In recent years, bioethical discourse around the topic of ‘genetic enhancement’ has become increasingly politicized. We fear there is too much focus on the semantic question of whether we should call particular practices and emerging bio-technologies such as CRISPR ‘eugenics’, rather than the more important question of how we should view them from the perspective of ethics and policy. Here, we address the question of whether ‘eugenics’ can be defended and how proponents and critics of enhancement should engage with each (...) other. (shrink)

Arabidopsis thaliana is a small cruciferous weed which grows naturally, mainly in Europe. Because of its qualities of small size, rapid growth, low chromosome number and self‐fertilisation, I adapted it to aseptic growth in purified agar in sterile test‐tubes. I found that it secreted various substances into the medium, but not in type or amount likely to interfere with the expression of biosynthetic mutants. Following X‐irradiation of seed, I obtained a number of mutants, including several lethals. One lethal mutant (...) I discovered to be deficient in thiamine synthesis. It was the first biosynthetic mutant to be found in flowering plants. (shrink)

Mr. Agar in Homerica, Preface ix., has suggested that κακι γλνηι was the original reading, ‘Be off with the evil eye upon you.’ I have searched, but in vain, for any formula of imprecation corresponding to the formula of blessing, τύχγαθι, though I should like to see it in κακι τѵχι of the Treacherous Hound in Agamemnon 1230. Mr. T. C. Snow, objecting to Mr. Agar's alterations of the Homeric text, once suggested to me that we should rather (...) retain the vocative, and translate it, ‘Be off, evil eye.’ Others also may have thought of this, but it does not appear to have got into print. (shrink)

Abstrak: Analisa Wacana Kritis (AWK - Critical Discourse Analysis) dewasa ini menjadi metodologi yang banyak dipakai untuk penelitian di bidang media dan masalah-masalah sosial, budaya dan politik, terutama untuk membongkar bentuk-bentuk dominasi, ketidakadilan, diskriminasi atau ketidakbebasan. Wacana sebagai praksis sosial mencerminkan kehidupan masyarakat yang diwarnai retorika, manipulasi dan penyesatan. Karena itu, AWK mau menganalisis praksis wacana yang mengonstruksi masalah ketidakberesan sosial tersebut dan meneliti bagaimana ideologi dibekukan dalam bahasa agar akhirnya bisa mencairkannya. Menurut penulis, AWK mengandung tiga kelemahan epistemologis (...) yang cukup mendasar: pertama, posisi metodologis yang mendorong agar peneliti memihak kepada korban dan mereka yang membutuhkan perubahan berimplikasi pada kondisi ideologis pendekatan ini. Kedua, pendekatan multidisiplin, tanpa disertai syarat-syarat rigoris dalam penggunaan teori-teori lain, menempatkan derajat keteramalan AWK dipertanyakan. Ketiga, rigoritas ilmiah dianggap tidak ketat karena para pionernya masih menggunakan konsep yang beragam untuk menunjuk fenomen yang sama. Kata-kata Kunci: Wacana, ideologi, teks, intertekstualitas, interdiskursivitas, praksis sosial, konstruksi, keteramalan, rekontekstualisasi, genre dan gaya. Abstract: At present, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is widely used as the preferred methodology for research in domain of media as well as in sociological, cultural and political fields. This method serves as an instrument of deconstruction for injustice, discrimination, abuse of power, and limitation of freedom. Discourse as social praxis reflects the social life embedded by rhetoric, manipulation and misleading. Thus, the task of CDA is to analyze the discourse praxis that constructs social problem and to investigate how ideology has been frozen firmly in language and how to unfrozen it. In my opinion, CDA risks to be trapped in three epistemological weaknesses that consist of, first, the methodological standpoint that encourages reseachers to take a position in favor of the victim or those who need a change, tends to be bound by ideological condition. Second, the need for multidisciplinary approach without requiring rigorous conditions in adopting theoretical references entails the weakness of its predictability. Third, there is a lack of scientific rigorism as indicated by the use of different concepts by the CDA pioneers to point to a similar phenomenon. Keywords: Discourse, ideology, text, intertextuality, interdiscursivity, social praxis, construction, predictability, recontextualization, genre and style. (shrink)

Book Information Life's Intrinsic Value: Science, Ethics\nand Nature. By Nicholas Agar. Colombia University Press.\nNew York. 2001. Pp. x + 200. Paperback,\n{Â}\textsterling17.00.

