The end

April 29

Our last class! No quiz, but a couple of DQs for your continued reflection.

1. “She’s still alive, my invented friend, just as I conceived her, still uncrushed by the collective need for happier endings.” What do you make of the way Generosity ends (it doesn't, really, does it), and how would you plot the sequel? Will things work out for Thassa, for Stone, for Kurton, for the others, for us? 

2. Really the same question, "the really vital question for us all is, What is this world going to be? What is life eventually to make of itself?" (Pragmatism)

May life be good to you all. I've enjoyed our semester together. Keep in touch. Be well!

Dustin Wells presentation will be on transhumanism.

No Daily Quiz

But I invite you to consider & comment on my concluding thoughts on Blackford's Humanity Enhanced & on Part 3 of Generosity: "What doesn't kill you..."

Also of possible interest: "Liver Means Heart and Heart Means Joy"

Group 1- HE,Chapter 8

(FQ) What is Farrelly's "reasonable genetic intervention model" meant to control?
Answer: Governmental interventions in the reproductive freedom of parents (pg. 180)

(DQ) What would happen if the government gained too much control over parents' choices in potentially modifying their children?

Link: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/fudgedgetests.cfm

PGD Presentation

My presentation on pre-implantation diagnosis (PGD) will focus more on the science behind the genetic selection of embryos. Although we have discussed "designer babies" and mentioned PGD  at great length, the actual process has usually only been skimmed. I know that sometimes my understanding can be enhanced through pictures and further explanation, so before we leave this class I thought it would be beneficial for us all to have a very well-rounded knowledge of PGD in case we are faced with the possibility of genetic enhancement for our future children. This includes how much the procedure costs and some negative medical consequences that are possible.

Here is a link describing what PGD is and some questions people should ask before they follow through with the procedure.
http://www.givf.com/geneticservices/whatispgd.shtml

Here is a link about "digital baby" screening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24398312

Group 2

     Alyssa started with a presentation on memory manipulation.  This entails adding and deleting memories from a person.  What are the issues that arise when talking about this?  Could a person suffering from PTSD cure themselves by deleting a traumatic memory? I feel this could have a few good uses, but overall I believe that this idea would lead to a dangerous erasure of the line between reality and fantasy...true and false. If a memory is added to a person, they now believe this event happened to them.  Or if a traumatic event happens to a person, if the memory of it was removed how can they learn from the event or learn to avoid situations like it in the future?  What if they need to recall the memory for some reason -- ie. they are called to court to testify against a dangerous criminal that could be removed from the public if you can recall what they did (I know this idea is a little iffy, but just a thought). Here is a link I found on the subject - Memory Manipulation.
     Cameron was next, and he discussed RFID chips.  They are used for storing data and tracking whatever the chip is implanted in.  Currently, one of their major uses is in tracking animals.  One of the major ethical concerns is the use of RFID chips in humans.  Can be used to keep up with a patients' medical record to call up medical history if patients are unconscious.  Can also be used as a method for payment so you don't have to carry a credit card...just scan your hand.  Are we de-humanizing ourselves by doing this?  There are also issues with people taking advantage and possibly "hacking" your information and taking advantage of this.  Many people had concerns about these issues.  "People could scan it anytime." "People could track me." "They could cut the RFID chip out of you." "Could police abuse this system?" These are just a few of the concerns brought up.  Here is a link to an article I found - RFID Privacy Concerns.
      Kat went into science fiction movies.  She started with Gattaca, a movie about eugenics.  It delves into a world where people are "classed" by whether people are genetically modified or not.  Would a hierarchy arise if people start to accept genetic modification?  Next, she discussed the Bicentennial Man.  A robot butler wants to become a human, so he comes up with a way to "humanize" himself, and eventually age and die.  What does it take to be human?  At what point (if ever) does Andrew become human?  We talked a bit about self-awareness and introspection.  Next we discussed the movie AI.  It follows an unconditionally loving robot boy who is made to love a woman whose son is suffering from an deadly disease.  Do robots (if self aware) have rights?  What would it take for David to be considered a "real boy?"  Do we have the right to destroy robots for our entertainment if they are self aware?  We also touched on the sex robots in the movie.  Then we talked about Repo Men.  A world where technological organs can be bought on credit to save your life, but if you don't pay then repo men will reposes your organ.  It follows one of these repo men who ends up with one of these organs but he did not consent to getting it.  It is a good thing to save a life with an organ the person will not be able to pay for?  Does this cast a bad light on the use of possibly life saving artificial organs?  We also touched on the Island.  Here is a link to an article about the ethics in sci fi - Ethics in Sci fi.
   
