"Brave New World" vs "1984"

[Florestan]

Got it.

Have you?

[Florestan]

Living in the middle of the US it's hard to see the decadence and collapse of civilization that some warn about.

You need to get out more.

[DavidW]

You need to get out more.

Well I don't think I want to make a field trip to observe decadence and moral depravity.   That would turn me into JdP.

[Daidalos]

Going back to my first paragraph: science and technology are powerful tools. A tool can be used for doing good as much as for doing harm. It all depends on who uses it under what circumstances.

Now, science and technology, by their very nature, are completely outside any democratic control. We can vote our political leaders in and out of power and we can have some degree of control over their actions (more and more fictitious as time goes by, but that is another story) but we can't vote scientists and engineers in and out of their labs and offices nor can we control in any way their actions. Actually, science and technology have become the one single source of power and prestige that is completely dettached of any control by those to whom they are supposed to serve. No one can stop dishonest or malevolent scientist and engineers from doing whatever they want. Not the society at large, for whom the technicalities and details of their work are just as alien as the other side of the moon; nor the governments, because actually science and technology, if anything, help them making people happier and healthier in materialist terms and it is well-known from all history that a happy and content people never question its social and political organization, much less thinks about changing it. Besides, if people become unrest and politically active, the self same science and technology helps governments to control, monitor and calm them down.

I certainly agree with you regarding the erosion of democracy, and how more distant the people seem to grow from the power they elect. I've often seen and heard non-American people disparage the circus that is the US-elections, but truth be told the rest of the western world is not much different. In Sweden, when it's time for elections, we see the same attempts from politicians to obfuscate matters, boil questions down to one-liners and catchphrases, regardless of what party they belong to. I wonder, can democracy exist where the people are ignorant of the things that they are actually voting on? It becomes even more perverse when the media and the politicians seem intent on contributing to the voters' ignorance; the politicians have a product to sell, and they can be just as sleazy as any used-car salesman. I would say it's not as bad in Sweden as in the US (or UK), but it's getting there.

This means that the institutions need to be reformed, or at least attempts must be made to involve the people more in the running of nations. If scientific advances are going to benefit more than just a clique of demagogues, ideologues and financial barons, obviously the underlying societal issues need to be addressed.

But all of this is an argument for reform, not prohibiting a certain kind of science or technology. I think it is a good thing that science is free (it's not really free, but that's another question), because only then can the results be unbiased. Scientific investigations, results or interpretations cannot be beholden to democracy; ideally, scientific implementations should be.

We have arrived at a moment when the fate of all humanity is indeed in the hands of a few corporations: the political ones, i.e. the governments; the financial and industrial ones; and, and that's a novelty in history, the scientific and technological corporations, which are no less interested in creating and maintaining the statu-quo than the other ones, to which they are actually closely tied. Now, of all these corporations, only the political ones are still under the control of the society at large, albeit in a more and more evanescent degree. But the trend is inexorably towards replacing social control of political corporations with the control of the other corporations, or even towards merging them altogether.

That being said, I'm pessimistic about the outlook. You mention "serious debates". Fine, but who will be debating? John or Jane Doe, the Everyman whose fate is at stake --- or political leaders, scientists, engineers, lobby-makers and other experts, to whom genetical engineering, in whatever form it will be practiced, will be highly beneficial?

I'm a democrat (lowercase "d", obviously), so the discussions should of course be conducted with the public, policymakers, and experts. This would necessitate educating the public on some very tricky aspects of the technology, but if it is going to be in any way democratically implemented to benefit everyone that must be attempted.

IMO, for the so-called civilized nations, who are already living under a "dictatorship of experts"  the future is dark. There is still hope for the other nations, those where the scientific and technological "progress" is far less advanced. But I wonder if the technologically advanced, genetically engineered societies of the future will allow less "developed", non-engineered regions to survive.

So my answer to your question is: excluding any notion of God's providence, nothing can be done to prevent it from happening.

