Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction - Julian Savulescu

[Jim__]

Savulescu is in the news recently because of an article he wrote on genetically engineering babies that is being published in Reader's Digest - for instance, this article was talked about in an August 16th article in the Huffington Post. I haven't read his article and so have nothing to say about it. However, in searching for information about Savulescu, I found this 2009 talk he gave on the dangers of human extinction.

There are 2 video parts to his talk. The first part runs for about 30 minutes.The second part is about 10 minutes of talk and then 20 minutes of Q&A.


Savulescu is a bioethicist:

He is Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Head of the Melbourne–Oxford Stem Cell Collaboration, and a former editor of the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics.

Before I listened to his talk, I would have dismissed the idea as crazy. I still don't agree with his solution, but I do understand the point he is making. Savulescu says that we are about to enter a Bermuda Triangle of Human Extinction. The 3 legs of the triangle are:

• radical technological power
  
• liberal democracy
  
• human moral nature

Radical technological power speaks for itself. We have developed nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons that have the power to wipe out humanity. Even the peaceful use of technology can be massively destructive of our environment - for instance, climate change.

Liberal democracy drives us toward giving people maximum freedom - a tremendous risk given the availability of extremely powerful technological weapons. This point hit home for me. When Bush was president and talking about using nuclear weapons, I realized that if these devastatingly powerful weapons exist, eventually, someone is going to use them. Under democratic government, we can't really prevent idiots from gaining power; so, it's going to happen.

Human moral nature has evolved in a non-technological environment. Technological development is far outstripping the ability of evolutionary processes to keep up. Most humans are empathetic; but our empathy is largely dependent upon local stimulus. If we see someone lying on the ground writhing in pain; most people will try to help. But, if we read about thousands of people across the ocean starving to death, we are not touched in the same way. If we live in a relatively small group and the group is co-dependent, we feel bad if we don't carry our share of the load. In huge technological societies, free-loading does not make us feel bad. Savulescu cites a study that found that in the US, 52% of the population would not go along with procedures to address climate change if those procedures cost as much as $50 per month. Only 11% would go along if the cost was $1,000 per month.

By removing one leg, we can avoid this triangle of human extinction. Savulescu believes that genetically enhancing human morality is the path most likely to succeed. It's scary stuff. I don't believe we have the understanding to succeed with such genetic enhancements. But, he makes a strong case for the dangers we are facing.

[cbayer]

1. If we can remove one leg of this triangle, I would vote for the complete

elimination of weapons that can kill massive numbers of people in one shot.

The concept of genetically enhancing morality makes not sense to me, but providing incentives for people to act in a more globally moral fashion does.

[leftyohiolib]

2. im with you lets try disarming before "enhancing"

[Jim__]

4. Before I read his article, that was pretty much my position.

I think the problem is more complex. Savulescu talks about each of the legs of the triangle.

The problem with technology is more than just the deadly weapons. It is that even the peaceful use of our technology is destroying the environment that we need to survive. Our evolved mechanisms for dealing with problems, don't really kick in for problems that are this big and non-local. We can't really see what's going on and so we will not accept the drastic changes that are required to address the problem.

We don't want to eliminate liberal democracy and restrict human freedom. History tells us that this is not a solution.

He talks about genetic engineering as if we knew enough to be able to undertake this approach. If he were right, then this may be the solution. I don't think he's right and I don't believe we have anywhere near the knowledge or understanding to try this.

The main insight that I got from his talk is that we, as a species, are in serious trouble. I'm not sure we can solve the imminent problems that we are facing.

[cbayer]

5. I think his approach is too simplistic and that all of the issues have to

be addressed simultaneously.

Incentives and disincentives can be developed that put brakes on technology that harms our world. The same can be done within a liberal democracy, as it does not permit all people absolute freedom, but requires responsibility and accountability.

Genetic engineering of something so poorly understood as morality scares the shit out of me, frankly.

[Jim__]

7. I'm not clear on exactly where he thinks the science of genetic engineering actually is.

He gives a brief example of successfully genetically modifying mountain voles (sp) to make them monogamous. I think he talks a little about genetic changes that can be made to humans.

[rug]

3. Sounds like Transhumanism, plus two.

http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/

[Jim__]

6. In some ways, but I think he sees this as more of an immediate need.

He spoke of a society (I think it was some science society - he gives the name, I just don't remember it) and the society tried to figure the odds of human life surviving the 21st century. The head of the society figured it as 50%, the group consensus was 25%.