Buku ini berawal dari sebuah disertasi yang ditulis Sr. Gerardette Philips, RSCJ, pengarangnya, untuk meraih gelar doktor di bidang Ilmu Filsafat di Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta. Penerbitannya menjadi sebuah buku oleh Interfidei—sebuah Penerbit di Indonesia yang menaruh perhatian khusus pada persoalan dialog antaragama— sungguh layak disambut baik. Penerbitan buku ini dalam bahasa Inggris memiliki segi negatif maupun positifnya tersendiri. Segi negatifnya, hal itu membuat jumlah publik pembacanya di Indonesia lebih terbatas pada mereka yang dapat memahami bahasa Inggris. Jumlahnya jelas (...) jauh lebih sedikit dibandingkan dengan jumlah pembaca buku ini kalau ditulis dalam bahasa Indonesia. Walaupun demikian, segi positifnya, dengan diterbitkannya dalam bahasa Inggris, publik pembaca yang dapat mengaksesnya secara internasional menjadi lebih banyak. Apalagi buku ini juga memuat Kata Pengantar dalam bahasa Inggris dari Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, seorang tokoh Muslim yang hendak ditampilkan pengarang buku ini sebagai pemikir sekaligus pelaku dialog Muslim-Kristen yang melampaui pendekatan pluralisme. Tokoh dari pihak agama Kristen yang ditampilkan oleh pengarang adalah Hans Küng. Selama ini banyak orang beranggapan bahwa pluralisme merupakan paham hubungan antaragama, yang memiliki bentuk pendekatan yang paling tepat dalam melakukan dialog antaragama, termasuk di dalamnya dialog antara umat Muslim dan Kristen. Memang, dibandingkan dengan pendekatan eksklusivisme maupun inklusivisme, seperti ditegaskan oleh pengarang buku ini (hlm. 1; 60–63; 67), pluralisme memiliki kelebihan tersendiri. Namun, pluralisme mengandung beberapa kelemahan yang layak dikritik. Paling tidak ada tiga kelemahan pokok dari pendekatan pluralisme yang dicoba ditunjukkan dalam buku ini. Pertama, pluralisme mengandung bahaya tidak mengambil serius identitas keagamaan yang khas dan berbeda untuk setiap agama karena ingin menekankan keselarasan antara semua agama, agar tidak terjadi konflik antara pemeluk agama yang berbeda. Guna menguatkan pendapatnya, pengarang mengutip pernyataan Paul Knitter (hlm. 64) yang berbunyi: “Karena begitu terpesona oleh keindahan sebuah simfoni, kaum pluralis melupakan perbedaan dan kekhasan dari masing-masing alat musik yang dipakai.” Pendekatan pluralisme juga mengandung bahaya jatuh ke dalam relativisme, karena— terdorong oleh kehendak untuk mau bersikap terbuka terhadap penganut agama yang lain dan mau menghormati perbedaan keyakinan mereka— para pluralis lalu cenderung merelatifkan klaim kebenaran agamanya sendiri. Tanpa harus menjadi seorang eksklusivis—yang memutlakkan klaim kebenaran keyakinan agamanya sendiri seraya menganggap sesat keyakinan agama yang lain—keseriusan untuk sungguh meyakini kebenaran iman agama yang dipeluknya, sangat diperlukan dalam berdialog agar tidak menjadi kompromistis dan jatuh ke dalam relativisme. Sikap terbuka terhadap para pemeluk agama yang lain—yang berbeda dengan agamanya sendiri—memang diperlukan dalam sebuah dialog antaragama yang sejati. Namun, hal itu perlu dilakukan tanpa kehilangan jatidirinya sendiri sebagai pemeluk agama tertentu yang diyakini kebenarannya. Kelemahan ketiga dari pluralisme adalah bahaya menjadi imperialis tanpa disengaja. Kembali mengutip pernyataan Knitter (hlm.68), pengarang menyebut adanya dua kemungkinan seorang pluralis yang berniat baik tanpa disengaja menjadi seorang imperialis. Pertama, dengan terlalu cepat seorang pluralis menarik kesimpulan tentang adanya suatu dasar pijak atau platform yang sama dari macam-macam agama yang ada yang dapat mempersatukan semuanya. Kedua, ia dengan terlalu mudah merumuskan panduan umum bersama untuk melakukan dialog antaragama-agama yang berbeda................ Salah satu kelemahan buku ini—sebagai sebuah buku yang dimaksud- kan untuk dibaca oleh publik pembaca umum—adalah bahwa formatnya masih mempertahankan format aslinya sebagai sebuah disertasi dan belum cukup diolah untuk dijadikan buku yang lebih dapat diakses dan lebih enak dibaca oleh publik pembaca umum. Bahkan di dalamnya masih dapat ditemukan kata “disertasi” dan belum diganti dengan kata “buku” (lihat hlm. 11). Semboyan dalam bahasa Latin “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,” artinya “Di luar Gereja tidak ada keselamatan,” yang dalam teks asli disertasi salah ditulis “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sales!” masih terulang kesalahannya dalam buku ini (lihat hlm. 90). Lepas dari kelemahan kecil di atas, penerbitan buku ini sekali lagi sungguh layak dihargai dan jelas menambah khasanah intelektual yang dapat memperkaya wawasan maupun memberi inspirasi yang berguna bagi siapa saja yang bermaksud mengembangkan dialog antaragama pada umumnya dan khususnya dialog Muslim-Kristen yang menjadi fokus perhatian dalam buku ini. Sr. Gerardette Philips, RSCJ, Ph.D., penulis buku ini, bukan hanya menjadi seorang akademikus yang telah meneliti pemikiran Hans Küng dan Seyyed Hosein Nasr, tetapi ia sendiri sudah cukup lama terlibat dalam upaya mengembangkan dialog Muslim- Kristen. Beliau bahkan sempat menjadi anggota tim penasihat Paus Benedictus XVI dalam Komisi Kepausan dalam Bidang Hubungan dengan Islam. Pengalamannya yang cukup banyak dalam mewujudkan dialog hidup antara umat Islam dan umat Katolik jelas ikut memperkaya wawasan dalam buku ini. (J. Sudarminta, Program Pascasarjana, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta). (shrink)

