The Selfishness of the Living
Apr. 8th, 2003 10:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIn today's New York Times book review, Natalie Angier reviews Bill McKibben's book Enough, one of those luddite tomes that I find unbelievably evil in its myopic, "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" attitude.
Angier quotes a scientist who says, "In thirty years we'll be able to give your kid an extra 30 IQ points" and then retorts, "Oh, yeah? Like the mouse that runs mazes better than any other but suffers chronic arthritic pain?"
This is worse than anecdotal, it's pure fallacy: the research needed to make the change to the mouse will improve and to apply it to human beings now would be immoral, but if we had the technology and it was otherwise safe, not using it would be immoral. Consider: we have the techonolgy to prevent a common form of mental retardation. We understand the problem: not enough iodine in the first three months of fetal development. The solution: sufficient iodine and folic acid. It is a problem that has hampered the development of places like India, where iodine-deficiency related mental retardation is scarily commonplace. Would Angier argue that iodized salt is evil? I doubt it. The only difference between applying iodine and genetic engineering is that one is simple, understood, and already available: the latter is complicated, not easily grasped by those not familiar with it, and not yet ready for widespread deployment. But "complexity" is an arbitrary designation, with no practical measurement. Each person can only decide for him or herself what is 'too complicated.'
The same is true of intelligence. I see this as a matter of praticality. Every responsible parent strives to give their child the best, to educate the child to the best of their ability. Is it "unfair" that some parents have more time, and spend it, on their children, or that they have more money, and spend it, on their children? Sure, but life's not fair. This isn't a Harrison Beregeron world, and we can all be grateful for that fact. A parent who has the potential to give their child a better education and a better life, and fails to exercise that potential, is a deadly failure. A parent who has access to good nutrition during pregnancy, and fails to use it, is a deadly failure. And a parent who has the capability to genetically test their child and improve the child's prospects is just as deadly a failure.
We have already "tinkered in God's domain" by lowering the infant mortality rate from one in two to one it two thousand; by understanding the chemistry and biology of partuition so that we can provide adequate nutrition for the child in the womb; by understanding the growth process enough to provide for the child through puberty and so on. This is absolutely the best time in all of history to live, and only a pure, blind misanthrope would say otherwise. Angiers and McKibben do not outright disagree with this statement, but they seem convinced that it can't get any better. Hence the title, Enough. It's a sickening title.
McKibben goes on with another bugaboo: "One day, a young pianist will sit sulking, wondering if it is her skill and devotion, or a catalog of proteins, that leads to her success. Or a minister's son, outfitted with the genes of piety, will wonder if his piety truly means something or if it is just literal brainwashing?"
I've got news for McKibben and Angiers: it doesn't matter. Who is to say that the current crop of pianists' devotion and skill and so on isn't the result of pure luck, the genes having fallen just right in her case? Who is to say that the piety of a man isn't likewise the outcome of random processes in the brain, the arbitrary arrangement of neurons that make some susceptible hosts to superstition memes? McKibben states that such possibilities "rob a person of any chance of understanding their life."
Excuse me? What is there to understand? Life is. Deal with it. Whether you get your benefits randomly or by the choice of parents matters little: you've got what you've got, time to move on. McKibben and Angiers want us to "reject the technocracy!"
They're welcome to live in their plastic caves loaded with ordinary toasters and televisions. I, for one, have a more delight-filled future to look forward to.
Angier quotes a scientist who says, "In thirty years we'll be able to give your kid an extra 30 IQ points" and then retorts, "Oh, yeah? Like the mouse that runs mazes better than any other but suffers chronic arthritic pain?"