   

Daily Quiz

April 22

1. Why does Glannon say there'd not be complete equality even if enhancements were universally available?

2. How might "status quo bias" color some people's attitudes towards enhancement technologies?

3. What was Rawls' position on "the natural lottery" and whether a just society should accept its distributions unaltered? [And, DQ: What's yours?]

4. Does Blackford think the Original Position thought experiment supports Rawls' intuition about natural talents, family circumstances, and the distribution of social goods?

5. Does Kurton hope to live forever?

6. What's the difference between hyperthymia and hypomania?

7. What does Thassa's name mean, and imply?

DQ: Will competition for genomic enhancement be ethically problematic? Is competition problematic, in general? Or parental assistance and "gifts"? What would a "level playing field" look like, applied to the issue of genomic enhancement?

What do you think of the analogy to reparations for slavery? 156

Gattaca 161, Kurzweil 162, 167

Henry James, flow, interiority 55, 83, 88

Do you agree with Kurton? "When people can live longer and better, they will. Ethics is just going to have to catch up." 58

Would you watch Over the Limit? 62

What do you think of "nulliparity"? 65

Which of the debate resolutions would you defend? 66

$20 92; "infinite hunger for the unreal" 95; "plug & play chromosomes" 98; 78% "ready to enhance" 99

PGD, collective wisdom 101; "Walk on air against your better judgment" 103; "excessively happy" 106

"information travels at the speed of light, meaning spreads at the speed of dark" 111

"liver means heart, heart means joy" 114

"the kind of novel I loved to read, back before fact and fable merged... the kind that invents itself out of meaningless detail and thin air"  120; "All good science pauses" 123; "massively parallel computer, the entire human race" 127

1.134   2.138   3.139   4.143f.   5.59   6.68   7.78

Group 3

FQ: (T/F) One concern raised by the emergence of enhancement technologies is that new kinds of biologically based inequality will ensue, producing a radically unequal society in which some individuals suffer demeaning circumstances or other harsh outcomes.
A: True

DQ: What is your definition of "deserving?"

Group 3 Ch.6

We have spent some time going over the daily quiz questions and the discussion questions that followed. Dr. Oliver tried to convince those that havent started to read the Generosity to indulge on the journey of reading this great novel. He went over the first chapter of the novel. The class was dismissed a little early so that the presenters could have some time to themselves to figure out on what exactly they were presenting.

Ch.7 HE

FQ: Someone who wishes to nullify the underserved effects of luck is called _______?
(Brute luck theorist) p.139

DQ: Do you agree with Rawls' or Blackford's stance on the ''equality'' of genetic enhancement.

link: http://stanfordreview.org/article/arguing-and-against-genetic-engineering/

arguments for and against gen. eng. such as the limit to autonomy, discussion about eugenics, and growth of social inequalities.

RFID Chip Commercial

Earth Week Debate

"Is God possible in a dying environment?"

My debating opponent, like me, is on record denying the existence of a creator God.

I don’t believe in a God who created the universe, chose the Jews, gave us Torah, a Promised Land, and 613 mitzvot (commandments). I believe in a nondual reality evolving toward greater levels of complexity and higher levels of consciousness that ultimately gives rise to beings such as ourselves who can begin to understand this reality, and fashion meaning and purpose that promote justice and compassion for all beings. 

So, either one of us will have to defend a proposition he does not accept, or we'll spend too much time debating definitions ("God," "Atheism," "Possible") OR we'll have to change the subject. I vote for the latter. How about:

• Is God-talk relevant or constructive in guiding our response to the climate crisis? 

• Can religious piety make us better eco-citizens?

• Are "higher levels of consciousness" and "meaning, purpose, justice and compassion for all" inevitable?

Or:

• Is the environment (the planet) really dying, anytime soon? Or is it us?

Transcendence

Sorry we forget to look at this in class, Nikita. (But that was an interesting post-class discussion!)

Group 1- HE, Chapter 6

We began class by discussing the DQ questions. According to Humanity Enhanced, the prospect of making genetic modification commonplace could lead to an alteration in the fabric of society, potentially culminating in a new system where it's the "enhanced vs the non-enhanced." Dr. O then went into detail and began a discussion on the novel Generosity. After a discussion on this novel, we were released slightly early to go read and prepare for the next class session.

