I recently saw the film "American Hustle" (quite good, I would recommend it), in which there's a con involving an Arab oil magnate in Atlantic City, and I thought of this New York Times article about Middle Eastern investors doing business in the West:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/islamic-banks-stuffed-with-cash-explore-partnerships-in-west/?hp
I find the crossroads of disparate cultures fascinating (possibly because I occupy one such intersection myself). There's always a certain contentious power dynamic, no matter how seamless each side wants their dance to be -- it's simply a matter of navigating cultural differences, and where there's difference, there's compromise to be reached.
In the cases mentioned in the above article, it's a matter of Islamic law, which to Westerners accustomed to separation of Church and state, seems antiquated and alien. Of course, considering that American bills still have "In God We Trust" printed on them, we're not 100% secular either. The United States is just a less homogenous society, which means that it's much harder to enshrine any particular religious practice as law without provoking backlash from other religions. In the Middle East, on the other hand, Islamic tenets -- such as the prohibition on interest payments, for example -- are so ingrained in the legal system, in everyone's day-to-day operations, that it would hardly seem out of the ordinary for Islamic companies to request certain religious accommodations as part and parcel of doing business.
Each side tends to think of itself as "normal" and everyone else as "other." That's just how we're wired--it was an evolutionary advantage, to be sure, and we've remained so long after our species abandoned the "small tribes roaming the Serengeti" lifestyle. It's a product of genes ensuring their own survival, methinks, and it has been the root cause of a lot of conflict through the centuries (and even today). But in a world where it is generally acknowledged that outright war between states is undesirable for all states in question (with certain notable exceptions, many of them precipitated by stateless organizations or religious factions), I suppose a lot of that cultural distance gets sublimated into power plays in negotiation (and similar, otherwise constructive enterprises).
I expect we'll see more and more of this in our increasingly globalized world. Today, it's not just governments that engage with each other -- it's entire populations that have to reconcile "us" and "them."
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Monday, December 30, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
io9: Why Eugenics is a Bad Idea (aside from all the obvious moral reasons)
I recently read Paolo Bacigalupi's short story collection Pump Six and Other Stories, which is deliciously creepy and dystopian. That anthology, and this io9 article (which I read at around the same time), got me thinking about human genetic engineering on a macroscopic scale:
http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail
Our notions of eugenics can be roughly sorted into two categories: ways to optimize our species (for some agreed-upon and likely artificial optimal characteristics), and ways to eliminate genetic weaknesses (an extremely aggressive, sentient form of Darwinism). The former option represents selecting for a hypothetical upper bound, and the latter would be selecting against a lower bound.
When we talk about eugenics, most of us imagine the first option. The cultural connotation of the term "eugenics" includes the Holocaust, the book Brave New World, and the film "Gattaca" -- all of which involve human rights violations. In selecting for a certain ideal, a society makes mincemeat of the rights of those who fall below the arbitrary cut-off. Because eugenics usually comes with gross restrictions of free will -- and in many cases, murder -- we tend to see it as a purely moral evil. This usually brings about international intervention (the timeliness and effectiveness of said interventions being a different matter entirely), or at least the common recognition that such atrocities ought to be prevented.
The above io9 article lays out a few intuitive arguments against eugenics from a practical perspective, contending that -- morality aside -- it simply wouldn't be effective. They boil down to: imprecision, biodiversity, and the limitations of human foresight. (In essence, the short-term microscopic, the middle-term macroscopic, and the long-term in both. The article explains in further detail.) We don't know enough (and likely will never know enough) to get away with attempting to fashion our species in the image of some ideal -- not to mention that it would be impossible to get all seven billion of us to agree on said ideal in the first place. These are all, however, problems that arise when selecting for an upper bound, a hypothetical ideal specimen of humanity.
