Playing Against the Trend: Non-Villainous Anti-PSR, Reactionary etc. Characters

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Not entirely true. I just listened to a long series of Joni Mitchell tracks, partly while writing this; I found tears coming to my eyes when I listened to "Coyote" and "Judgment of the Moon and Stars." But I chose to listen to them and thus I chose my emotions, in some measure.

What we cannot do is choose our emotions and have them change by the simple act of choice. If we want them to change we have to work to change them.

Bill Stoddard

Choosing to enter the situation in which you are likely to experience those emotions is very similar but not quite the same thing.

Do I really choose to be phobic when I force myself to go outside for groceries? I can see arguments for both yes and no on that one.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The natural human condition, it seems to me, is the condition that results from human nature, when it has not been modified—for example, when it has not had the genome edited, or new genes spliced in.

Why is genetic alteration forbidden, and other forms of alteration okay? Does LASIK make you less human? What about drugs to moderate chronic conditions? Dentistry? Anti-psychotic drugs?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Why is genetic alteration forbidden, and other forms of alteration okay? Does LASIK make you less human? What about drugs to moderate chronic conditions? Dentistry? Anti-psychotic drugs?

Each generation will "revert" to the genomic base? Though epigenetic research does show that what is done to you may effect your children's children without changing genes at all.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Why is genetic alteration forbidden, and other forms of alteration okay? Does LASIK make you less human? What about drugs to moderate chronic conditions? Dentistry? Anti-psychotic drugs?

I think the key there is not the word "nature" but the word "human." We use that as an adjective for all members of the biological species Homo sapiens, and for only them. But that species is defined genetically. The nature of something that is defined genetically is a genetic nature.

And, definitions aside, our genes circumscribe our range of variation; even an organism as similar to us as the bonobo has major differences. I simply can't conceive of a human being who functions that differently from other human beings. Of course they may have big enough differences so they don't function! But the genes seem to be determinative. At this point we don't have drugs or implants that make a difference of comparable magnitude; most of what we have, at best, restores normal physiological functioning. When we have tech that gives people superpowers, come back and we can talk about the boundaries of "human nature."

Bill Stoddard

[Flyndaran]

What about ghost programs? Can they refer to themselves as human, or would that be a comforting delusion? I could vigorously argue both sides on that one.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

What about ghost programs? Can they refer to themselves as human, or would that be a comforting delusion? I could vigorously argue both sides on that one.

I'd say that they're not human; they're convincing simulations of human. Whether the ghost can validly say, "I was human, but now I'm a ghost," depends on questions of ontology for which we have a thread already.

Bill Stoddard

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

At this point we don't have drugs or implants that make a difference of comparable magnitude

Plenty of genemods would have less physical effect than HGH or steroids, or less mental effect than alcohol.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Plenty of genemods would have less physical effect than HGH or steroids, or less mental effect than alcohol.

Sure, and I hardly suggested that every genetic change counts. Human beings, like nearly all living species, are genetically polymorphic; there are all kinds of natural genetic differences that don't "change human nature" in the sense of making the people who have them a different species. Consider for example the spread of the lactose tolerance gene.

However, assuming genetic modification technology continues to advance, it's at least a possible speculation that we might be able to create beings who were descended from our species, but who had introduced genetic differences that made them no longer cross-fertile with us, and thus a different species; and the nature of that species might be significantly different from ours, beyond simple reproductive isolation. It might not take all that much; consider how little genetic difference there is between us and the gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo.

There's also the possibility of using technology to introduce traits that are outside the spectrum of human variation, via implants. Under some circumstances it might make sense to call that "changing human nature."

Bill Stoddard

[Flyndaran]

Ability to interbreed is not that indicative of species. There are some insects that can't interbreed because of individual genes changing mating signals, and we all know that many different species of cats can interbreed.

We are all individual genomes in a sea with empty sections due to natural selection.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Ability to interbreed is not that indicative of species. There are some insects that can't interbreed because of individual genes changing mating signals, and we all know that many different species of cats can interbreed.

Nonetheless reproductive isolation is a key aspect of speciation.

Bill Stoddard