RobokkuSun, May 11, 2008 That Pinker piece is really interesting, unnerving reading. The report he writes about, from the President's Council on Bioethics, certainly seems disturbing - particularly considering its status and significance as a document designed to guide policy at a globally potent level.
But am I the only one who finds Pinker's own approach - if not his views - tiresome, even counterproductive? Surely the best way for Pinker to respond to the report would have been to demonstrate the strength of his own views and the shortcomings of the best versions of the best alternatives, noting how these relate to the versions in the report. He makes it clear that the versions of alternative views in the report are weak and (often wildly) unreasonable. For that reason, when he shoots them down, he misses his real target.
What I read was a piece suffering from many of the flaws it was pointing out in others: it is excitable, frenetic even; it is overloaded with rhetoric to the point of untrustworthy partiality; it is childishly critical of the trappings of people's expressions and not of the root of their opinions.
If Kass is a bad messenger for conservative bioethics, then Pinker is a bad messenger even for his own ideas. Which is not what the world needs, in the light of the existence - and the potential - of the report he's criticising. Is Pinker our best defense? Are we all doomed? I for one am just the sort of human who seriously needs some enhancement, and the likes of me should not be cluttering the Earth any longer than we have to.
That Pinker piece is really interesting, unnerving reading. The report he writes about, from the President's Council on Bioethics, certainly seems disturbing - particularly considering its status and significance as a document designed to guide policy at a globally potent level.
But am I the only one who finds Pinker's own approach - if not his views - tiresome, even counterproductive? Surely the best way for Pinker to respond to the report would have been to demonstrate the strength of his own views and the shortcomings of the best versions of the best alternatives, noting how these relate to the versions in the report. He makes it clear that the versions of alternative views in the report are weak and (often wildly) unreasonable. For that reason, when he shoots them down, he misses his real target.
What I read was a piece suffering from many of the flaws it was pointing out in others: it is excitable, frenetic even; it is overloaded with rhetoric to the point of untrustworthy partiality; it is childishly critical of the trappings of people's expressions and not of the root of their opinions.
If Kass is a bad messenger for conservative bioethics, then Pinker is a bad messenger even for his own ideas. Which is not what the world needs, in the light of the existence - and the potential - of the report he's criticising. Is Pinker our best defense? Are we all doomed? I for one am just the sort of human who seriously needs some enhancement, and the likes of me should not be cluttering the Earth any longer than we have to.