Eugenics Performed By A Blind, Idiot God
Evolution by natural selection is eugenics--but done by an amoral selector
I’m hugely in favor of gene editing and other actions that would improve the welfare of future people. If we could perform genetic engineering that made future people smarter, happier, and less likely to get diseases, I’d be in favor of it. This assumption is controversial. Many people think there’s something immoral about changing the genes of humans, even in ways that are expected to improve their quality of life. They think that such an idea sounds too much like the clearly objectionable coercive eugenics of the Nazis, for instance.
But you know what would be almost as bad as eugenics performed by Nazis—eugenics performed by a totally random, amoral selector. This eugenicist wouldn’t have cruel ideas about Aryan superiority, for instance—instead, they have a bizarre fetishism of reproduction. This selector performs eugenics so that only those who reproduce a lot—and also help out their kin—are likely to pass on their genes.
Such a selector is wholly unconcerned with human welfare. It makes it so that humans can’t empathize with those far away, because warring with native tribes is effective. It makes it so that men are naturally more aggressive than women, committing 96% of homicides, all because in the evolutionary past it was beneficial—it enabled more efficient fighting, for instance.
In fact, this selector has selected for individuals who are likely to engage in “rape . . . infanticide, abuse of low-status individuals, and murdering all those people over there and taking their stuff.” It selects for individuals who reproduce frequently, rather than those who are good, moral, or even happy.
In fact, in some other species, things are even worse. Some species give birth to hundreds of millions of eggs, many of whom contain sentient beings almost all of whom die a horrible painful death at a young age. This selector makes it so that male ducks have corkscrew penises so that they can rape female ducks more efficiently.
This predictor has been operating for billions of years. Their amorality results in them designing both all sorts of horrifying, rapidly multiplying bacteria and viruses that kills lots of people and animals alike and various defense mechanisms. But after millions of years, it offers for you to take over their job. Rather than selecting for prolificness alone, you can affect which beings exist in the future with moral goals in mind! You can make it so that future beings are likely to be happy, kind, and just. Isn’t this an improvement?
But this is the world that we live in. Selection pressures exist as an inevitable fact of life. Evolution has shaped our behaviors. Our choice is not between selected behaviors and unselected behaviors. It is between behaviors selected by parents who have their children’s best interests in mind, who want their children to be kind, happy, and healthy, and selection at the hands of the blind, idiot, Darwinian god, who has been practicing social Darwinism for millions of years, where only those who pass on their genes have their traits reproduced.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that we should practice the kind of harmful, coercive eugenics practiced by the Nazis. It doesn’t mean we should prevent anyone from reproducing. But it does mean we should empower parents with the option of gene editing to improve their children’s lives, rather than banning it. It means we should see making future people happier and more moral as a worthwhile goal.
The amoral god that selects only for having many offspring has turned over the reins to us. We can leave its ghastly designs in place, or instead change them to improve the lives of the future. I think this is not a hard choice.
My sense is that objections to gene editing on the basis that it constitutes eugenics mostly do not represent people's deepest sentiments and commitments. There's a much more complex bundle of fears here, and eugenics is just a good grab bag term to express a fear at a kind of dystopian ick.
You start to get a sense after a while online that sometimes the issues people choose to bang the war drums about don't represent their real and deepest commitments, just trenches and hills they think are nicely defensible in terms of the Twitter culture war. The real ideas are below the surface, and often only implicitly mentally articulated.
Why does it matter? Because I think as genetic engineering starts to become a reality, the vague concerns about eugenics will melt away and we'll see much more specific discussions- e.g. about:
1. The rich poor gap expanding as the rich increase their human capital.
2. The possibility of value lock-in through gene choice- e.g. making our kids good little capitalists so they can compete in capitalism and inadvertently shaping the future- potentially in harmful ways.
3. The dangers of people choosing genes to enable their children to compete rather than genes for the common good, or even genes for their children's happiness. The genes that make your kid look at marketing statistics all day or optimise algorithmic trading may not be the genes that increase society's flourishing- or even their own.
4. People exercising far more control over their children through the deliberate shaping of their genetic endowment. This could manifest as people trying to 'copy' their values exactly through their offspring, or people deliberately creating cowed, obedient children through genetics.
5. The value of neurodiversity, diversity in general, and how genetic engineering could reduce or erase that.
6. The lock in of totalitarian regimes, e.g. through obedience engineering.
It seems to me that it's largely a moot point, because the singularity will overtake us before genetic modification can become a big issue.
That’s like the most impressive yet still pretty obvious to anyone who thought about it thing I’ve read in the past few months
Huge applause