So then, since you agree that it is impossible to prevent it, wouldn't the best course of action be to strive towards implementing genetic engineering of humans in a way that would benefit the greatest number of people as possible?

[Daidalos]

You need to take your science fiction a little less seriously.

Hey! As a bona-fide science fiction nerd, I resent that!

[Florestan]

I wonder, can democracy exist where the people are ignorant of the things that they are actually voting on?

It can't and it won't.

So then, since you agree that it is impossible to prevent it, wouldn't the best course of action be to strive towards implementing genetic engineering of humans in a way that would benefit the greatest number of people as possible?

Genetical manipulation of humans (this is a much more accurate description than engineering), no matter how widespread, is an evil in itself and will benefit no one in the long term.

[Josquin des Prez]

You need to take your science fiction a little less seriously.

No need to rely on science fiction alone. Try Dostoevsky for size. His dystopian vision is even more frightening.

[Josquin des Prez]

Well I don't think I want to make a field trip to observe decadence and moral depravity.

Decadence and moral depravity is all around you. You have just been convinced that what you see is perfectly normal, so you lack the proper perspective.

That would turn me into JdP.

You have no idea of the amount of psychological trauma you need to undergo before you can become like me. Believe me, you are probably safe.

[Daidalos]

Genetical manipulation of humans (this is a much more accurate description than engineering), no matter how widespread, is an evil in itself and will benefit no one in the long term.

I cannot sympathise with this at all. An evil in itself that will benefit no one in the long term? Even moderate applications, such as eradication of genetic diseases? Even they are intrinsically evil? Could you provide a reason why you believe this?

I may be regarded as an arch-materialist for saying this, but I believe that if we have the technology to improve upon humans in some ways, we should definitely do it. I see nothing inherently evil with correcting for evolutionary mistakes, removing errors borne of our lowly past. In principle, I see nothing wrong with going even further than that and actually making people smarter and better in other ways. God knows it wouldn't hurt if people got a bit smarter.

There are other nascent technologies that are relevant to this discussion. Screening eggs and sperm in the lab for genetic diseases, for instance. You do not allow an egg to be fertilized if it contains deleterious genes. This small-scale measure would spare many children from suffering, and it would reduce the number of abortions, I would think (for "livelihood-of-the-baby"-reasons, at least). Is this evil too? This is just a more roundabout and wasteful way of tampering with human DNA than direct genetic manipulation conceivably is capable of achieving. In a sense, we practice genetic manipulation already when we choose mates: we influence the genetic makeup of our offspring. Direct genetic manipulation is potentially a less wasteful and  less dangerous shortcut.

Naturally, this is a pretty academic discussion right now because human genetic manipulation is not currently feasible. For example, we can't integrate DNA specifically into a human chromosome. Past gene therapies designed to cure certain monogenic diseases have had the side-effects of causing leukemia. This is because a common vector for gene therapy, a retroviral integrase protein, inserts the DNA randomly. However, that is not an insurmountable obstacle. During genetics courses I've worked in labs that attempt to use other integrases (some from bacteriophages) in the hopes of achieving a specific integration. While safe genetic manipulation of humans isn't a reality now, I think it will become one within the foreseeable future.

[oabmarcus]

I think that particular prediction is going to be fulfilled, sooner or later. The more we learn about human genetics, and the more traits we can associate with a particular genetic pattern, tailor-made children seem to be an inevitability.

Mind you, I think we should actually embrace that development, in principle. To be able to eradicate genetic diseases, for instance, would be a tremendous boon to society, and if we could correct other vestiges of our evolutionary past through genetic engineering, that would also be something we should give serious consideration to. Naturally, there are issues with this (if we disregard the technical aspects for a second), chief amongst them income disparity. We could see the rich making their kids smarter and stronger, while the poor would have no such options. However, that is no reason to completely forswear the technology of human genetic engineering. That would only be regressive, and you can be sure that everyone will not abide by such a restriction.

if you eradicate genetic diseases, which prolongs life. Which means more older individuals, in an era where most developed nations have seen dramatic population decline, don't u see a problem in that?

