I have bought a new computer as I thought I needed more memory and I also wanted to future-proof as I am doing more work from home. Plus I wanted a bigger screen. This laptop has been magnificent. It had never failed me and I love it. But I made this decision and then offered this to my brother who was delighted. I sent him videos of some of the short-cuts, showing him the wonders and beauties of this device.
The next day, it was on go-slow with the fanning running max. I did all the things that Apple Support recommends. I deleted useless stuff to open up more memory. I called Apple Support and did first aid on the discs. But it's still a little slow and the fan is stil running at full speed.
My theory: it's sad. I tried telling it that I love it. Or promising to keep it in a glass box like Snow White. But no. Then my bank denied the payment to Apple because they didn't believe I wanted to spend the money. I think my laptop told them. I called the bank and Apple and the payment is processed. The laptop is still unhappy. I would like to try installing the latest OS - which I can do now that I have freed some memory but I am anxious that my audio editing kit won't work on it. I have emailed the software manufacturers, but as I don't have a Platinum contract, my email is at the bottom of the list.
Meanwhile, we had a seminar on technological fixes and I started thinking about them in philosophical rather than personal terms...
One of the reasons suggested for a preference for a technological fix is that it seems controllable – in a way that the behaviour of humans is not.
Thus, instead of, through rational argument (about the environment and harms done to sentient beings) and appeals to empathy, persuading people not to eat meat – or at least factory farmed meat, there is case for creating animals who are genetically modified so that they cannot suffer. That was in the paper that we read - but in the seminar the tutor discussed her version - giving factory farmed animals opiods.
My immediate response is disgust. It seems to show a complete absence of respect for other life forms – but a category (other life forms) cannot be harmed and if no individual beings were harmed (as they could not suffer), then what is rationally wrong? As a thought experiment, would we be willing to use humans who could not suffer as slave, research subjects or the source for donor organs? If yes, then consistency would argue for promoting them as well as animals who could not suffer. They’d bring more than mere sensory pleasure. If not, then, if one rejects human exceptionalism, how could one support such a modification for animals?
It also concerns me that while a lack of affect might limit or indeed negate suffering, while there is still something-it-is-like to be these animals, the proposal is ethically dubious. It seems to me that one could not – this is an empirical question – modify an animal that moved around, ate, procreated without it having some form of consciousness. And such a means for an end existence seems to me a prototypical life not worth living.
In the tutors paper, painkillers could well lessen the suffering of battery chickens who often have broken legs, or pigs who have their tails chewed off. I said could it make those humans who might be anxious about factory farming then accept it and perpetuate an awful system? She said that it would be better if the public didn't know.
A second response is the acceptance in this argument that human behaviour cannot (without great difficulty) be modified. This seems to explicitly reject the concept of anything approaching a Homo philosophicus. If humans are not amenable to reason and lack the empathy to act against simple self-interest, then the whole philosophical project seems to be something of a fantasy world.
What is the point of attempting to create moral systems for a group of creatures who are, in another branch of the discussion, so far removed from being responsible, rational, empathic moral agents?
Looking at technical fixes more generally, I am persuaded by Jonathan Wolff’s analysis that when considering the rightness of such approaches, it is important to work out who is making the decision, to whom will the benefits largely accrue and who will suffer the most from possible harms? I think this is why the public are often sceptical – it can seem that those making the decisions (corporations supported by governments) get the benefits while the public will mostly suffer the harms. That may not be a fair view – but especially where trust in institutions is lacking, those making the decisions have to be mindful of such factors.
In addition, a focus on technical fixes as the best solution in a modern, advanced, progressive world may blind decision makers to other potentially better solutions. For example, fungi can break down plastics or radioactive waste – but research into such ‘natural’ solutions appears less supported. Maybe it seems ‘backward’ or less sexy.
These days, farmers are certainly turning toward some traditional methods as soils thin and become nutrient poor. For example, instead of more fertilizers and growth factors, they are pasturing stock on ‘old meadows’ where there is a wide variety of different grasses and herbs – not just rye or rye mixes which were the go-to for decades. Farmers have found their stock have grown bigger, more quickly and more robustly. They are also ‘folding’ sheep onto land used for crops the previous season – sheep feet and sheep dung stabilise and fertilise the soil, lessening run off and the loss of soil and soil nutrients in wet weather.
Going forwards isn’t always the best way to make progress.
Which seems to be precisely what my laptop is trying to tell me.
Commentaires