Daily Quiz

The 3d exam has been canceled (I hate to throw a party and have nobody come), so we don't need the daily quiz for exam-building purposes any longer. But I still find it useful as a conversation starter, so I'll continue to ask FQs & DQs, & urge you all to do so as well. That'll still get you around the bases.

Starting next week, however, you can also circle the bases by posting questions, links, and comments about our presentations. They'll commence on Tuesday. We'll do three per class until we're done.

1.Why should we be wary of concerns about harm to society as a whole? OR, Why does RB discuss prostitution and homosexuality in this context?

2.What "special gifts" does Somerville think the elimination of Down syndrome, for example, might imperil? OR, What current values did Huxley fear losing, in Brave New World? OR, What's illiberal about Somerville's view, and Huxley's nightmare dystopia?

3.What do Henry James, James Joyce, Jane Austen, Saul Bellow (etc.) have to do with the Enhancement debate? OR, What did John Rawls say about society's interest in the "general level of genetic potentialities"?

4. Does RB acknowledge the possibility that some children might be harmed psychologically by knowledge of their parents' role in the selection of their gender or other traits? OR, What does Devlin say about the "social fabric" and toleration of moral divergence? Does RB agree? OR, What does RB say about "fearmongering"?

5. Does RB think there's a case for prohibiting enhancements that interfere with a person's natural range of facial expressions? Does he think we should avoid creating beings who are less responsive or sympathetic to others, even if they were benefited in other ways?

6. What sort of genetic "lottery" does RB consider? Does he endorse it?

7. {For Elijah] What's the relevance of tattooing, body piercing etc. in this discussion?

DQ: Should we value diversity for its own sake, or for instrumental goods it might make possible? 128f.

DQ: Reactions to Generosity, so far?

1.103-4   2.105-7   3.109,111   4.112-14, 116   5.118-19   6.123-4   7.126

Group 3

We spent the first part of our class time discussing the questions/answers from the daily quiz to review some of the highlights from the chapters. This led to the comparison between Blackford's view on genetic engineering versus McKibben's opinions from his book, Enough. It was pointed out how the offspring's autonomy can be affected by the genetic alterations chosen by the parents.

Group 1: HE, Chapters 4 and 5

After going over the Daily Quiz, we discussed McKibben and Blackford's conflicting views on genetic enhancement. An interesting notion was proposed that by engineering, an individual's ability to make a choice would not be taken away, but the likelihood of them accomplishing their true desires would be diminished. After discussing pertinent points from the book Enough, we looked over and discussed Dr. O's daily post briefly. To end class, we handed out scorecards and discussed the status of everyone's bases and final reports.

Daily Quiz

April 10/15

1. What's Annas's objection to parental enhancement? OR, What's Habermas's "twist" objection?

2. What's Glover's "priority," when we respect others' autonomy? OR, Name one of Glover's respect-for-autonomy conditions. OR, Can an embryo's autonomy be violated (on Glover's view)?

3. What's Strawson's "illusion"? OR, What are some of the standard philosophical positions on free will? OR, Does RB think genetically engineered people would be less free?

4. Does Glover think there are circumstances in which we might accept some loss of independence, even if that made us feel like puppets of our parents? OR, How must we be able to think of our origins if we consider ourselves free, according to Sandel? OR, Does RB consider genetics more fundamental than our environments?

5. To what did Feinberg say children have a right? OR, What are Bostrom's "blessings"? OR, Why does RB consider the open-future argument misguided?

6. What's "one good reason" for parents to consider refraining from using reproductive cloning or genetic engineering? Is it also (on RB's view) a good reason for state regulation?

7. Name one of Loftis' classes of arguments that are commonly deployed against genetic manipulation. OR, What were Hume's or Mill's positions on "natural" acts? OR, What does Peter Singer say is "natural" but not  advisable?

8. What's Bill McKibben's greatest concern about genetic engineering (i.e.., what does he think it would most threaten)? OR, What's RB's problem with "we"? OR, Does RB think future societies may differ dramatically from ours, and why is that relevant?

9. What's McKibben's point about runners and rock climbers? Does RB agree? OR, What's RB's view of McKibben's concerns about immortality?




1.50   2.52-3   3.54-6   4.60-1   5.63, 65   6.76   7.79-82   8.86, 89, 90, 93   9.97-8

DQ: What's your reaction to the Enough passages I am about to read in class?