Don't look at me funny when i say that reproducing human beings in tubes is a good idea. It solves the population problem, mathematicians can solve for the optimum number of alphas/betas/gammas/episilion and produce the most efficient economic number of human beings. Aren't we all better off? There won't be problems with younger generation being overburdened with supporting an aging population. More importantly, it eradicates the concept of family, which I think is a good thing.

[Daidalos]

if you eradicate genetic diseases, which prolongs life. Which means more older individuals, in an era where most developed nations have seen dramatic population decline, don't u see a problem in that?

If you take that logic to its ultimate conclusion, no medical advancement should be allowed to occur, because with every cure and improved surgical technique, it possible to increase the average lifespan a nudge. Overpopulation is a completely separate issue.

Don't look at me funny when i say that reproducing human beings in tubes is a good idea. It solves the population problem, mathematicians can solve for the optimum number of alphas/betas/gammas/episilion and produce the most efficient economic number of human beings. Aren't we all better off? There won't be problems with younger generation being overburdened with supporting an aging population. More importantly, it eradicates the concept of family, which I think is a good thing.

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but I wouldn't be in favour of any authority calculating the optimum number of humans and then proceed to attempt some coerced social engineering project to bring the populace down to that level.

I think overpopulation is a concern, but it might be better to strive to improve education and living standards across the globe. I believe it is pretty well-established that the more affluent the nation and family, the slower does the population grow.

[oabmarcus]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but I wouldn't be in favour of any authority calculating the optimum number of humans and then proceed to attempt some coerced social engineering project to bring the populace down to that level.

Am I?  I have no problems with it, if you think in terms the long term survival of the human race, then I think it's a something that must be done at some point.

I think overpopulation is a concern, but it might be better to strive to improve education and living standards across the globe. I believe it is pretty well-established that the more affluent the nation and family, the slower does the population grow.

That is true, it's funny how the Chinese adopted one child policy to curb population growth. But, once the genie is out of the bottle, they can't put it back in. Now people are having fewer kids, partly because it's more costly to have more kids, partly because they want to enjoy their life more. Now the government is worried that not enough young people will be around supporting the aging population, oops!

[jowcol]

I'd have to say my vote would be for the world of Kafka's The Trial and The Castle.   The machinery of the dystopias in 1984 and Brave New World are a bit too smooth for my taste-- one thing I like about Kafka he understands the inherent madness in bureaucracy.

As far as the Brave New World vs 1984--   I would say that one living in a totalitarian regime would be more likely to see the 1984 model as more accurate, one living in a "free", media-saturated culture would think that Brave New World is more likely.  And those of us who work for large corporations or the government tend to find Kafka the most accurate. 

I agree with JdP's read on Dostoevsky-- "The Devils" and "Notes from Underground" are excellent in showing the dark side of Utopian fantasies (the latter a brilliant response to What then is to be Done?) -- as long as people are involved, all sorts of things can go wrong. 

Also, while we're at it, Zamyatin's We is a classic of the genre, and has been said to be a major influence in 1984.  Also a big Mussorgsky fan, so he's cool with me.

[Florestan]

I cannot sympathise with this at all. An evil in itself that will benefit no one in the long term? Even moderate applications, such as eradication of genetic diseases? Even they are intrinsically evil? Could you provide a reason why you believe this?

Several, actually.

First, taking a step towards genetic manipulation, no matter how small and well-intentioned it may seem at first glance, will trigger an inexorable chain of more and more, bigger and bigger, worse and worse manipulation at the end of which a worldwide technological totalitarianism inevitably awaits us.

Second, sometimes diseases and the accompanying sufferings are the direct result of our individual choices, actions and behaviors, such as alcoholism, sexual promiscuity or drugs. Ensuring that, by genetical manipulation or stem cell technology, each and every disease can be cured, besides erroding personal responsibility, encourages choices, actions and behaviors that are highly detrimental to the social fabric.

