It is the first of May in 2122 and Angela and Ian are
getting married on another warm sunny day in Ullapool. A century ago Ullapool
was a cold place and marriage seemed to be in terminal decline in the Western
world with fewer and fewer bothered to get married. Times have changed. A
century ago most couples who married in the West married did so for love, couples
fell in love and as a consewuencet got married. Love still matters but now it
is of secondary importance now and usually only blossoms after marriage rather
than before as it did a century ago. Marriage has fallen in line with Asian customs. Nowadays marriage is a
practical matter and needs a marriage arranger. This change in the way people
marry came about shortly after pharmacological and genetic enhancement were banned
because of the damage they might do to society. However many parents still
wanted to give their children a goof start in life. In order to do so many
parents like Angela and Ian have replaced natural selection with conscious
rational selection,
Angela decided to marry not because she needed to be loved
but because she wanted to have children. A century ago she might have satisfied
her desire for parenthood by simply finding a suitable man or sperm donor and
raising the child together or by herself. Angela is a clever woman who had
clever parents and wants to have clever children as she believes that this will
give them a good start in life. In order to help her achieve this desire she
employed a marriage arranger called Alex who suggested suitable partners. Ian
also employed Alex and he also wanted clever children. Alex takes her
profession seriously. First Angela had to submit an advanced CV called a PCV.
Next she interviewed Angela to get a clear idea of Angela’s preferences for any
future children. Together they gave weights to these preferences and then Alex
used AI to suggest suitable matches. She did the same thing with all her
clients including Ian. Alex had sent details of Ian and Angela to each other
and suggested that they meet. Shortly after Christmas they did so. After a few
more meetings Angela and Ian decided to marry and have children. In March they
settled the practical details of living together and signed a pre-nuptial
agreement. Perhaps such a scenario is unlikely to come about but it isn’t
implausible but it might even be argued that the class system is a primitive form of enhancement. I now want to examine its philosophical implications of the above.
For the sake of arguments let us assume that this scenario
creates three main breeding groups. Angela’s group values intelligence, a second
values physical and sporting prowess and lastly the traditional group who don’t
prioritise any particular attributes, who still marry for love and don’t use
marriage arranger. These groups aren’t races but might be classes as breeding
groups of humans who mostly breed among themselves. Of course these breeding
groups can interbreed but in most cases they don’t. However in a limited number
of cases marriage arrangers such as Alex might recommend couples choose a
partner from outside their own group in order to introduce hybrid vigour. The
society which has been created seems to be a naturally created analogue of the
one envisioned by Plato in his Republic. Few people would welcome such a
society and this was the main reason why pharmacological and genetic
enhancement were banned. At this point it might be objected that such a change
in society is highly unlikely and that I have exaggerated the effectiveness of
selected breeding. In response I would suggest that the Russian silver fox
domestication experiment lead by Dimitry Belyayev showed that selective breeding
can bring about large changes in a relatively short time, see fox
experiment . What are the consequences of accepting the above as a
plausible, even if unlikely, future scenario?
First because such a scenario seems unpalatable to us
because it seems to regard people as breeding animals we might take steps to
prevent it occurring. Of course we are breeding animals and conscious rational
selection would not make us into purely breeding animals. The breeders and
those breeding are the same. Nonetheless such a scenario still seems an
unpalatable one and steps might still be taken to prevent it from occurring. Unfortunately
these steps would have to include measures limiting people’s ability to have
children with whomsoever they please. Steps would have to be taken to control
what happens in the privacy of people’s bedrooms. Such measures might be possible
in a totalitarian society, China had a one child policy, but such measures
would be impossible in a free society. It follows if we value our right to
reproduce by natural means with anyone we choose to do so, with exception of
incestuous relationships, that we must accept the possibility of the
unpalatable scenario even if this is only because it is the less unpalatable
option.
If we accept that enhancement could take place naturally by
conscious rational selection then even if we ban pharmacological and genetic methods
then perhaps we should question whether we should introduce such a ban in the
first place. Such a ban would fail to fully address the problems it was meant
to solve. It might be argued such a ban would delay the process giving us more
time to consider how we might better mitigate some of its worst consequences
for society. Perhaps but banning artificial enhancement doesn’t prevent
enhancement by other means and I would suggest our energies would be better
employed in regulating artificial enhancement so it takes place in a safe way.
Perhaps for instance we should always take steps to enhance empathy in
conjunction with any other enhancement. Perhaps also some of the harms of
enhancement, which ever way they are caused, might be outweighed by some of the
benefits. For instance those who are enhanced might have better health and be
more able to control their destiny better.
If the unpalatable scenario came into existence one bad
consequence would be that equality of opportunity might seem to be impossible.
Perhaps if we accept that equality of opportunity doesn’t occur now and won’t
occur in the future then we should be less concerned and concentrate on other
goods. For instance we might concentrate on protecting personal autonomy and
toleration. Some might argue that if we make artificial enhancement available
to all that my worry about enhancement damaging equal opportunity is unfounded.
Enhancement might actually increase equal opportunity.
Lastly I want to consider a much more fanciful consequence
of enhancement which like climate change pose an existential threat to
humanity. In the ‘Time Machine’ H G Wells envisions humanity evolving into two
distinct species the Eloi and the Morlocks by natural selection. It is
important to note that these are species who can’t interbreed rather than
races. Might in the far distant future enhancement by artificial means or conscious
rational selection lead to human speciation? Two enhanced species competing for
control might pose an existential threat to humanity.
I have argued that in a free society that human enhancement
is inevitable. If we accept this then instead of thinking about banning
enhancement we should consider how we might mitigate some of its worst effects.