Are bacteriophage T4 and the long-nosed elephant fish valuable in their own right? Nicholas Agar defends an affirmative answer to this question by arguing that anything living is intrinsically valuable. This claim challenges received ethical wisdom according to which only human beings are valuable in themselves. The resulting biocentric or life-centered morality forms the platform for an ethic of the environment. -/- Agar builds a bridge between the biological sciences and what he calls "folk" morality to arrive at (...) a workable environmental ethic and a new spectrum--a new hierarchy--of living organisms. The book overturns common-sense moral belief as well as centuries of philosophical speculation on the exclusive moral significance of humans. Spanning several fields, including philosophy of psychology, philosophy of science, and other areas of contemporary analytic philosophy, Agar analyzes and speaks to a wide array of historic and contemporary views, from Aristotle and Kant, to E. O. Wilson, Holmes Rolston II, and Baird Callicot. The result is a challenge to prevailing definitions of value and a call for a scientifically-informed appreciation of nature. (shrink)

Proposals to make us smarter than the greatest geniuses or to add thousands of years to our life spans seem fit only for the spam folder or trash can. And yet this is what contemporary advocates of radical enhancement offer in all seriousness. They present a variety of technologies and therapies that will expand our capacities far beyond what is currently possible for human beings. In _Humanity's End,_ Nicholas Agar argues against radical enhancement, describing its destructive consequences. Agar (...) examines the proposals of four prominent radical enhancers: Ray Kurzweil, who argues that technology will enable our escape from human biology; Aubrey de Grey, who calls for anti-aging therapies that will achieve "longevity escape velocity"; Nick Bostrom, who defends the morality and rationality of enhancement; and James Hughes, who envisions a harmonious democracy of the enhanced and the unenhanced. Agar argues that the outcomes of radical enhancement could be darker than the rosy futures described by these thinkers. The most dramatic means of enhancing our cognitive powers could in fact kill us; the radical extension of our life span could eliminate experiences of great value from our lives; and a situation in which some humans are radically enhanced and others are not could lead to tyranny of posthumans over humans. (shrink)

