tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post4195269847030666030..comments2023-10-30T04:16:25.917-04:00Comments on Sentient Developments: Bailey on Fukuyama's 'eugenics'Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-79204098947532286262007-03-16T07:41:00.000-04:002007-03-16T07:41:00.000-04:00In "Our Posthuman Future," Fukuyama argues that on...In "Our Posthuman Future," Fukuyama argues that one of the primary reasons to strictly regulate genetic modification is because a change to genetics is a change of the resulting biochemistry, which may be a change of the brain mechanisms. To change man is to change the nature of man, and that is a threat to the nature of the state. (One only needs to look at the FoxP series of genes to see the links here). Being a neoconservative or former neoconservative, it is not surprising that Fukuyama would be concerned about the nature of the state and preserving a stable system. This, of course, completely fails to see the potential dollar signs here, and in the end, it is the almighty dollar which will win out. I believe this is best detailed in Gregory Stock's "Redesigning Humans": the technology will be developed, it is a matter of who develops it, either a democratic state or a less than democratic state. I wonder which Fukuyama would want?Jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255059756835959589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-47165064750659967562007-03-14T15:05:00.000-04:002007-03-14T15:05:00.000-04:00The more I hear about Fukayama the more i wonder w...The more I hear about Fukayama the more i wonder what basis his decisions are made on.<BR/><BR/>The ability to select capacities in offspring that better equip them to function in their daily life is really none of the government's business. I believe in offerring advantages when possible. While I believe that many of the advantages we create for a society come from more tolerant persons, I seem to see that more intelligent people are more likely to bypass prejudice entirely. Therefore intelligence enhancementServes the greater good in the scope of tolerance of diversity. <BR/><BR/>By confining enhancement options we are discriminating against higher capacities and I find it disturbing to say the least.Jennifer Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153806234112213229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-58646737520136507682007-03-13T19:11:00.000-04:002007-03-13T19:11:00.000-04:00Banning dangerous and powerful new research seems ...Banning dangerous and powerful new research seems like a pretty good idea, since heaven knows we don't want responsible, benevolently-motivated scientists as technological midwives. Much better we leave it to dictator' henchmen and criminals.Natohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05273666908715766390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-69825550424650281932007-03-11T13:30:00.000-04:002007-03-11T13:30:00.000-04:00The only thing these "bioconservatives" can possib...The only thing these "bioconservatives" can possibly manage to accomplish is to hand over dominance in biotechnology (with all that that implies) to the Asians and Europeans while progress here stagnates under the dead weight of their primitive taboos.Infidel753https://www.blogger.com/profile/10965786814334886696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-87150316279427240682007-03-10T23:01:00.000-05:002007-03-10T23:01:00.000-05:00I agree with you that we do need regulatory bodies...I agree with you that we do need regulatory bodies, that it is inevitable and that it is even desired. My own personal philosophy would be to allow any sort of genetic enhancement that would actually make the "being" better in some way shape or form rather than hinder them in any way. If parents decide the want a blind kid, I say no way. But if they want to give them better vision, disease resistance, or higher intelligence then it is their right as parents to make their child "better" in any way they see fit. Just like a parent can raise their child as they see fit with little involvement from the state the same should go for designing your child.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com