SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
10mo ago
Advocating for this technology is ultimately an admission that genes matter, of course it's a eugenics technology. The essence of the eugenics movement is social concern over the gene pool, and that is exactly embodied with this technology.
But embryo selection is indeed highly limited, and if proponents of this technology are going to hide behind "we just want healthier babies", then indeed why stop there? If we want healthier babies, way before we care about embryo screening shouldn't we foremost care about a eugenic mate selection which is always going to be more impactful than embryonic screening?
I can say that I honestly want healthier babies in terms of physical strength, IQ, beauty, but I am keenly aware that even most proponents of this technology would consider that evil beyond their opportunity to improve their own offspring.
I've said before that if "longtermists" were worthy of the name they would foremost care about the gene pool and its direction. Their new advocacy for this technology shows that they want it for themselves without generalizing the issue as a social question, which it always has been and always will be.
They should embrace the label and recognize that the arguments against eugenics have always been bad from the very beginning. You can argue against something like forced sterilization, but the arguments against eugenics have never been good, so it's annoying seeing advocates for embryo screening try to distance themselves from eugenics rather than be brave and acknowledge that fact.
The other LW article I've seen takes the same approach of trying to distance the embryonic selection from eugenics:
In my view, the term “eugenics” should not be used to describe embryo screening. In most people’s minds “eugenics” conjures images of government-sponsored sterilization efforts, genocide, and racist pseudoscience. I understand the technical definition is just “good for genes”, but this is not what comes to mind for most people when they hear this word.
Even worse, most of the horrible things done in the name of “eugenics” in the past were in fact not eugenic at all! The entire Nazi theory of genes was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how genes worked. They believed that non-aryan peoples were “contaminating” the “pure aryan bloodline”, and that only by purging those who were unpure could they make a perfect master race. Which is of course not just a morally repugnant theory, but also wrong.
If you want to have a productive conversation, I would suggest using the term “epilogenics” to describe non-coercive means of improving genes that are in line with what we expect those affected would want. There are of course still some concerns with epilogenics (increasing inequality for example), but they are decidedly NOT the same concerns that people have about eugenics.
From what I've seen, they want to use the technology to selfishly give their own offspring a leg-up over the rest of society, they don't actually want to approach social issues with eugenic-minded thinking- they still denounce that. Supporting embryonic selection won't even make a dent in dysgenic spiral, and good luck being saved by gene editing when even they are too afraid to openly associate with eugenics and don't seem interested in challenging the bad arguments against it.
It looks to me like they are just applying the euphemism treadmill to change the word to something the public won't throw a fit over and then supporting eugenics.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Advocating for this technology is ultimately an admission that genes matter, of course it's a eugenics technology. The essence of the eugenics movement is social concern over the gene pool, and that is exactly embodied with this technology.
But embryo selection is indeed highly limited, and if proponents of this technology are going to hide behind "we just want healthier babies", then indeed why stop there? If we want healthier babies, way before we care about embryo screening shouldn't we foremost care about a eugenic mate selection which is always going to be more impactful than embryonic screening?
I can say that I honestly want healthier babies in terms of physical strength, IQ, beauty, but I am keenly aware that even most proponents of this technology would consider that evil beyond their opportunity to improve their own offspring.
I've said before that if "longtermists" were worthy of the name they would foremost care about the gene pool and its direction. Their new advocacy for this technology shows that they want it for themselves without generalizing the issue as a social question, which it always has been and always will be.
They should embrace the label and recognize that the arguments against eugenics have always been bad from the very beginning. You can argue against something like forced sterilization, but the arguments against eugenics have never been good, so it's annoying seeing advocates for embryo screening try to distance themselves from eugenics rather than be brave and acknowledge that fact.
Who are you talking about? All of the longtermists I know want gene editing. Have always supported gene editing. Are not against gene editing.
The other LW article I've seen takes the same approach of trying to distance the embryonic selection from eugenics:
From what I've seen, they want to use the technology to selfishly give their own offspring a leg-up over the rest of society, they don't actually want to approach social issues with eugenic-minded thinking- they still denounce that. Supporting embryonic selection won't even make a dent in dysgenic spiral, and good luck being saved by gene editing when even they are too afraid to openly associate with eugenics and don't seem interested in challenging the bad arguments against it.
It looks to me like they are just applying the euphemism treadmill to change the word to something the public won't throw a fit over and then supporting eugenics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link