In this provocative book, philosopher Nicholas Agar defends the idea that parents should be allowed to enhance their children’s characteristics. Gets away from fears of a Huxleyan ‘Brave New World’ or a return to the fascist eugenics of the past Written from a philosophically and scientifically informed point of view Considers real contemporary cases of parents choosing what kind of child to have Uses ‘moral images’ as a way to get readers with no background in philosophy to think about (...) moral dilemmas Provides an authoritative account of the science involved, making the book suitable for readers with no knowledge of genetics Creates a moral framework for assessing all new technologies. (shrink)

In this provocative book, philosopher Nicholas Agar defends the idea that parents should be allowed to enhance their children’s characteristics. Gets away from fears of a Huxleyan ‘Brave New World’ or a return to the fascist eugenics of the past Written from a philosophically and scientifically informed point of view Considers real contemporary cases of parents choosing what kind of child to have Uses ‘moral images’ as a way to get readers with no background in philosophy to think about (...) moral dilemmas Provides an authoritative account of the science involved, making the book suitable for readers with no knowledge of genetics Creates a moral framework for assessing all new technologies. (shrink)

Proposals to make us smarter than the greatest geniuses or to add thousands of years to our life spans seem fit only for the spam folder or trash can. And yet this is what contemporary advocates of radical enhancement offer in all seriousness. They present a variety of technologies and therapies that will expand our capacities far beyond what is currently possible for human beings. In _Humanity's End,_ Nicholas Agar argues against radical enhancement, describing its destructive consequences. Agar (...) examines the proposals of four prominent radical enhancers: Ray Kurzweil, who argues that technology will enable our escape from human biology; Aubrey de Grey, who calls for anti-aging therapies that will achieve "longevity escape velocity"; Nick Bostrom, who defends the morality and rationality of enhancement; and James Hughes, who envisions a harmonious democracy of the enhanced and the unenhanced. Agar argues that the outcomes of radical enhancement could be darker than the rosy futures described by these thinkers. The most dramatic means of enhancing our cognitive powers could in fact kill us; the radical extension of our life span could eliminate experiences of great value from our lives; and a situation in which some humans are radically enhanced and others are not could lead to tyranny of posthumans over humans. (shrink)

Nicholas Agar offers a more nuanced view of the transformative potential of genetic and cybernetic technologies, making a case for moderate human enhancement—improvements to attributes and abilities that do not significantly exceed what ...

The rapid developments in technologies -- especially computing and the advent of many 'smart' devices, as well as rapid and perpetual communication via the Internet -- has led to a frequently voiced view which Nicholas Agar describes as 'radical optimism'. Radical optimists claim that accelerating technical progress will soon end poverty, disease, and ignorance, and improve our happiness and well-being. Agar disputes the claim that technological progress will automatically produce great improvements in subjective well-being. He argues that radical (...) optimism 'assigns to technological progress an undeserved pre-eminence among all the goals pursued by our civilization'. Instead, Agar uses the most recent psychological studies about human perceptions of well-being to create a realistic model of the impact technology will have. Although he accepts that technological advance does produce benefits, he insists that these are significantly less than those proposed by the radical optimists, and aspects of such progress can also pose a threat to values such as social justice and our relationship with nature, while problems such as poverty cannot be understood in technological terms. He concludes by arguing that a more realistic assessment of the benefits that technological advance can bring will allow us to better manage its risks in future. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Will We be Able to Clone Geniuses? Human Genomics and the Search for Smart Genes Doogie's Downside Nuclear Powered Vacuum Cleaners or Nuclear Bombs A Pragmatic Optimism about Enhancement Technologies.