(FQ) The views of this philosopher are recognized as best known and most elaborate in regards to the concept of autonomy.
Answer: Habermas (pg. 51)

(FQ) Name 2 of J. Robert Loftis' classes of arguments that are commonly deployed against genetic manipulation.
Answer: Safety, Justice, Trust, and Naturalness (pg. 79)

(FQ) T/F: McKibben is optimistic of genetic engineering, believing it will enable us to modify and improve the quality of humans' lives.
Answer: False (pg. 98)

(DQ) I'd like to see what about genetic manipulation is "against the natural order" to the class if anyone considers it that.

Link: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-human-60561

FQ: We are shaped by an interaction between our _____ and _____ around us.
(genes, environment)

DQ: To what degree are we autonomous? I agree with C.A. Coady statement, which states that ''there is too much contingency and inevitable dependence on others'' for us to regard ourselves as sole authors of our own life.

link:http://www.sciencegroup.org.uk/ifgene/proscons.htm
pros and cons of genetic engineering 

1. FQ)- Who wrote the book Causing Death and Saving Lives in which he suggests that respect for autonomy can ground an objection to killing other persons, over and above any utilitarian, or similar, consequences?
   Answer: Glover pg. 52
   
   (DQ)- I would like to hear if those in the class think that genetic engineering is a threat to liberal society.
   
   Link- This link discusses the value of autonomy in medical ethicshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780686/
2. HQ- What are some of the main arguments against genetic engineering?
   Safety/Justice
   DQ- Should society force people to become genetically modified and why? and if it is enforced how should it be enforced?
   Link:http://www.bioethics.gov/
   http://www.bioethics.net/2014/04/pharmaceutical-or-illegal-drug-the-bizarre-case-of-marijuana/
   http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/content%20pages/fast_fact_auton_bene.htm

==

http://nyti.ms/1huRpiR

NYTimes: Providing the Balm of Truth

An angry family member wanted to give a dying woman aloe vera gel. No one had had time to tell her the truth.

http://nyti.ms/1jvzhol

NYTimes: A ‘Code Death’ for Dying Patients

In this new age of technological wizardry, doctors have been taught that they can, indeed must, do everything possible to stave off death, but few learn how to help their patients die.

http://nyti.ms/1jzdSLa

NYTimes: Idea of New Attention Disorder Spurs Research, and Debate

Powerful figures in mental health are claiming to have identified a new disorder, sluggish cognitive tempo, that could widely expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems.

Bioethics Centre (@BioethicsCentre)

4/13/14, 5:57 PM Veridical Engagement and Radical Enhancement, by @JohnDanaher [Philosophical Disquisitions] j.mp/1eB5UNc

Patricia Churchland (@patchurchland)

4/13/14, 4:52 PM Geneographic costs a mere $200 and you can find out how much Neanderhal and Denisovan DNA you have. I was thrilledgenographic.nationalgeographic.com/?source=email_…

Group 2

Our last class period, our group walked towards the BAS.  We started our discussion with immortality (I know, I know!  We are beating a dead horse. I won't go into the details of the discussion because you have heard it over and over).  We then went into the issue of the day, genetically engineered babies (or designer babies for short).  We discussed what we felt designer babies and how we felt about them.  We mostly all had similar views on the subject.  We mostly believed that genetically engineering babies was not something that should be done lightly.  We felt that there were some instances in which designer babies would be acceptable such as to increase disease resistance, remove genetic diseases, etc.  We felt that "determining a child's fate" through genetic engineering was something that should be pondered more before it is implemented.  We felt the morality of this idea was still unclear.  Should we give these children traits to succeed on a path that they may resent?  Would the child resent the parents for forcing them to be this way?

Group 1: Chapters 4+5

Just posting this so my group will have something to post on!

(FQ) The views of this philosopher are recognized as best known and most elaborate in regards to the concept of autonomy.
Answer: Habermas (pg. 51)

(FQ) Name 2 of J. Robert Loftis' classes of arguments that are commonly deployed against genetic manipulation.
Answer: Safety, Justice, Trust, and Naturalness (pg. 79)

(FQ) T/F: McKibben is optimistic of genetic engineering, believing it will enable us to modify and improve the quality of humans' lives.
Answer: False (pg. 98)

(DQ) I'd like to see what about genetic manipulation is "against the natural order" to the class if anyone considers it that.

Link: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-human-60561

Lyceum: "Disconcerting Experience"

David Wood, of Vanderbilt, Oxford (U.K.), and Woodbury (TN) speaks this afternoon at 5 in BAS S128, on "Disconcerting Experience." A question and answer period and informal reception will follow the event. 

A Day in the Life of David Wood...