A (very) soft version of a scenario where we select against a lower bound is already in place, given amniocentesis and women's right to abort. Many women choose to abort after they receive an abnormal genetic diagnosis -- when the fetus has a genetic or congenital defect that would severely diminish the hypothetical child's lifespan or quality of life. The logic is that never existing -- which, for the record, is distinct from ceasing to exist after a period of existence -- is preferable to a life of pain and suffering with little ability to self-actualize. Self-actualization is incredibly important -- it's what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals. This form of selection, which can be considered a mild and diffuse form of eugenics, increases the average human being's ability to self-actualize, thereby increasing (in a thought experiment where sentience is quantifiable on a scale) our species's average sentience through conscious choice by prospective parents -- a rough extension of natural sexual selection, in the way that most technologies exacerbate existing dilemmas and play upon existing quirks of human nature, rather than creating new ones where they didn't exist before. (To be clear, I recognize that I just exploded a can of worms -- that humans aren't generally more or less sentient than other humans, and that legally, ethically, metaphysically, &c. we all ought to be considered equally sentient, except in cases of limited ability to consent (i.e. children, mentally disabled persons), in which case laws are made to protect said people.)
The danger, then, is where the upper and lower bound options meet in the middle. (I'm resisting the obvious temptation to make some horrible joke about quantum mechanics and relativity here.) It's significant, therefore, that the former option is mandated by an external force and doesn't allow parents to meaningfully consent; the latter option is voluntarily initiated by the potential parents. The lower bound scenario never turns into the problematic upper bound scenario precisely because of this element of free will. The moment it moves from a bottom-up to a top-down approach -- when it veers too close to selection for an ideal, thereby impinging upon the rights of the sentient but non-ideal population -- it becomes the morally degenerate form of eugenics of genocide and dystopian science fiction. There lies the bright-line we should be aware of.
And that's all for now. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail
Our notions of eugenics can be roughly sorted into two categories: ways to optimize our species (for some agreed-upon and likely artificial optimal characteristics), and ways to eliminate genetic weaknesses (an extremely aggressive, sentient form of Darwinism). The former option represents selecting for a hypothetical upper bound, and the latter would be selecting against a lower bound.
When we talk about eugenics, most of us imagine the first option. The cultural connotation of the term "eugenics" includes the Holocaust, the book Brave New World, and the film "Gattaca" -- all of which involve human rights violations. In selecting for a certain ideal, a society makes mincemeat of the rights of those who fall below the arbitrary cut-off. Because eugenics usually comes with gross restrictions of free will -- and in many cases, murder -- we tend to see it as a purely moral evil. This usually brings about international intervention (the timeliness and effectiveness of said interventions being a different matter entirely), or at least the common recognition that such atrocities ought to be prevented.
The above io9 article lays out a few intuitive arguments against eugenics from a practical perspective, contending that -- morality aside -- it simply wouldn't be effective. They boil down to: imprecision, biodiversity, and the limitations of human foresight. (In essence, the short-term microscopic, the middle-term macroscopic, and the long-term in both. The article explains in further detail.) We don't know enough (and likely will never know enough) to get away with attempting to fashion our species in the image of some ideal -- not to mention that it would be impossible to get all seven billion of us to agree on said ideal in the first place. These are all, however, problems that arise when selecting for an upper bound, a hypothetical ideal specimen of humanity.
A (very) soft version of a scenario where we select against a lower bound is already in place, given amniocentesis and women's right to abort. Many women choose to abort after they receive an abnormal genetic diagnosis -- when the fetus has a genetic or congenital defect that would severely diminish the hypothetical child's lifespan or quality of life. The logic is that never existing -- which, for the record, is distinct from ceasing to exist after a period of existence -- is preferable to a life of pain and suffering with little ability to self-actualize. Self-actualization is incredibly important -- it's what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals. This form of selection, which can be considered a mild and diffuse form of eugenics, increases the average human being's ability to self-actualize, thereby increasing (in a thought experiment where sentience is quantifiable on a scale) our species's average sentience through conscious choice by prospective parents -- a rough extension of natural sexual selection, in the way that most technologies exacerbate existing dilemmas and play upon existing quirks of human nature, rather than creating new ones where they didn't exist before. (To be clear, I recognize that I just exploded a can of worms -- that humans aren't generally more or less sentient than other humans, and that legally, ethically, metaphysically, &c. we all ought to be considered equally sentient, except in cases of limited ability to consent (i.e. children, mentally disabled persons), in which case laws are made to protect said people.)
