Moral Enhancement

[Tesla]

I have never been very interested in moral philosophy. But as I study the ways of the world the subject keeps popping up. This article got my attention, and under my skin, because it argues that humankind is not morally fit for the future.

Was humankind ever really morally fit for the future? Predicting the future is unreliable. Declaring that we are morally unfit for the future is like predicting the future, like a Malthusian predicting we will run out of food or out of energy due to dwindling resources. Advanced methods and technologies have help us avoid those outcomes. So it is conceivable that similar evolutionary advances are preparing us morally for the future without us even knowing it.

I was particularly distressed by the authors’ attitude towards liberal democracy, saying that its liberal materialism is causing more harm than good. However, if they look more closely they might recognize that liberal democracy's ascendency is itself a moral enhancement and huge moral victory for humankind. After all, as a governing system liberal democracy is the result of an enlightenment, which recognizes that open, free societies are more just and best at reflecting the needs and aspirations of humankind. One thing that liberal democracy does well, better than any other governing system, is freely cultivate and channel human talent. That talent will be needed in the future to discover new technologies to keep life sustainable. Yet the authors of this paper argue for a return to a Big Brother authoritarianism, thinking that could improve our morals. But as experience shows such authoritarianism has never improved things in the long run and in fact set them backwards.

planning has always been a staple of successful societies. the difference is, now we need more cooperation than we did before. all populations are effecting the other by effecting the planet. leadership gains complexity as the size of those needing governed grow, and now we need to direct all people to preserve the life-boat they live on: the planet. They are arguing the need for a species philosophy to guide societies to not destroy the earth.

our science could be used to balance the atmospheric changes, but instead it is being used to further profits. and not profit for societies: profit for entities. in the end, only those entities will survive. and in what? little bubbles like a moon colony? below ground in bunkers? the species needs to agree before saving the planet becomes possible, without that agreement, the accelerated climate change will kill up to 75% of all life on the planet in as little as 300 years. How soon we act can be the deciding factor of action before reaction, the reaction could be too little to late, so the sooner we act, the better chances of success: but how do we get there from here? that is what they are attempting to address.

[spike]

Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement

These authors have no idea of the catastrophe that would be unleashed if their artificial moral enhancement were ever to become a reality.

The brand of moral enhancement they propose would unleash a social upheaval that would be difficult or impossible to contain. This moral enhancement and its implications would lead to people losing jobs on mass because people would stop buying and consuming products that were arbitrarily deemed morally wrong and unfit, because they were perceived bad for the environment .

To see what happens with a large and unexpected increase in unemployment just look at the example of Greece where it is said that up to 45% of the population is unemployed. Unemployment there has increased xenophobia and targeted immigrates as scapegoats. It has spawned and fuelled the growth of neo-nazi groups. Now imagine this happening all over the world, because a moral enhancing faction tells us how to live. In due course a Hitler type figure would rise to put an end to the anarchy and chaos that would ensue, possibly putting the entire world into another world war, from which it would never emerge.

This so-called moral enhancement faction wants to tamper with the world's testosterone levels, with drugs, in order to enhance morals, so as to improve the environment. Get serious. I mean, such a thinking can only come from comedians.

[Tesla]

Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement

These authors have no idea of the catastrophe that would be unleashed if their artificial moral enhancement were ever to become a reality.

The brand of moral enhancement they propose would unleash a social upheaval that would be difficult or impossible to contain. This moral enhancement and its implications would lead to people losing jobs on mass because people would stop buying and consuming products that were arbitrarily deemed morally wrong and unfit, because they were perceived bad for the environment .

To see what happens with a large and unexpected increase in unemployment just look at the example of Greece where it is said that up to 45% of the population is unemployed. Unemployment there has increased xenophobia and targeted immigrates as scapegoats. It has spawned and fuelled the growth of neo-nazi groups. Now imagine this happening all over the world, because a moral enhancing faction tells us how to live. In due course a Hitler type figure would rise to put an end to the anarchy and chaos that would ensue, possibly putting the entire world into another world war, from which it would never emerge.