This chapter contains section titled: The Precautionary Principle and Enhancement Technologies The Real Problem with Developing Enhancement Technologies A Clash of Moral Gestalts The Biotechnological Catch‐22 Once we have Traversed the Ethically Impossible Passage….

This chapter contains section titled: Two Kinds of Eugenics Technological Possibilities Moral Perplexities Hither Posthumanity?

This chapter contains section titled: Utilitarian and Kantian Advice about Enhancement Moral Images and Moral Consistency Midgley's Scepticism about Consistency Harvesting Stem Cells: Research or Therapy? Are Enhancement Technologies wrong because they are ‘Yucky’? Why Food is Different Are Enhancement Technologies Wrong because they will Destroy Meaning?

This chapter contains section titled: Two Biotechnological Tendencies: Polarization and Homogenization Distributing Access to Enhancement Technologies Reducing the Burden of Universal Access Biotechnology's Threat to Citizenship The Importance of Reciprocity The Threat of Homogenization Prejudice and Enhancement Kitcher and Buchanan Et Al. on Resisting Morally Defective Environments A Parallel Between GM Humans and GM Food The Ethics of Shifting Bigotry's Burden.

This chapter contains section titled: The Biotechnological Solution to Disease Who Benefits from Gene Therapy? Are we Essentially Human Beings or Essentially Persons, and does it Matter? Genetic Influences, Environmental Influences and the Formation of Human Identities Interactionism's Implications for Identity The Scope of Therapy and the Notion of Disease Buchanan, Brock, Daniels and Wikler on Protecting Normal Functioning Therapy, Obligation and Procreative Liberty's Diminishment.

This chapter contains section titled: Enhancement, Nature and Posthumanity The Biology of Human Nature A Moral Parity of Natural and Engineered Genetic Arrangements Pluralism about Human Flourishing How to Avoid Infringing Freedom of Choice Are we Permitted to Enhance (Or Reduce) Intelligence?

This chapter contains section titled: A Moral and Developmental Parity of Genes and Environment Manufacturing Humans Enhancement and Bad Parenting The Limited Powers of Genetic Engineers Are Enhancements Problematic because they are Positionally Valuable? Regulating the Pursuit of Positional Value.

There is a debate about the possibility of mind-uploading – a process that purportedly transfers human minds and therefore human identities into computers. This paper bypasses the debate about the metaphysics of mind-uploading to address the rationality of submitting yourself to it. I argue that an ineliminable risk that mind-uploading will fail makes it prudentially irrational for humans to undergo it.

Recent studies indicate that mammalian chromosomes contain discretecis‐acting loci that control replication timing, mitotic condensation, and stability of entire chromosomes. Disruption of the large non‐coding RNA gene ASAR6 results in late replication, an under‐condensed appearance during mitosis, and structural instability of human chromosome 6. Similarly, disruption of the mouse Xist gene in adult somatic cells results in a late replication and instability phenotype on the X chromosome. ASAR6 shares many characteristics with Xist, including random mono‐allelic expression and asynchronous replication timing. (...) Additional “chromosome engineering” studies indicate that certain chromosome rearrangements affecting many different chromosomes display this abnormal replication and instability phenotype. These observations suggest that all mammalian chromosomes contain “inactivation/stability centers” that control proper replication, condensation, and stability of individual chromosomes. Therefore, mammalian chromosomes contain four types ofcis‐acting elements, origins, telomeres, centromeres, and “inactivation/stability centers”, all functioning to ensure proper replication, condensation, segregation, and stability of individual chromosomes. (shrink)

Francis Fukuyama's controversial new book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, has elicited varied reactions, but like it or not, it seems likely to be influential. Here are three opinions. —Ed.