The danger, then, is where the upper and lower bound options meet in the middle. (I'm resisting the obvious temptation to make some horrible joke about quantum mechanics and relativity here.) It's significant, therefore, that the former option is mandated by an external force and doesn't allow parents to meaningfully consent; the latter option is voluntarily initiated by the potential parents. The lower bound scenario never turns into the problematic upper bound scenario precisely because of this element of free will. The moment it moves from a bottom-up to a top-down approach -- when it veers too close to selection for an ideal, thereby impinging upon the rights of the sentient but non-ideal population -- it becomes the morally degenerate form of eugenics of genocide and dystopian science fiction. There lies the bright-line we should be aware of.
And that's all for now. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Today
is the 55th anniversary of the death of Rosalind Franklin, an unsung heroine of biophysics (Watson and Crick got all the credit, including the Nobel Prize that she should have been jointly awarded). Women like Franklin -- like Marie Curie, like Ada Lovelace -- were among my childhood idols.
I am reminded of a blog post I wrote a few months ago, wherein I discuss feminism and dead people. Perhaps mine is not the generation in which we achieve true gender equality, but it is inevitable -- I have faith that the inexorable progress of our species is headed in such a direction -- and I hope to see it within my lifetime. Someday, female scientists, artists, leaders, and thinkers will be extraordinary for their accomplishments alone; someday, no one will even think to mention that a Nobel Prize winner was female -- that she won will be accomplishment enough.
And here are some pictures of very colorful (very pretty) corn in honor of Franklin's work on the structure of DNA:
http://milkwood.net/2012/05/12/glass-gem-corn-and-other-heirloom-jewels-of-the-corn-cabinet/
I am reminded of a blog post I wrote a few months ago, wherein I discuss feminism and dead people. Perhaps mine is not the generation in which we achieve true gender equality, but it is inevitable -- I have faith that the inexorable progress of our species is headed in such a direction -- and I hope to see it within my lifetime. Someday, female scientists, artists, leaders, and thinkers will be extraordinary for their accomplishments alone; someday, no one will even think to mention that a Nobel Prize winner was female -- that she won will be accomplishment enough.
And here are some pictures of very colorful (very pretty) corn in honor of Franklin's work on the structure of DNA:
http://milkwood.net/2012/05/12/glass-gem-corn-and-other-heirloom-jewels-of-the-corn-cabinet/
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
BBC: The Japanese Quest for the Perfect Fruit
Asian gifting (and general social niceties) taken to a horticultural extreme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-17352173
It's an interesting social phenomenon, but seriously, that technology and effort could be put to so much better use! If horticulturalists in Japan had only chosen to attempt, say, breeding better crop plants and alleviating hunger in the developing world, imagine all the good they could be doing. It reminds me a little of the way the Japanese electronics industry developed; for a long time, they were among the most reliable manufacturers of electronics in the world, and yet, they stuck to making things like televisions, and kitchen appliances, and little toy robot things. They innovated, of course, but it was mostly on a small scale -- how to make a better circuit board and the like -- rather than dreaming big, as big as they could have. And now, given the way the Japanese economy's looking, it might be just a little too late.
Anyhow, I don't know how that turned from "look at this interesting, slightly ridiculous cultural quirk" to "let's solve all the world's problems." But -- just look at all those melons in a row!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-17352173
It's an interesting social phenomenon, but seriously, that technology and effort could be put to so much better use! If horticulturalists in Japan had only chosen to attempt, say, breeding better crop plants and alleviating hunger in the developing world, imagine all the good they could be doing. It reminds me a little of the way the Japanese electronics industry developed; for a long time, they were among the most reliable manufacturers of electronics in the world, and yet, they stuck to making things like televisions, and kitchen appliances, and little toy robot things. They innovated, of course, but it was mostly on a small scale -- how to make a better circuit board and the like -- rather than dreaming big, as big as they could have. And now, given the way the Japanese economy's looking, it might be just a little too late.
Anyhow, I don't know how that turned from "look at this interesting, slightly ridiculous cultural quirk" to "let's solve all the world's problems." But -- just look at all those melons in a row!