This so-called moral enhancement faction wants to tamper with the world's testosterone levels, with drugs, in order to enhance morals, so as to improve the environment. Get serious. I mean, such a thinking can only come from comedians.

I cannot disagree with your assessment of the proposed solution, but what is valuable here is the insight to the issues.

This moral enhancement and its implications would lead to people losing jobs on mass because people would stop buying and consuming products that were arbitrarily deemed morally wrong and unfit, because they were perceived bad for the environment .

This part though, I agree with them. It is wrong to preserve a current economic position that leads to planetary death. The shift will be ugly, but it is necessary if the earth is to be preserved. There is a way to offset the loss of jobs. One is an energy dynamic I offer would not be as lucrative to a corporation as it would be beneficial to people of a society--and not only because it is 100% clean.
But it was denied funding; I'm still awaiting the explanation as to why it doesn't fit the 'vision' of the D.O.E. I'm guessing it is because it would adversely effect government incomes and jobs, either way: it is not being funded.

With robotics on the rise, and lights out factories, I have wondered what humans will do for work...because the technology is getting cheaper, and corporations richer, and populations poorer. Moral enhancement is not going to fix anything when policies leave people with only the option of a socialist state for survival, which in America it is fast becoming.

It is a moral question: do we allow the planet to die to protect an economy that is soon to fail as the planet dies? How do we address that? I'm willing to discuss it if you are.

[spike]

...but what is valuable here is the insight to the issues.

True!

[spike]

I went to a moral enhancement seminar last night and came away confused. It wasn't like any moral enhancement seminar I had ever been to before. The ones before were discussions and idealistic about how we could improve our behaviour, especially towards the environment. But this one was more materialistic and about gadgets that could be used to whip us into shape. There were gadgets that seemed to come from another era, like the Spanish Inquisition. They showed what would happen to polluters if they kept on polluting. I came away thinking, boy, I hope I am never caught polluting. I didn't want my arms pulled off or my toes burnt. Ironically the Church was there to denounce these measures.

The most interesting booth was the one manned by the two authors of "Unfit For The Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement", Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu. They were the instigators of these types of seminars, which now had become more like conventions. They proposed a more humane way of dealing with our lack of morals. They proposed altering human DNA, which I think is a far better way of improving human morality than through what they proposed in their book, through drugs.

There were a few other booths that seemed out of place in this gadget filled environment. They were ones based on the arts, promoting themselves as a way of improving human morals.There was even a Shakespearian company there.

In the end I didn't get to see everything on display because I was too overwhelmed by it all. I will have to make a return visit.

[spike]

The concept of moral enhancement was invented during the Enlightenment. It was a period of liberalization and growth of independent thinking. The object was to get people to voluntarily improve their behaviour towards each other with the aim of creating a social cohesion on mass, through the development of institutions such as secularism, pluralism and democracy. The ideas of moral enhancement and enlightenment are synonymous.

Prior to The Enlightenment the activity of moral enhancing was centralized, done chiefly by a central authority like The Church. But times were changing. The Church was failing in its moral duty. Moreover, the centralized moralizing of religion was not preparing people for the upcoming world, which was becoming more integrated and interdependent. The turning point occurred with Christopher Columbus and the discovery of the New World. This discovery was the beginning of the fragmentation of religion's moral authority. A new moral authority was needed to meet the changing demands and needs of Civilization. The Enlightenment movement believed that since central moralizing was failing and not up to the task why not try something new, decentralize the process and let individuals determine it. The concept was radical but necessary.

Today it is hard to imagine central moralizing powers like those of the past. Nevertheless, that is what Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, the authors of the article on moral enhancement, propose, a return to a centralized moral making. Obviously they haven't learned from the past, like the last central moralizing effort that end in failure - communism.

