First, may as well get the terms right, lest that wagon get’s confused about wha’t happening to it.

Pull
To apply force to so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the source of the force.

Push
to press upon or against (a thing) with force in order to move it away.

So- clearly a wagon could be pushed or pulled. It’s not a function of gravity or other universal constant. It’s a function of whether the balance and counter force exerted by an individual moves the wagon to one, or away.

Jeff- if you were holding the handle and leaning away from the object- you were pulling it toward you.

Now-
agreed that that the political dynamic inherently extended from an “us v. them” or “us v. other” and “us v. us” is empathy.
And perhaps empathy is a …. difficult example to make the point. There will be good and bad enhancements, though we will not always know for sure in advance which is which.
And we may not after.
Here’s where the relativism you espouse hits us with all it’s indifference. Our values shift and change and while it may make perfect sense to me to get the cochlear implants, I get that the deaf community may feel a loss.

I want my knees back. And if/when big Pharma invents the viagra equivalent for my knees, I’m on board, faster if I can get my insurance to pay. Likewise other ailments, perceived and actual. (like I could tell the difference) Bigger and smaller body parts. Different colors. Altered sexuality.

And likewise my overall aging. We can all agree to figure out the consequences later – unintended or intended. Or not. But I’ll choose what’s good for me, when it’s good for me. ANd if it’s bad – so?

And in the end, the question about whether I’ve transcended or subverted my “humanity” is ….not even secondary.

And Harv is right – there would almost surely be some lifting on the wagon too.

Phil, the relative rarity of effective instances of sociopathy reinforces my point. Empathy is an effective heuristic, increasing the likelihood of positive-sum social interactions, formed within the (mainly tribal) environment of evolutionary adaptation, and most effective within a similar context.

But that same heuristic, inherited from our ancestors and built-in to most of us today, is also involved in our instinctive in-group/out-group bias, so beneficial to cohesiveness of “self”, so detrimental to acceptance of “other.” This, the “uncanny valley” phenomenon, and a host of other interrelated aspects of our evolved nature highlight the increasing importance of increasing sophistication in our discussion of these issues.

Academics still struggle with the classic Trolley Problem, trying to reconcile empathy with utilitarian notions of ethics. It would be amusing if it were not so important that we understand that both views are valid, within context, and what we need is not a theory of “what’s right” but a theory explaining an increasing context of observations (both views, and more) with increasing coherence.

My point is not to discredit or “remove” empathy but to encompass it.

A wise and effective leader, operating within a scope greater than that of our tribal ancestors, exploits fast and frugal heuristics like empathy within the domain of interpersonal relations; beyond that, (s)he uses more complex, and thus computationally expensive models, appropriate to the particular domain.

To (perhaps foolishly) address your question as to a hypothetical scenario where lack of empathy within the “psychological makeup”could be a good thing, one has only to imagine forms of agency, closely connected teams, for example, where the benefits of such specialization among certain elements would contribute to increased effectiveness overall. The “standard of reference” that you request, is not “humanity” but “what works” seen from humanity’s present (but evolving) point of view.

In the bigger picture, the simpler heuristic of empathy instantiated on our biological brains, will be superseded by a more complex framework modeling an increasing context of increasingly coherent, hierarchical, fine-grained evolving values. Lather, rinse, repeat with selection for increasing effective interaction over increasing scope.

Thanks again for hosting the discussion and stimulating the refinement and expansion of our thinking on these increasingly important matters at the intersection of technology and society.

Therefore, in order to coherently and effectively discuss issues of value, we need to adopt more sophisticated concepts.

Your snarky comment about “value laden … talk” making me uncomfortable highlights the magnitude of the conceptual gap.

My message is that there is nothing more important or central to “transhumanist” thought than achieving a effective framework for the promotion of an increasing context of hierachical, fine-grained, evolving values, promoted via methods increasingly effective, in principle, over increasing scope of interaction.

Your “couldn’t disagree more” is like my dad arguing that I was “obviously pulling” the little wagon, when I was doing my best to explain that effective wagon-moving, seen coherently, is all about pushing. There’s no actual “pulling” anywhere in that local system. (While not denying the reality of “pulling” in terms of a force that acts in the direction of the force, there’s the little matter of the handle actually being pushed.)

Likewise, while it’s increasingly meaningless to talk of modifications as inherently “good” or “bad”, it is increasingly meaningful, important, and urgent that we learn to effectively assess and evaluate actions, relative to our evolving values, rationally expected to promote those evolving values over increasing scope.

Thank you for your part in raising awareness of these issues.

I agree. Removal of empathy would probably not be a genetic modification. It would involve shutting down or avoiding neural pathways that were brought about (maybe not all that successfully)by some combination of nature and nature.

Jeff –

>>I bring this up because there is no such thing in itself as a “subtracted” feature, except in relation to some particular reference. This is not to deny that, for example, deafness can be an impairment, but to emphasize that any such assessment is necessarily in regard to some standard of reference.

I agree. The standard I’m using is that of humanity.

Anyhow, forget deafness. Let’s go with what was actually being discussed. Are you prepared to offer up a “standard of reference” from which people choosing to eliminate empathy from their psychological makeup would be a good thing? (Oops, sorry — does all this value-laden “good thing / bad thing” talk make you uncomfortable?)

>>So talk of “positive” and “negative” modifications to the “human” (even disregarding the implicit speciesism–our thinking should encompass all manifestations of agency) is increasingly incoherent seen in the light of our increasing instrumental effectiveness within a world of increasing uncertainty (and possibility.)

I simply couldn’t disagree more. Our “increasing instrumental effectiveness” doesn’t make talking about enhancements as negative or positive incoherent. Rather, it increases the urgency of having such a discussions.

I bring this up because there is no such thing in itself as a “subtracted” feature, except in relation to some particular reference. This is not to deny that, for example, deafness can be an impairment, but to emphasize that any such assessment is necessarily in regard to some standard of reference.

“Transhumanists” tend to conceive and talk about enhancement and progress as if in some sense absolute, when actually, progress is making any such absolute claims (quite suitable for the more stable environment of our ancestors) increasingly meaningless.

Now, while any assessment of value must necessarily be in relation to some reference, that doesn’t mean the frame of reference is arbitrary. On the contrary, present human nature, and thus our values, is the result of a very long chain of evolutionary development, thus we have built-in propensities for increasing agreement on preferences expressing values increasingly fundamental in the hierarchy of our evolved nature.

So talk of “positive” and “negative” modifications to the “human” (even disregarding the implicit speciesism–our thinking should encompass all manifestations of agency) is increasingly incoherent seen in the light of our increasing instrumental effectiveness within a world of increasing uncertainty (and possibility.)

Lest you think I’m splitting philosophical hairs here, this has a pragmatic point. Effective framing and discussion of issues of human enhancement is becoming increasingly important to social choice and policy supporting development in the direction of the future we would like to see.

1. Myostatin inhibition. Being buff is healthier and sexier. There aren’t too many chronic illnesses that middle aged people in the civilized world suffer with that wouldn’t be aided by this.

2. Respirocytes. If I can hold my breath for four hours, then why bother will gills? More seriously, imagine how much additional time emergency personnel would be given for dealing with heart attack victims. If your brain can survive a few more minutes because there’s more oxygen available, survival rates would shoot up.

3. Kill Cancer.