Roger is asking, Kenneth answers...
Kenneth,
But on one point we can conjure, and that is that
we all have an illusion of free
will. There is nothing wrong with that view, only
when it comes to the ehtical
implications, that is to convert scietific
findings into laws, rules, regulations etc
you gonna ran into trouble.
Roger,
What are you suggesting we set rules on
?
Roger, the following is an old article I wrote
about a year ago, but it holds still
relevancy.
People
are born with their own genetic code and probably with a memetic
code,that is the way we stand for what is
enclosed in our culture.That is,how we
think politically,socially,religiously
etc.
That means,if our religiously inspired society
demands that the sexual intercourse between man
and woman results in having children,than is
abortion,homosexuality,incest and rape
something we don't ' understand '.
This way of thinking ends up in the conclusion
that anyone,and I do mean anyone, is free to
have sex and is free to choose if they want children or not.
'Free' of course is here a soft spot,the society
pushes us along memetical lineages forward in a
well selected direction.
But problems begin where either way a couple
decides to abort their unborn child
or where the society ' wants ' to intervene in
the ' quality of life '_that is,a moral
dilemma (abortion or not) becomes a social
problem if something goes wrong.
That is,is a society in the end willing to pay
all the costs when the child turn out to be a
disabled person,where on the other hand there are giving possibilities to
overcome the painfull situation!?
The medical technology is so far advanced that a
concept like humane selection
can't stay in the dark forever.We have to
choose_morality (and that is in some
sense the way in which we are ordered to
think),just as the culture wherein the
morality is applied,must optimize (as a system)
the happiness of humankind.
That is,we must boost people to another level of
responsibility,the system has to
boost people to think as autonomic human
beings,the system has to propose
people to handle in a rational way to what is
been found into their genes and
(memetical) wishes,and in those of
others.
Such a way of thinking leaves space for more creativity and
advise,for notions
about adoption,for concepts as selective abortion
and for projects as individual
traject accompeniment
(Netherlands)/eugenetics/artifical insemination/ gentechnology and humane selection.
Also, nowadays, ideas like the direct democracy
of the private life, total indi-
viduality, application of Holodeck technologies
are making their way up...
We must
bend in the context as mentioned above towards the possibility
that we must let people choose for the benefit of
a greater importance_(evolutio-
nary concerns are here the decline of the gene-
and memepool and social welfare).
To pursue personal satisfaction on a social front
is anyway an admirable ambition,
but if the efforts are at the costs of his/hers
health/responsibility and at the cost
of your family,children and friends than you must
be protected against yourself,
that is,you must be protected against
what can be found in your genes/
memes and against what is
genetical/memetical inheritable.
Noone wants to be a murderer,but if murder is one
of your genetical/memetical
traits,then you must be protected,not the '
removal ' of the gene(s)/meme(s) is
here in anyway the priority,but indeed of how the
authorities/social welfare services/social powers and the whole of the welfare
state are (memetical) up to
their task to push someone with for example
a murder-gene in a specific direc-
tion so that ' mistakes ' can't take
place.
Besides,that is a possibility,a suggestion to
people to ignore their own individual
interests,a suggestion to move people to do
something against what they can/
will tranfer genetically/memetically.Besides,it
is after all better than that the so-
ciety forces you to act,isn't it!?
By the way, Holodeck Technology has a great deal
to offer. This kind of technology can provide
us in the future with some practical applications towards helping people with ' sex- problems.'
Roger,
[Of course, once you set the technology in motion
you create all kinds of
' moral ' problems. Like, is using virtual dolls
for the sake of a sex- offender
ethical defenable !? If you want to know more
about this subject, let me know,
I will give you gladly mu point of view and also
some webpages where you
can find some stuff concerning Holodeck
technology.]
Of course,I
already can hear the remarks,it begins with children and it ends
up in something like Auschwitz.Nothing of the
sort!!!
We must choose and stand up for our own
individual rights!!
If you choose to be a murderer or a rapist
than all the consequences are yours;(the
society will try to protect yourself and others
against your deeds,but anyhow in
the end if you commit murder you will be
punished.
If,on the other hand,you take up the
responsibility and you let the community treat
you,you will be awarded as a full member of
society.
And what concerns the last remarks,they are old
fashion,they are old ideas_
people are hooked up at their conservative way of
thinking.There is no place
for new ideas_and there lies an enormous task
ahead for us,the memeticists.
Also now, I think for MOQ_ the question about
Quality is raised everywhere !
Whatever the meaning of memetics is,it is
based_literally wrapped up in a con-
formitive ideology:_we change the way of
how we think about (old) ideas,
it would be better if we also change the
ideas in the same process.
Than is would be certainly
evolution!!
By the way, Roger, keep up the Good work ! I like
a joke from time to time !
References/
Lamarck Jean-Baptiste/Philosophie
Zoologique
Edward O. Wilson/Consilience.The unity of
knowledge
Michael Derzak Adrema/Primal
Renaissance
Aaron Lynch/Thought Contaigon and Mass
Belief
Rietdijk Wim/Special Gathering Filosofie Magazine
99/4
Many Regards,
Kenneth
( I am, because we
are)