Edward O. Wilson said it succinctly in his book Consilience: "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups". Communism cultivated groups and we see what a moral failure that ended up being.

[Tesla]

The concept of moral enhancement was invented during the Enlightenment. It was a period of liberalization and growth of independent thinking. The object was to get people to voluntarily improve their behaviour towards each other with the aim of creating a social cohesion on mass, through the development of institutions such as secularism, pluralism and democracy. The ideas of moral enhancement and enlightenment are synonymous.

Prior to The Enlightenment the activity of moral enhancing was centralized, done chiefly by a central authority like The Church. But times were changing. The Church was failing in its moral duty. Moreover, the centralized moralizing of religion was not preparing people for the upcoming world, which was becoming more integrated and interdependent. The turning point occurred with Christopher Columbus and the discovery of the New World. This discovery was the beginning of the fragmentation of religion's moral authority. A new moral authority was needed to meet the changing demands and needs of Civilization. The Enlightenment movement believed that since central moralizing was failing and not up to the task why not try something new, decentralize the process and let individuals determine it. The concept was radical but necessary.

Today it is hard to imagine central moralizing powers like those of the past. Nevertheless, that is what Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, the authors of the article on moral enhancement, propose, a return to a centralized moral making. Obviously they haven't learned from the past, like the last central moralizing effort that end in failure - communism.

Edward O. Wilson said it succinctly in his book Consilience: "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups". Communism cultivated groups and we see what a moral failure that ended up being.

I believe the complexity of the issues have a fairly easy fix.

Morality is achieved when society agrees with the laws in place and the laws reflect ethics that are moral. What has made moral standing almost impossible is the lack of self-dignity that a free people enjoy: owning their homes, having food and clothing, health care access etc. the economy is not poor because it lacks sufficient goods that could be wisely distributed by the people for work that would build such a society. the issue is a capitalism that allows one man to have all the resources--all the money: which is a resource based commodity; it is limited in actual amount. that is why when one area raises the other areas raise to balance. the numbers raise, but the actual amount of resources remain the same. well actually, as globalization over fishing etc., they are actually shrinking.

wealth needs limited. the proper government does not ignore the communal need, such as communism would suggest. communism should apply to wealth 300 million U.S.D. or more. and from 30,000 dollars -300 million, capitalism can be properly utilized. and from 0-30,000 socialistic programs can aid society. that can restore dignity. once dignity is resolved, people will have the opportunity to argue for morality, and they will stand up for it. the basic ideals of life liberty and pursuit of happiness are very good ideas, very good 'God' given rights. but they are not enforced. if society only enforces laws that take away, and will not enforce the rights they give to, then moral law dies. as such is the case in America today.

in my parts women sell themselves to take care of their children. every month is a cost of living that does not stop when the income stops. people drive without ins. they drive cars without a license. the American society is so criminalized that the only 'fun' many in my parts can afford is drugs and alcohol, because other joys like bowling are just too expensive, and a rare treat to enjoy. food is covered by food stamps, and sold to others at a discount for what they need. many people are working under the table, because ins. laws are too high in cost to maintained for legal work. these issues make people depressed, or angry, and in some cases when they can not maintain their balance, have no one to turn to, then comes crime, robbery, harder drugs to sell for profit etc. it's a rampant non-spoken issue. for probably good reason: as the criminalization of Americans and ending up in the criminal complex can be a lifelong damaging and restraining event, in which a mistake from the age of 17 can harm you for life and further restrict work opportunities, and education coming from inside the jails prisons, or the streets. the poor are silent, not because they want to remain silent, but because they have given up hope that any system in America has any real moral justice, and their lives prove it.

moral enhancement needs to start with the ethics of the ruling class, who feel that people do not deserve homes that are paid for, or food and medical care, because they work 20-40 hours and still cannot pay a rent at minimum wage. for the poor is high interest loans, to further take from those who have the least, and there is temporary agencies to bypass giving a working citizen insurance or dependable wage. permanent workers leave and two temporary part time workers are hired at Wal-Mart. when the ruling class begins to treat people as something worth value, then maybe there can be morality, but as long as people are treated as we are being treated today, morality is just not an option. immoral bosses will not higher moral workers.

