I have few enemies, intellectually speaking -- enemy ideas, that is; real nemesis visions. To qualify for nemesis status, a vision must be coherent, compelling, and viable on a mass scale. So I am not particularly worried about, say, the rise of actual Socialism in America, or the eventual transformation of everybody into militant atheist scientists, or most of the larger bugaboos upsetting our supposed public mind on the wide cultural right. There are only a few plausible destinies we face that I find deeply troubling -- that is, only a few ways in which I really think we, us now with all that entails, could go wrong.In consequence, I am sometimes apt to harp on certain apparently marginal themes, to the detriment of apparently more central ones. The net effect may be a certain initial opacity as regards what is known in academe as my Broader Intellectual Project. But then an exchange like Friday's between Damon Linker and Rod Dreher comes along, and suddenly my assorted remarks on therapy and transgression, liberaltarianism, pink police states, and the sex vote take on, if not new relevance, the cast of a greater unity. I have more to say about some of these things in in other venues, but a few comments, here, are in order.
James goes on to explore the argument Damon and I had the other day about Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and its effect on American life. Damon, a secularist, thinks its a disaster as theology, but a blessing as a civic mode of thought. You can read what I think right here. I'm not sure what James thinks, ultimately, because he's off doing that Poulosian thing, zooming around the intellectual stratosphere in that F-14 fighter jet mind of his. But his post put me in mind of a question a friend in Dallas put to me this weekend.
We were talking about something, can't remember what, and my friend asked, "What is your greatest anxiety?" It was a philosophical question. I thought for a second, and said that my greatest philosophical anxiety, which is the connecting thread behind most posts on this blog, is the civilizational loss of a sense of Truth. That is, the fear that our entire civilization will cease to believe in truth, and that truth is knowable, and sets limits on human conduct. This is why Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is a far greater threat to our civilization than socialism, or radical Islam, or rampant capitalism. It anesthetizes the mind and the conscience. To lose a sense of grounding in Absolute Truth is to enter the abyss. MacIntyre think this has already happened.
Well, I welcome comment on the Poulos post, and on my own view that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and its fellow travelers are the only real Nemesis Vision I have. But I really hope some of you will say what you consider to be your Nemesis Vision, or Nemesis Visions. Let's keep the descriptions as philosphical as we can, and not degenerate into name-calling and screeching. Thanks
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Kurt, I'm talking about creating people. If an embryo is created by joining a man's unmodified sperm and a woman's unmodified egg, it is not genetic engineering. Thus, PGD or using screened donor gametes is not genetic engineering, even though it is eugenic in nature. If conception is attempted any other way than joining a man and woman's unmodified gametes, it is genetic engineering. Same-sex conception requires changing (engineering) one of the partner's genes, therefore it requires modified gametes.
John, the thing to keep in mind about prospective parents is that they are risk averse. This means that they will go for PGD if the cost of IVF goes down and the efficacy goes up. Thats because PGD is really a form of risk management (everything is life is about risk management and opportunity cost). On the other hand, genetic engineering involves increased risk. You're doing something that may or may not work. Even if the MD who does the procedure swears on a stack of bibles that the process is 100% safe, you do not know for sure until it's actually done. This represents increased risk for prospective parents, which is something they are not going to like. This is the primary reason why I do not expect genetic engineering of kids is ever going to be popular.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it may be possible to use genetic engineering to increase cognitive ability. However, this is not going to be the case for personality traits. Personality traits (Big 5, Briggs-Meier) are optimized at intermediate values, meaning these probably cannot be optimized through genetic engineering. Also, much of them is determined by environmental factors (which includes everything from the chemical environment of the womb to how the kid gets treated at school). I really think genetic engineering is not going to be popular even if it is socially accepted.
The Transhumanists sure seem eager to do it, and same-sex couples are going to feel the tug of possibly being able to be parents together, so I disagree that it won't be popular, especially after other people have taken the plunge first. But I agree that most people sure arent interested in it, which is my point: there is a consensus to ban it, and so much to be gained from banning it, so why not ban it? Why leave it legal, unless it is just to be able to say that same-sex couples have equal rights? That's not worth it, in fact saying that holds back those same couples from getting equal protections and hurts the US internationally. The rest of the world is grown-up about it and most countries have banned genetic engineering already. What is wrong with us?
My Nemesis Vision is a world where no one honors their obligations anymore: not to their parents or elders when they are old, not to their community, and especially not to each other. No one pays any heed to the ties that bind us together as human beings. They withdraw further and further into their massive homes which are fronted almost entirely by garages, and each family member cocoons him/herself in a separate room. They don't venture out anymore, their reality is entirely mediated. They fill up every waking minute with noise and flash. They don't risk their safety or comfort or personal pleasure. They do not see the pain and suffering of the homeless or the dispossessed, and they certainly cannot see their own. Nothing is seriously asked of them, and so they give nothing of themselves seriously. They build up walls, deadly afraid. Of what, I don't understand.
I guess a Nemesis Vision says a lot about a person, doesn't it?
My nemesis vision is that the notion of "absolute truth" will become lodged in the "state", which is why I am for the separation of church and state, and why I am a secularist, though a theist.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.