< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://davejustus.com/" >

Friday, May 20, 2005

Altruistic Punishment and Genetic Engineering dangers

This FuturePundit post is thought provoking.:

Political scientist James Fowler has created a mathematical model of human behavior that suggests that 'moralists' who voluntarily pay a cost to punish 'misbehavers' can come to dominate a population and ensure cooperation among its members. 'This may help explain mass political behaviors like voting,' Fowler said. 'When individuals say, 'It doesn't really matter if I vote,' others -- programmed genetically or by social norms -- may seek to punish them, even though it means a self-sacrifice.' He believes that humans may have physically or developmentally evolved to altruistic punishment. Previous studies found that 'acting the moralist' stimulates the reward center in the brain. ... The urge to dole out altruistic punishment must have a genetic basis. When germ line genetic engineering (i.e. genetic engineering done on eggs, sperm, and embryos) becomes feasible one of my fears is that key genetically controlled qualities of human nature will be modified by parents and governments in ways that will threaten civilization. Genetic engineering to raise testosterone levels and dominance behavior would have obvious political consequences. But the urge to altruistically punish others is another crucial component of human nature which is going to become more or less strongly felt in future generations as a result of germ line genetic engineering.
Interesting things to think about. It is obvious to most people (Objectivists are the major exception) that traits that are best for an individual are not necessarily best for society. We certainly need our dominant individuals for example, but if we were all highly dominant chaos would result. Someone has to be willing to follow. I am in favor of Genetic Engineering. I don't think that nature is either wise or kind and that meddling with it can be a very good thing. However, that doesn't mean one should throw caution to the wind either. My biggest fear is not that any specific genetic changes will be made or expiramented with, my fear is that a few traits will be seen as universally desirable, and there will be a lack of diversity in the species. There are about a billion ways that such a thing could really hurt us. The best defense against this, in my opinion, is to make sure to keep Government as far away from this as possible. Diverse people will probably choose diverse traits to magnify or remove from their offspring. Governments on the other hand, obsessed with equality and mired in procedure would gravitate toward a single standard.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Altruistic punishment? What is altruistic punishment? Does the writer mean that punishment afflicted on a society rule violator by that society is altruistic? No way! Altruism means that nothing is expected in return for a benevolent act. Punishment is not only not benevolent it serves a purpose and the ones inflicting the punishment damn well get something in return, notably revenge and assurance of no repeats in the case of death sentences and revenge, hopes of rehab, and assurances that the act will not be committed while the offender is in the slammer.

If my definition of what is intended by the term altuistic punishment is off then I will not be offended if given the definition of the term as used by the writer.

5/20/2005 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

Basically that would be punishing someone for violating the norms of society, even when there is no direct benefit to oneself, or even a cost for doling out the punishment.

Trade restrictions on China because of human rights violations, is one example. Boycotting Pepsi because of the contents of a speech made their CEO (when one likes Pepsi) would be another. Choosing not to associate with a friend who you found was sleeping around with his wife would be a third.

Obviously the level of punishment and the importance and justifiability, or lack thereof, of the norm being enforced makes this either good or bad behavior in specific.

However, I think it pretty clear that the behavior as a whole is needed to some degree for a stable and functioning society.

5/20/2005 03:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Rand on altruism. Ain't no such animal because no one does anything without expecting something in return that they perceive as a benefit to them in someway. Punishment of any type is done for a reason that is perceived to be a benefit to either the individual or the society doing the punishing. I used to tell my kids when I punished them I was doing it for their own good-but I was also doing it for my benifit because I was hoping the punishment would help them to remember not to do it again. Sounds more like a politically correct term to me. But, at least I know what to expect when I see the term used. Thanks Dave

5/20/2005 04:14:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home