[RickLewis]

Today it is hard to imagine central moralizing powers like those of the past. Nevertheless, that is what Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, the authors of the article on moral enhancement, propose, a return to a centralized moral making. Obviously they haven't learned from the past, like the last central moralizing effort that end in failure - communism.

In their defence, they didn't argue that such a central moralizing power was desirable, or without dangers. They argued that it is necessary because the alternative is the almost certain end of our civilisation because we are biologically incapable (for the reasons they discuss) of taking the hard decisions necessary to fight climate change and avoid warfare.

However, I think they were unduly pessimistic about our ability, undrugged, to take tough decisions, and unduly optimistic about the tendency of unlimited power to corrupt the individuals who wield it.

It is impossible to know for sure, but I suspect that the path of action that Persson and Savulescu recommend may well be more dangerous than the alternative path of using reason to argue for changes in policies. So in short, I agree with you.

[Tesla]

Today it is hard to imagine central moralizing powers like those of the past. Nevertheless, that is what Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, the authors of the article on moral enhancement, propose, a return to a centralized moral making. Obviously they haven't learned from the past, like the last central moralizing effort that end in failure - communism.

In their defence, they didn't argue that such a central moralizing power was desirable, or without dangers. They argued that it is necessary because the alternative is the almost certain end of our civilisation because we are biologically incapable (for the reasons they discuss) of taking the hard decisions necessary to fight climate change and avoid warfare.

However, I think they were unduly pessimistic about our ability, undrugged, to take tough decisions, and unduly optimistic about the tendency of unlimited power to corrupt the individuals who wield it.

It is impossible to know for sure, but I suspect that the path of action that Persson and Savulescu recommend may well be more dangerous than the alternative path of using reason to argue for changes in policies. So in short, I agree with you.

My question is what policy change will be effective. Discovering the lesser of two evils only gives insight where to begin; not how. I have been attempting to advocate the limiting of individual wealth globally, as my last post would suggest is a kind of communism. What are your thoughts on this?

[spike]

Thanks for adding to the discussion Rick and Tesla. It is a brutal subject, between a rock and a hard place.

[Tesla]

Thanks for adding to the discussion Rick and Tesla. It is a brutal subject, between a rock and a hard place.

Yes it is brutal, but necessary. still, it is unproductive if no real solutions can be examined and argued. many upper politicians and higher class citizens are aware of the dangers. the solutions though are more of the 1780 style "dump 300 in the ocean to save 900 passengers" style. another words: the idea is to allow the crunch to happen and he who has the most and has prepared will survive. that leaves about 60% of the world on the chopping block. I feel that is foolish. especially since I fall in that 60% and will have to climb very far to raise high enough to give my future generations a chance. and in todays economy, it is going to be a very difficult race to a higher class.

We all need to get serious about discussing the solutions and proposing solutions and also ways of them being heard for true debate. because if not, 45-75% of this planets life will die in the next three hundred years. it is wise to be skeptical, but the math is solid, it is built on known cause and effects that trends are matching. cynicism will be the doom of us all. there needs to be more discussion.

The key is education. but to get an education means spending. and the only place to take the money from in America is the extremely wealthy, or the military spending of the government.

Tell me I'm wrong, but all my research is showing these statements true. I want an in depth discussion on limiting wealth. I want real argument. not spare time banter. we need to bring the discussion to those who have the power to impact the issue, and not just find some self gratification for having discussed it with people incapable of making any real impact.