Sunday, March 4, 2012
NYTimes: Genes on the March
A very interesting, if somewhat inaccurate (well, I'm just being nitpicky here) piece on genetic history,
à la Mongolian warlord:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/genes-on-the-march/?hp
There's likely Khan blood somewhere in my family, though the probability's lower than that of the average Chinese, seeing as we're from the south. Even if there were, though, I doubt any of my relatives would be too pleased, given the most logical method of transmission, as it were.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/genes-on-the-march/?hp
There's likely Khan blood somewhere in my family, though the probability's lower than that of the average Chinese, seeing as we're from the south. Even if there were, though, I doubt any of my relatives would be too pleased, given the most logical method of transmission, as it were.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
BBC: The Case for Genetically Modified Food
This is a very interesting, very well-written take on the GM food debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8789279.stm
It is indisputable that there exists a global food problem. There are many ways towards solving it, many of which can be implemented alongside others. Genetically modified produce is one such solution. While it has its problems, it is, as the article suggests, one of the best solutions available. There is no magical cure-all -- GM foods may be the best we can do with the technology we have.
To the people who are concerned about personal health: it's not perfect. It's far from perfect. That's what the FDA is for. If you're going to let doctors play with things like human stem cell regeneration, which is an accepted scientific practice nowadays, have a little faith in GM foods, too. It's progress. The risk factor is the price we've paid for technology and advancement of civilization ever since we first became Homo sapiens.
I'd eat some GM foods. Not all of them -- I'm not stupid (I don't think) -- but certainly the more widely available and well-regulated ones.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8789279.stm
It is indisputable that there exists a global food problem. There are many ways towards solving it, many of which can be implemented alongside others. Genetically modified produce is one such solution. While it has its problems, it is, as the article suggests, one of the best solutions available. There is no magical cure-all -- GM foods may be the best we can do with the technology we have.
To the people who are concerned about personal health: it's not perfect. It's far from perfect. That's what the FDA is for. If you're going to let doctors play with things like human stem cell regeneration, which is an accepted scientific practice nowadays, have a little faith in GM foods, too. It's progress. The risk factor is the price we've paid for technology and advancement of civilization ever since we first became Homo sapiens.
I'd eat some GM foods. Not all of them -- I'm not stupid (I don't think) -- but certainly the more widely available and well-regulated ones.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
NYTimes: Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity
This is quite interesting. Unlike many of the other major religions in the world, Judaism is not a growing religion in that it does not actively seek new converts (a marked difference from, say, Christianity); most of today's Jewish population is descended from Jewish ancestors. They are a very good case of a genetically insular, migrant population, and therefore, rather like Drosophila, very conducive to study.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?src=me&ref=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
BBC: Meerkat Culture
Yes, you read that correctly. Meerkat groups have been shown to transmit behaviours and non-genetic memes. They have, in essence, been forming cultural groups.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10529154.stm
It's a striking discovery. (And they're so cute!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10529154.stm
It's a striking discovery. (And they're so cute!)
Sunday, May 23, 2010
NYTimes: Genetic Testing for Incoming Freshmen at UC Berkeley
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/education/19dna.html?hpw
They call it "nutritional genomics".
On the one hand, I can understand the university's practical concerns. They want to be able to keep tabs on high-risk students; maintaining that level of vigilance for the entire student body would be impossible. To the extent that the school operates in loco parentis, it makes sense for the school to have a comparable level of information to a guardian or personal physician.
On the other hand, the concept of requiring students to submit to genetic testing sits uneasily with me. This is Big Brother at work at one of the most passionately liberal campuses in the country. There is always the possibility, however remote, that it could spill over into other aspects of student life. Administrators intend to use genetic information to advise certain students about drinking, eating habits, and the like. What if it grows to encompass access to athletic teams, for instance, or academic course load? What if the very human elements influencing these processes cannot help their subconscious biases?
The slippery slope argument is, in many cases, a fallacy. I hope that it remains so, in this case.
They call it "nutritional genomics".
On the one hand, I can understand the university's practical concerns. They want to be able to keep tabs on high-risk students; maintaining that level of vigilance for the entire student body would be impossible. To the extent that the school operates in loco parentis, it makes sense for the school to have a comparable level of information to a guardian or personal physician.
On the other hand, the concept of requiring students to submit to genetic testing sits uneasily with me. This is Big Brother at work at one of the most passionately liberal campuses in the country. There is always the possibility, however remote, that it could spill over into other aspects of student life. Administrators intend to use genetic information to advise certain students about drinking, eating habits, and the like. What if it grows to encompass access to athletic teams, for instance, or academic course load? What if the very human elements influencing these processes cannot help their subconscious biases?
The slippery slope argument is, in many cases, a fallacy. I hope that it remains so, in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)