Third, in some instances sickness and associated pain are even beneficial to the individual. Not infrequently, immoral people afflicted with their own sickness, or that of a loved one, start to examine their conscience and life and as a result, after recovery turn into far more better persons than they were before. Curing diseases by genetical engineering deprives individuals of one of the most effective opportunities to change their lives for better.

Fourth, disease and suffering are closely related to art. Countless works of art, among which numerous masterpieces, have been created by sick artists exactly in response to, or prompted by, their suffering and pain. Curing diseases by genetical manipulation deprives us of one of the sources of great art.

Bottom line, sickness, pain and death are part and parcel of our human nature and part of the price we must pay for our personal liberty and achievements.

There are other nascent technologies that are relevant to this discussion. Screening eggs and sperm in the lab for genetic diseases, for instance. You do not allow an egg to be fertilized if it contains deleterious genes. This small-scale measure would spare many children from suffering, and it would reduce the number of abortions, I would think (for "livelihood-of-the-baby"-reasons, at least). Is this evil too?

This is a technology that the Nazis would have been delighted to possess. It would have allowed them to fulfil their dream of purifying the German nation by getting rid of all those mentally and physically handicapped persons which they regarded as inferior and useless and which they tried to eliminate by such inhuman, unscientific and costly methods as forced euthanasia, forced sterilization and concentration camps extermination.  Screenings eggs and sperm would have solved their problems in an oh so humane, scientific and economical way.

And who will decide which baby is allowed to be formed, and which one isn't? Parents? Scientists? Governments?

And suppose that no matter by whom, it is decided that a congenitally defective baby is not allowed to form and be given birth. Who could guarantee that he could not have been a Toulouse-Lautrec, a Byron, a Leopardi or any other of the great artists which were born with more or less severe congenital deficiencies? And even if they weren't such artists, they could have still live a normal life, provided they had caring and loving parents and a sane society around. But of course a society that encourages screening is the pinnacle of insanity, and the parents who agree to kill their baby just because s/he'll be deaf, or lame, or hunchback know nothing about care and love.

Naturally, this is a pretty academic discussion right now because human genetic manipulation is not currently feasible.

I pray God that it will NEVER be feasible.

[Daidalos]

Several, actually.

What will probably come as no surprise, I reject all your arguments.

First, taking a step towards genetic manipulation, no matter how small and well-intentioned it may seem at first glance, will trigger an inexorable chain of more and more, bigger and bigger, worse and worse manipulation at the end of which a worldwide technological totalitarianism inevitably awaits us.

Then, I suppose we're already down that slippery slope, because gene therapy (genetic manipulation of humans for medical reasons) has already been attempted. Patients with severe combined immunodeficiency ("bubble boy") have been subjects of gene therapy. It was partially successful, however a number of the patients developed leukemia, owing perhaps to the tendency of retrovirus vectors to insert randomly into the chromosome.

Second, sometimes diseases and the accompanying sufferings are the direct result of our individual choices, actions and behaviors, such as alcoholism, sexual promiscuity or drugs. Ensuring that, by genetical manipulation or stem cell technology, each and every disease can be cured, besides erroding personal responsibility, encourages choices, actions and behaviors that are highly detrimental to the social fabric.

Well, this is utterly irrelevant to my point about genetic diseases. They are not the result of individual choices, excepts for the parents who decided to conceive a child.

However, even if I disregard that point, your same argument applies to all medications. We stop medical research into some diseases that might be partially be the result of individual choice? Tough it out, perhaps you'll grow into a better person; strength through adversity! We should just refuse to treat alcoholics and drug addicts and let them suffer the consequences of their choices.

