The Death of the Individual

[Nezaros]

I'm not entirely sure where this should go, so I'll just stuff it here.

A thought occurred to me while reading the Wikipedia article for the movie Gattaca. I don't have any issue with genetic engineering, or at least I didn't think I did. If one can improve the fitness of a future generation, why not? Physically, there's no reason not to. Mentally, though?

Let's say, as I often do, that there exist two levels of human organization: individual and society. The primary goal of the individual is to benefit himself, while the primary goal of society is to benefit itself (through benefiting individuals). But what if society were to manipulate each individual to work only for the needs of society, whether through genetic or psychological conditioning? The ability to choose would effectively be stripped away; the individual would be no more. And no one would exist that might be able to return the system to normality.

Now that I think about it, it's about the same issue as exists in Brave New World. If you manufacture people for a specific purpose, they're closer to android than human. At what point is it acceptable to affect a person? Because there's a fine line between physical improvement and psychological manipulation.

 

[Cognisant]

At what point is it acceptable to affect a person?

I don't know, especially when it comes to creating people, morality goes out the window when you can engineer people to enjoy slavishly serving the greater whole, indeed maybe individualism isn't the great thing we think it is?

Being different is alienating, individuality conflicts with unity, as long as we're not part of a true like minded collective (say all communists who believe in communism) our individuality puts us in conflict with one another or at very least in competition.

On the other hand I've been reading about theories of military doctrine and there's a strong case for individuality to the extent of personal competence, specifically allowing troops to choose their own equipment, modify their armour and use their own initiative in combat makes them more effective because it lets them work to their individual strengths, also it makes it difficult for the enemy to respond because a mixed force is much harder to predict tactically.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I consider it a fundamental principle, an axiom that the individual's rights come before society's existence or prosperity. On one point because humans have a consciousness and will that precedes society, the latter has no right to claim power over the former; and on another point because society is an illusory abstraction, without individuals there is no society.


One exception I've found is that of a collective that was designed from the bottom-up of willing individuals, so that they make the implied or explicit agreement to put the welfare of this new society above their individuals selves, in a scenario such as defending themselves in war.


I've also debated this thread's ideas in two other threads.

a perfect biology is not the absolute goal of life, nor is general scientific progress or strictly impersonal thinking. If a perfect biology is your personal goal, there's nothing wrong with that, but it becomes a problem when your ideology encroaches upon the freedom of others.

Would you vote for Hitler?

The problems of society are not to be solved by encroaching upon the freedoms of the individual (e.g. sterilization at birth), but by the adaptation of society in terms of accepting those problems, unless of course you restrict such encroachments to volunteers(of which I highly doubt there would be any).

Biological (or otherwise) advancements are secondary to the people they apply to, and should not, in and of themselves, be treated as valid justifications for government-sanctioned eugenics.

Eugenics

 

[Nezaros]

I suppose in the end it depends on what you think humanity's goal should be. But even that's highly ambiguous; if it's the happiness of the individual, you risk societal stagnation. If it's the betterment of society, you risk alienating the individual. Where is the middle?

Individual happiness is arguably far more important, yes, but allow me a reductio ad absurdum. We could, theoretically, place every single human being into stasis, wherein their minds are constantly filled with pleasing images and emotions, and everybody is happy. That's the far end of the spectrum, and I don't think anybody wants that. Why, though? I can't speak for anybody else, but for me it's because that isn't living, that's slowly dying. It's preferable to the abhorrent process known as surburban life, but no matter the circumstances, what is life without improvement?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I suppose in the end it depends on what you think humanity's goal should be. But even that's highly ambiguous; if it's the happiness of the individual, you risk societal stagnation. If it's the betterment of society, you risk alienating the individual. Where is the middle?

I believe that if certain people want to encroach upon the individual with their philosophies or societal causes for humanity, they should get together with other like-minded people and carry out their plans among themselves.

I know that's idealistic, but I am just very turned-off by the desire to impose upon others with one's personal arrogant ambitions.

 

[Nezaros]

I believe that if certain people want to encroach upon the individual with their philosophies or societal causes for humanity, they should get together with other like-minded people and carry out their plans among themselves.

I know that's idealistic, but I am just very turned-off by the desire to impose upon others with one's personal arrogant ambitions.

I think working for the benefit of all should be the default state. After all, most people are aided by public works growing up. If you'd like to make the decision to split off and owe nothing while receiving nothing, I say let them. But even if they did that, most people still expect some sort of state-sponsored aid, even if it's something as simple as roads. Add onto that the fact that splitting into groups almost invariably causes conflict.