloning as a reproductive technology (being childfree myself, this applies to reproductive technologies in general). Nonetheless, I don't try to sit in judgement on those couples who do want to use it. Dr. Seed heard from several couples that wanted to try cloning. I see no reason to demand that they supply a "compelling need" for this technology. Leave them the freedom to make their own decisions!
Look, consider how we treat ordinary breeding. Never mind subtle psychological effects, roughly half of pregnancies aren't even planned by the parents. No genetic counseling, no avoidance of mutagens or teratogens in early pregnancy, no financial planning, nothing. Claiming that a cloned baby is going to be in a worse situation than that is bullshit. Cloning is at least as intrusive as in vitro fertilisation, which is a difficult, expensive, intrusive process. Any couple who goes through all that is at least highly motivated to get their baby, which is more than can be said for unplanned babies, which no one has proposed banning.
Have you got any better justifications for the cloning ban? As it stands, it still looks to me like a ludicrous failure for democratic control of technology: unfair, arbitrary, and irrationally fearful. If this is what we can expect from our political process, then it presents a strong argument that no control at all is indeed preferable in the vast majority of cases. Freedom is just as important as democracy. When someone proposes restricting a freedom, I want to see extremely compelling reasons before I would be willing to support it. Mark, remember that the next time someone wants to ban a technology, it might be a technology that you need or want.
September 12th, 2000 at 2:29 PM
Somerson calls Turning Point "Chowderheads"
Paul Somerson, in his column in the Ziff-Davis publication "Smart Business", remarks on the Turning Point ads: "The newest villain is the Internet itself. A bunch of chowderheads from the Turning Point Project are running full-page ads in The New York Times claiming that the whole computer revolution is the incarnation of evil, and a threat to democracy. Why? Because computers let employers measure workers' output better. Because chip makers use 'huge amounts of pure water.' Because while it's OK for catalog merchants to avoid out-of-state sales tax, greedy Internet merchants are somehow stealing money from sanitation workers. They even whine that Apple exploited Einstein and Gandhi in its ads, since such Think Different subjects didn't use computers! Get a life. By the way, these technology-haters ran a URL and an e-mail address at the end of their screed. "
September 16th, 2000 at 4:57 PM
more on human cloning
You can say that a clone would be comparable to an identical twin from the genetic point of view, but it would not be comparable from the point of view of its relationship to the cloner, who would assume the role of a parent.
If a person wishes to have a child, but is unwilling to share genetic parentage with another, and insists, in fact, on having a genetically identical copy of him/herself, it is reasonable for us to ask why, and personally, I can't think of any possible answer that does not suggest the high probability of an abusive relationship.
The fact that people want children strongly is not enough, if there is reason to ask what they want them for.
You cite the example of a couple wishing to replace a dying child. Imagine the position this would put the replacement child in: "I was created as a replacement for _____." The desire to do this is perverse, and suggests strongly that the couple involved should refrain from having further children until they have dealt with their grief caused by the irreversible loss of the first.
It is not just that cloning would likely lead to child abuse; cloning itself would be abusive. We don't know how the child will react to the information that he or she is an identical clone of his or her parent, or a replacement for some other highly valued person. You might try to compare this to IVF, and we may wonder how some children feel about having been created in such an "unnatural" way, but cloning would go far beyond this, creating issues of idividuality and one's right to a unique identity.
Furthermore, we don't know how healthy a cloned human would turn out to be (there have been problems with other cloned mammals, as you may know), and there is no compelling justification for human biological experimentation in this case.
I think most people understand all this, and that's why cloning bans were approved so rapidly.
September 17th, 2000 at 7:38 AM
Re:more on human cloning
Hi Mark
Thank you for seeing the analogy to IVF. Cloning is a trivial step beyond IVF, merely creating an identical twin, which nature does anyway.
Mark, you should get out of the habit of describing preferences that you don't happen to share as "perverse", "unnatural", and "abusive". You are showing no respect for other peoples' freedom.
To say "The fact that people want children strongly is not enough, if there is reason to ask what they want them for." is judgmental. How would you like it if you had been compelled to justify siring a child, with some government employee having the power to decide yea or nay? In a world with 6 billion of us, one could make a case that conceiving a new child by any means, technologically assisted or not, should be tightly regulated. Would you like to live with that degree of social control?
September 20th, 2000 at 6:43 PM
Re:more on human cloning
It is a very nontrivial step beyond IVF.
An "identical twin" of its parent. Nature does not do this.
I stand by my characterizations of the real and hypothetical situations we discussed. Cloning is clearly unnatural, which doesn't by itself condemn the procedure, but does render it suspect. The desire to replace a lost child with a genetically identical one would be perverse. A person with a reason for wishing his or her child to be a genetically identical replica of his or herself, not to share genetic parentage with another, would be likely to impose an abusive relationship on that child, denying his or her unique identity and separateness from the parent.
Would you respect the freedom to raise a child in an abusive way?
No, it is not in itself judgemental. It states only that there remains an unanswered question.
If I were a known child abuser, or if there were some other reason to expect that I would be an abusive parent, then I think this would be appropriate.
I think that, in fact, the world is not (yet) so overpopulated as to justify such draconian measures, and we do not currently expect world population to overrun carrying capacity, given technological developments which I think you and I agree are to be expected. However, if that were not the case, if, in fact, the world were already overpopulated or clearly headed for overpopulation, then strict regulation of human fertility would be necessary, and I would support it.
September 21st, 2000 at 7:25 PM
Re:more on human cloning
Hi Mark,
Abuse of a child includes actions like beatings, rape, mutilation, that sort of thing. Stretching "abuse" to include "denying his or her unique identity and separateness from the parent" makes the term nearly meaningless. You might as well redefine "abuse" to include any attempt by a parent to mold their child, which essentially all parents attempt to a greater or lesser extent. "Why can't you be more like your brother?" may be obnoxious, and it is indeed a denial of separate identity, but calling it abusive, lumping it in with parents who break their kid's bones, renders the term useless.
If "abuse" has been redefined to, say, include actions like persuading the kid to take math courses because previous family members had done well in math, then, yes, I would respect it.
Mark, "perverse" is generally taken to mean something that is very clearly undesirable. You have repeated your labelling of this option, but I haven't seen you supply any reason for anyone else to believe your label. I don't see any particular attraction in this application (but, hey, I'm childfree, I don't see much attraction in kids in the first place), but I don't see anything particularly undesirable in this application either. What's the big deal???
September 27th, 2000 at 10:15 AM
Re:more on human cloning
Well, then, we disagree on this. Why do you think so many people end up hating their parents? The parent-child relationship is exceptionally sensitive, due to the almost total power that a parent has to define the terms and conditions of a child's life. In order that this relationship not be harmful — given the power aspect of the relationship, I think the term abusive is appropriate in this context — it is essential that the parent respect the child's individuality and separateness and, ultimately, the child's right to determine his or her own direction and fate. The parent has the right to attempt to steer and mold the child, of course, but there is a basic level of respect that I think is in danger of being violated if the parent is basically viewing the child as an extension of his or herself, rather than as a separate person whom one is privileged to raise and teach.