This is worse than anecdotal, it's pure fallacy: the research needed to make the change to the mouse will improve and to apply it to human beings now would be immoral, but if we had the technology and it was otherwise safe, not using it would be immoral. Consider: we have the techonolgy to prevent a common form of mental retardation. We understand the problem: not enough iodine in the first three months of fetal development. The solution: sufficient iodine and folic acid. It is a problem that has hampered the development of places like India, where iodine-deficiency related mental retardation is scarily commonplace. Would Angier argue that iodized salt is evil? I doubt it. The only difference between applying iodine and genetic engineering is that one is simple, understood, and already available: the latter is complicated, not easily grasped by those not familiar with it, and not yet ready for widespread deployment. But "complexity" is an arbitrary designation, with no practical measurement. Each person can only decide for him or herself what is 'too complicated.'
The same is true of intelligence. I see this as a matter of praticality. Every responsible parent strives to give their child the best, to educate the child to the best of their ability. Is it "unfair" that some parents have more time, and spend it, on their children, or that they have more money, and spend it, on their children? Sure, but life's not fair. This isn't a Harrison Beregeron world, and we can all be grateful for that fact. A parent who has the potential to give their child a better education and a better life, and fails to exercise that potential, is a deadly failure. A parent who has access to good nutrition during pregnancy, and fails to use it, is a deadly failure. And a parent who has the capability to genetically test their child and improve the child's prospects is just as deadly a failure.
We have already "tinkered in God's domain" by lowering the infant mortality rate from one in two to one it two thousand; by understanding the chemistry and biology of partuition so that we can provide adequate nutrition for the child in the womb; by understanding the growth process enough to provide for the child through puberty and so on. This is absolutely the best time in all of history to live, and only a pure, blind misanthrope would say otherwise. Angiers and McKibben do not outright disagree with this statement, but they seem convinced that it can't get any better. Hence the title, Enough. It's a sickening title.
McKibben goes on with another bugaboo: "One day, a young pianist will sit sulking, wondering if it is her skill and devotion, or a catalog of proteins, that leads to her success. Or a minister's son, outfitted with the genes of piety, will wonder if his piety truly means something or if it is just literal brainwashing?"
I've got news for McKibben and Angiers: it doesn't matter. Who is to say that the current crop of pianists' devotion and skill and so on isn't the result of pure luck, the genes having fallen just right in her case? Who is to say that the piety of a man isn't likewise the outcome of random processes in the brain, the arbitrary arrangement of neurons that make some susceptible hosts to superstition memes? McKibben states that such possibilities "rob a person of any chance of understanding their life."
Excuse me? What is there to understand? Life is. Deal with it. Whether you get your benefits randomly or by the choice of parents matters little: you've got what you've got, time to move on. McKibben and Angiers want us to "reject the technocracy!"
They're welcome to live in their plastic caves loaded with ordinary toasters and televisions. I, for one, have a more delight-filled future to look forward to.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-08 11:05 pm (UTC)I'm also not convinced that having everyone reaching for the stars is such a hot idea anyway. We're going to need a few people that are content to ask us if we want fries with that. (On the other hand, government-sponsored breeding programs for that class of induhvidual is going way too far in the other direction.)
The search for the meaning of life is eternal; let those who will, do. But I agree, they have no business telling us what we should or should not do.
In 1980 a hot new book appeared on the market, called Megatrends. It prophesied (correctly) that as the new high-tech era came to the fore, it would be accompanied by a high-touch backlash. I'm of the opinion that we should embrace both movements, even as we did tonight... We used high tech to create high-touch. (You emailed Jen and asked when Third Place was happening.) This is a Good and Happy Thing.
I don't believe in total abandonment of technology, but I don't believe that just because we *can* mess with certain things means we *should* (outside of a carefully controlled environment). This applies to everything from genetics to weaponry to database mining. The Universe seeks balance: High tech, high touch, natural foods, high-tech materials to cook them with, hearing a voice from 2000 miles away, getting a hug in real life. All things in moderation. Including moderation! :)
It's all your fault...
Well... OK, maybe not the pony part. :)
Re: It's all your fault...
Date: 2003-04-09 01:19 pm (UTC)