This paper presents arguments for two claims. First, post-persons, beings with a moral status superior to that of mere persons, are possible. Second, it would be bad to create such beings. Actions that risk bringing them into existence should be avoided. According to Allen Buchanan, it is possible to enhance moral status up to the level of personhood. But attempts to improve status beyond that fail for want of a target - there is no category of moral status superior to (...) that of personhood. Buchanan presents personhood as a threshold. He allows that persons may succeed in enhancing their cognitive and physical powers but insists that they cannot enhance their moral status. I argue that it is an implication of accounts that make a cognitive capacity, or collection of such capacities, constitutive of moral status, that those who do not satisfy the criteria for a given status find these criteria impossible to adequately describe. This obstacle notwithstanding, I offer an inductive argument for the existence of moral statuses superior to personhood, moral statuses that are necessarily beyond human expressive powers. The second part of this paper presents an argument that it is wrong to risk producing beings with moral status higher than persons. We should look upon moral status enhancement as creating especially morally needy beings. We are subject to no obligation to create them in the first place. We avoid creating their needs by avoiding creating them. (shrink)

This paper offers practical advice about how to interact with machines that we have reason to believe could have minds. I argue that we should approach these interactions by assigning credences to judgements about whether the machines in question can think. We should treat the premises of philosophical arguments about whether these machines can think as offering evidence that may increase or reduce these credences. I describe two cases in which you should refrain from doing as your favored philosophical view (...) about thinking machines suggests. Even if you believe that machines are mindless, you should acknowledge that treating them as if they are mindless risks wronging them. Suppose your considered philosophical view that a machine has a mind leads you to consider dating it. You may have reason to regret that decision should these dates lead on to a life-long relationship with a mindless machine. In the paper’s final section, I suggest that building a machine that is capable of performing all intelligent human behavior should produce a general increase in confidence that machines can think. Any reasonable judge should count this feat as evidence in favor of machines having minds. This rational nudge could lead to broad acceptance of the idea that machines can think. (shrink)

Abstract:This paper considers the relevance of the concept of “eugenics,”—a term associated with some of the most egregious crimes of the twentieth century—to the possibility of editing human genomes. The author identifies some uses of gene editing as eugenics but proposes that this identification does not suffice to condemn them. He proposes that we should distinguish between “morally wrong” practices, which should be condemned, and “morally problematic” practices that call for solutions, and he suggests that eugenic uses of gene editing (...) fall into this latter category. Although when we choose the characteristics of future people we are engaging in morally dangerous acts, some interventions in human heredity should nevertheless be acknowledged as morally good. These morally good eugenic interventions include some uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The author argues that we should think about eugenic interventions in the same way that we think about morally problematic interventions in public health. When we recognize some uses of gene editing as eugenics, we make the dangers of selecting or modifying human genetic material explicit. (shrink)

This paper responds to Nick Bostrom’s suggestion that the threat of a human-unfriendly superintelligenceshould lead us to delay or rethink progress in AI. I allow that progress in AI presents problems that we are currently unable to solve. However; we should distinguish between currently unsolved problems for which there are rational expectations of solutions and currently unsolved problems for which no such expectation is appropriate. The problem of a human-unfriendly superintelligence belongs to the first category. It is rational to proceed (...) on that assumption that we will solve it. These observations do not reduce to zero the existential threat from superintelligence. But we should not permit fear of very improbable negative outcomes to delay the arrival of the expected benefits from AI. (shrink)

El artículo ofrece una interpretación de la controversial y aparentemente inaceptable caracterización de la poesía desarrollada por Platón en la República. Los objetivos principales de la discusión son: aclarar las motivaciones de dicha caracterización, desentrañar los múltiples y discontinuos argumentos que la componen, y evaluar críticamente sus aciertos y sus límites. Se concluye que no todas las posturas que adopta Platón frente a la poesía son insostenibles, y que cuando sí lo son las razones para ello resultan particularmente esclarecedoras. The (...) article offers an interpretation of the controversial and apparently unacceptable characterization of poetry developed in Plato's Republic. The main objectives of the discussion are: to clarify the motivations for such characterization, to disentangle the various and discontinuous arguments that compose it, and to critically evaluate its limitations and the extent of its defensibility. It is concluded that not all the positions adopted by Plato with respect to poetry are unsustainable, and that when they are, this is due to reasons which result particularly revealing. (shrink)