From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 14:55:04 MST
Emlyn wrote:
> Might Singer's position on the severely disabled be a very dangerous
> one for Transhumanism?
>
> I would argue that, potentially, humans of average intelligence are
> to SI as the massively mentally retarded are to humans of average
> intelligence.
>
> Singer's position seems to be that the intellectually able make
> decisions for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves,
> because the latter lack the facility of decision making. If a Peter
> Singer SI regards average humans as unable to make decisions in any
> useful way (seeing that, on scales relevant to SIs, such humans are
> unable to make decision sets distinguishable from random noise), it
> might regard average humans as unable to usefully make decisions
> regarding their own welfare. If it also decides that humans suffer
> because of some SI discernable factor (not intelligent enough to
> determine the point of their own existence? Quite possibly), or that
> the happiness cost of killing the poor human is outweighed by the
> happiness benefit from creating a new SI with the human's resources,
> then humans are toast.
>
> This is a variant of the common fear of stratification in a post-human
> future, into technological/intellectual haves and have nots, the fear
> being that the haves will make decisions for the have nots (which
> will not be pretty, think GATACCA, further down the line). Singer's
> theory applied to Transhumanism is a straight line to the Brave New
> World meme.
>
> This is not the route for Transhumanism. We are about individual
> choice as the primary axiom. Morphological freedom is something that
> I think the disabled community would resonate with very strongly (see
> "Unspeakable Conversations", the author's discussion of her body's
> shape). Singer's utilitarian approach seems to me to lead very
> quickly to a group-dominates-individual situation; there are just too
> many requirements for groups to judge individuals and take actions up
> to and including involuntary euthanasia (wow!).
### I don't see Singer's ideas in this light. Please note that Singer does
not advocate infringing on the autonomy of infants or severely mentally
retarded. He advances the idea that they do not have the cognitive means of
forming the concept of autonomy, and willing to be alive (I think it can be
argued that we have insufficient data to settle this question today, but
this is beside the point).
It is widely accepted that on the other end of the life cycle, in e.g.
adults who suffered a terminal insult to their brain, and their "brain
death" can be verified, withdrawal of support is an option. Once your
self-awareness, and will to live is gone, there are no obligations to
support the life of your body.
If the Peter Singer SI (PSSI) realizes that humans are incapable of making
decisions crucial for survival and happiness (and are also incapable of
following good advice from the SI, like a drowning cat swimming away from
good folks who want to save it), ve would not be obliged to kill or directly
control humans - ve could simply let them be, like letting a terminal
patient die (because of his inability to actively desire and obtain
nutrition), or like letting lions and antelopes live their brutish and nasty
lives, instead of making them inhabit a bloodless paradise.
The PSSI would offer help only to those who desire it and can use it without
losing their identity and autonomy. Transhumanists willing to accept massive
rewiring in search of enlightenment might some of them.
This said, I really dislike and reject utilitarianism
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 14:56:16 MST