[spike]

Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, in their article on Moral Enhancement, are convinced that we are incapable of making the hard decisions necessary to fight climate change and avoid warfare. Nevertheless, we have made decisions, perhaps not as hard as they would like, that have addressed and are still addressing climate change and warfare.

Back in the 1970s there were many scholars and intellectuals falling over themselves making dire predictions about humanity and the earth. They were pretty certain that the human race would not be around today because either we would have killed ourselves off through global warfare or because we would have run out of resources to sustain life or because we would have polluted ourselves to death. However, we humans have been more resourceful and resilient than they or the likes of Persson and Savulescu have given us credit for.

If Persson and Savulescu were counterintuitive thinkers they would probably recognize that humanity has a far better chance of survival and continuance than either of them could imagine in their present intuitive, common sense stupor.

[Tesla]

Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu, in their article on Moral Enhancement, are convinced that we are incapable of making the hard decisions necessary to fight climate change and avoid warfare. Nevertheless, we have made decisions, perhaps not as hard as they would like, that have addressed and are still addressing climate change and warfare.

Back in the 1970s there were many scholars and intellectuals falling over themselves making dire predictions about humanity and the earth. They were pretty certain that the human race would not be around today because either we would have killed ourselves off through global warfare or because we would have run out of resources to sustain life or because we would have polluted ourselves to death. However, we humans have been more resourceful and resilient than they or the likes of Persson and Savulescu have given us credit for.

If Persson and Savulescu were counterintuitive thinkers they would probably recognize that humanity has a far better chance of survival and continuance than either of them could imagine in their present intuitive, common sense stupor.

Survival yes, but how many and under what conditions? The issue is that we are on a boat with limited supplies and too many people for the journey. there prediction of our own near extinction is relevant. those predictors may not have gotten the dates right, but the extinction of species is continual. the pollution is getting worse and worse. agriculture is drying up ancient lakes.

Complacency to the issue is the danger. it is solvable. the question remains what will be the solution.

Reactionary: mass starvations and deaths. it is estimated between 1985-1989 (-ish) that 800,000 to one million people starved to death in North Korea. The have-nots of any system in which resources are scarce will be the ones who die. the rich are not necessarily the best and brightest. they are he most fortunate for whatever reason: and ethics I believe are a gene driven trait. man of the rich have become so because of poor ethics, and lack of caring for others. the ethical which give will have less, and find themselves exploited by the unethical. evidence of this is everywhere in America.

pro-active: Envision what traits and direction we think is best for the species and the planet, and implement them through debate and discussion and honesty.

[spike]

Tesla:

it is estimated between 1985-1989 (-ish) that 800,000 to one million people starved to death in North Korea.

This was not due to any environmental problem or shortage of resources as you imply. It was strictly due to the sick totalitarian regime in North Korea that doesn't give a hoot about its people.

If North Korea had cultivated its human capital and resources as its southern neighbor has there would be not starvation it that country.

One thing that may be alarming about North Korea is the hidden degradation of the environment that will discovered when it collapses.

[Tesla]

Tesla:

it is estimated between 1985-1989 (-ish) that 800,000 to one million people starved to death in North Korea.

This was not due to any environmental problem or shortage of resources as you imply. It was strictly due to the sick totalitarian regime in North Korea that doesn't give a hoot about its people.

If North Korea had cultivated its human capital and resources as its southern neighbor has there would be not starvation it that country.

One thing that may be alarming about North Korea is the hidden degradation of the environment that will discovered when it collapses.

What I am pointing out is what happens when populations exceed resource availability. agriculture is planted on 30% of the earth. it has had some very negative effects environmentally, like he drying up of lakes, and the disappearance of volume of rivers--or dried up rivers.

A bad drought could cause shortages as demands raise, and overfishing leads to fish shortages, which mean increased bush meat, and overhunting of land animals--even 'protected' species (poaching).

Eventually the population demands will exceed available resources for basic food and water. pollution is killing the resources, more population means higher demand. so, where exactly do you think the current trend is going to lead?