= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Snowyowl comments on Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (610)
Really? I would have arrived at the opposite conclusion. No social structure can be permanent without the biological level being fixed, therefore we should do more research into biological alteration in order to stabilize our biology should it become unstable.
For instance, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis would enable us to almost eradicate most genetic diseases, thus maintaining our biological quality. I'm not saying it doesn't have corresponding problems, just that an attitude of "we should cease research in this field because we might find something dangerous" is overreacting.
I don't support Fukuyama's conclusion. I just was mentioning that Fukuyama realised that his "end of history" hypothesis was obsolete as the biological quality patterns, that he assumed were more or less unchanging, are not fixed.
Genetic engineering is an intellectual + social pattern imposing on a biological pattern. By a naive reading of Pirsig, it appears as moral. But if the biological pattern is not fully understood, then it might lead to many unanticipated consequences. I definitely support the eradication of genetic diseaeses, if the changes made are those that are present in many normal people and without much downside. I support intelligence amplification, but we simply don't know enough to do it without issues.
Eliezer's perspective is that humans are godshatter (a hodge podge of many biological, social and intellectual static patterns) and it will take a very powerful intelligence to understand morality and extrapolate it. I believe that thinking about Pirsig's work can inform us a little on areas we should choose to understand first.