Third, in some instances sickness and associated pain are even beneficial to the individual. Not infrequently, immoral people afflicted with their own sickness, or that of a loved one, start to examine their conscience and life and as a result, after recovery turn into far more better persons than they were before. Curing diseases by genetical engineering deprives individuals of one of the most effective opportunities to change their lives for better.

On the whole, there is greater immorality to allow suffering to continue just because a few immoral people may learn a thing or two by going through a tough convalescence. Most sick people aren't villains who have done bad, but simply regular people struck with bad luck. You would have them suffer for the benefit of a few reprobates who may or may not come out better off after the experience?

Fourth, disease and suffering are closely related to art. Countless works of art, among which numerous masterpieces, have been created by sick artists exactly in response to, or prompted by, their suffering and pain. Curing diseases by genetical manipulation deprives us of one of the sources of great art.

Again, the same argument applies to ALL medications, not only those treated by genetic manipulation. Diseases that are the result of infections, injuries or environmental conditions can also produce suffering and pain, which in turn can conceivably inspire great art. If you are willing to forgo all medication for the benefit of great art, you would be consistent, otherwise I'd say your argument is hollow.

By the way, personally I think the world of art would be richer if Mozart could have had access to our advanced medicine in his later years.

Bottom line, sickness, pain and death are part and parcel of our human nature and part of the price we must pay for our personal liberty and achievements.

So, skip all medications. We can treat some genetic disorders without manipulating the genome, it's simply that fixing the underlying condition rather than treating the symptoms generally is a wiser course of action, if it is available. I reiterate: this argument can be made for forswearing the use of all medicine, not only genetic manipulation.

This is a technology that the Nazis would have been delighted to possess. It would have allowed them to fulfil their dream of purifying the German nation by getting rid of all those mentally and physically handicapped persons which they regarded as inferior and useless and which they tried to eliminate by such inhuman, unscientific and costly methods as forced euthanasia, forced sterilization and concentration camps extermination.  Screenings eggs and sperm would have solved their problems in an oh so humane, scientific and economical way.

Ah, Godwin's Law in action..

I think it is perfectly moral to ensure that no child is conceived which would suffer from such severe mental handicaps that they cannot even take care of themselves. It is moral to make sure children aren't born with such crippling genetic disorders that they are in agony for their entire, short lives. We are not even talking about abortion or terminating a pregnancy here, we're simply ensuring that some objectively malfunctioning genes aren't allowed to screw up more lives.

And who will decide which baby is allowed to be formed, and which one isn't? Parents? Scientists? Governments?

If we could eliminate just the deleterious genes, without affecting the other genes, the child could still be allowed to form, sans the crippling inherent sickness. I would include Huntingtons and cystic fibrosis and SCID genes among them. These disorders are all caused by mutations, and correcting these genes with genetic manipulation before the child is born would do nothing other than saving the child from a crippling disease. I think that is far more moral than the alternative you propose.

And suppose that no matter by whom, it is decided that a congenitally defective baby is not allowed to form and be given birth. Who could guarantee that he could not have been a Toulouse-Lautrec, a Byron, a Leopardi or any other of the great artists which were born with more or less severe congenital deficiencies? And even if they weren't such artists, they could have still live a normal life, provided they had caring and loving parents and a sane society around. But of course a society that encourages screening is the pinnacle of insanity, and the parents who agree to kill their baby just because s/he'll be deaf, or lame, or hunchback know nothing about care and love.

How can you kill a "baby" who hasn't even progressed to the zygote stage? Are you proposing that not only are foetuses babies, but that sperm and eggs are as well?

In essence, it is the same decisions that two parents make when they don't have a child, because they know that both of them are carriers for cystic fibrosis. There is a 1/4 chance that their offspring will suffer from the disease, and they'd rather spare the child the experience. The more moral alternative is to weed out the mutated allele responsible for the development of the disorder, so that the parents can conceive a child without fear of it being sick.

I pray God that it will NEVER be feasible.

Yes, as you say, without divine intervention the technology will probably be feasible some time in the future. Therefore, it does no one any good to bemoan this sad state of affairs rather than actually try to figure out good ways to implement the technologies, should they become available.

