RE: FWD (DS) Unspeakable Conversations

From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 21:44:22 MST

  • Next message: mlorrey@yahoo.com: "TECH: PDA applications of note"

    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!).

    Emlyn

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Michael M. Butler [mailto:mmb@spies.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2003 12:15
    > To: extropians@extropy.org
    > Subject: Re: FWD (DS) Unspeakable Conversations
    >
    >
    > hard times, hard questions. there's the whole gray area of
    > neglect vs heroic measures,
    > too. At any age, for anybody.
    >
    > Terry W. Colvin wrote:
    > > Forwarded from the Down Syndrome (DS) mailing list:
    >
    > > I have heard colleagues express the same thing and even had
    > one say when my
    > > son was born that he should just be allowed to die because
    > he would never
    > > have a decent life. What will happen to Peter Singer and
    > others that think
    > > as he does when they start to age and someone decides that
    > their life is no
    > > longer worth living? Will they still hold to their sacred
    > belief system?
    > >
    > > John, Fellow parent
    >
    >

    ***************************************************************************
    Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
    intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
    the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
    disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
    prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
    immediately and delete the document.
    Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
    responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
    material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
    or other defect.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 21:46:34 MST