[Scarpia]

Did 1984 or Brave New World predict that it would be impossible to get a sound card with a decent Windows 7 driver?

[Florestan]

We stop medical research into some diseases that might be partially be the result of individual choice?

You would have them suffer for the benefit of a few reprobates who may or may not benefit from the experience?

If you are willing to forgo all medication for the benefit of great art,

this argument can be made for forswearing the use of all medicine, not only genetic manipulation.

Strawmen all the way.

Ah, Godwin's Law in action..

Feel free to disprove my point.

I could have said Spartans instead of Nazis. Would that have made any difference?

[Daidalos]

Strawmen all the way.

No, I pointed out that your arguments weren't specific to genetic manipulation. They can be made against taking any medication at all, for any reason what so ever. No argument that you made is solely applicable to genetic manipulation -- and excludes conventional medicine -- therefore I feel my responses were perfectly fair and on target.

Feel free to disprove my point.

I could have said Spartans instead of Nazis. Would that have made any difference?

Fine then, it doesn't matter if the Nazis or Spartans would have liked it, the morality of a particular technology must be assessed on its own merits, not the evil deeds performed by people who may or may not have used those methods and technologies. So, invoking the Nazis is gratuitous and distracting.

Potentially, yes, they might have liked the technology to manipulate genetics. I'm sure they would like our computers as well, we do know how much the Nazis liked to organise and catalogue their atrocities for all the world to see; imagine what they could do with electronic storage devices! The horror!

Again, this is completely beside the point, I've already stated that there are harms and benefits to most technologies, certainly this applies to genetic engineering and screening. But it is not necessarily harmful. I've asserted that I believe that eliminating genetic disorders by means of either screening or genetic manipulation (neither of which is effective and commonly available now, by the way) is more moral than letting children with crippling diseases be born.

[Florestan]

I think it is perfectly moral to ensure that no child is conceived which would suffer from such severe mental handicaps that they cannot even take care of themselves.

Why?

If I understand correctly, you suggest that certain types of people who, according to  scientific standards, are defective or deficient should either not exist, or not be allowed to procreate. Is it so?

[Daidalos]

Why?

If I understand correctly, you suggest that certain types of people who, according to  scientific standards, are defective or deficient should either not exist, or not be allowed to procreate. Is it so?

No, I have never proposed any eugenics program at all. If you read through my posts, you'll find that I've been advocating genetic engineering (or manipulation, whatever). I said certain genes are demonstrably defective, genes directly linked to genetic disease. These genes carry mutations and produce great suffering in the unlucky people born with them. So, should genetic manipulation be an option, instead of keeping parents carrying those genes from conceiving a child, the defect in the parents' genes can be corrected in the fertilised egg. The resultant child would still be the offspring of two parents, inheriting half its DNA from the mother and the other half from the father; but, most crucially, the child does not carry the defective genes that would've otherwise made her ill.

Even if we restrict ourselves to screening, a much more limited method, we would still only deal with the sperm and egg from a set of parents. If the two parents are both carriers of cystic fibrosis, they have one healthy allele and one recessive mutant allele. During meiosis, the chromosome pairs separate randomly, and there are recombinations that shuffle the genes on the chromosomes. With this method, you ensure that the fertilised egg does not contain a copy of the mutated allele, so that the child will neither suffer from the disease nor will it be a carrier. This is, as I said, a more wasteful method than direct genetic manipulation could potentially be, but it achieves the same result: the defunct gene is not passed on.

You must have seriously misread my posts if you thought I advocated eugenics.

Edited to add: Of course, the same applies to mental retardation. If we could link severe mental retardation to a gene or a set of genes, it could similarly be corrected for with either direct genetic manipulation or screening. It is still emphatically NOT eugenics. Quite the opposite, it makes it possible for parents who are carriers of crippling genetic disorders to have children who are not sick.