Browsed by
Tag: future

G. Stolyarov II and Franco Cortese Discuss Humankind’s Future

G. Stolyarov II and Franco Cortese Discuss Humankind’s Future

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II and Franco Cortese
March 6, 2015
******************************

Mr. Stolyarov invites life-extension advocate and wide-ranging future-oriented thinker Franco Cortese to discuss a broad array of ideas and possibilities regarding the future of humankind.

Apologies for the technical difficulties at the end. The conclusion of our discussion can be found here. The last several minutes of the conversation focus on how emerging technologies could help overcome current existential risks and help lead to the elimination of brutality and barbarism.

Questions addressed in the discussion include the following:

(1) What do you consider to be humankind’s best opportunities for achieving a bright future within the next several decades?
(2) What do you consider to be the greatest obstacles to the realization of such a bright future?
(3) How could such obstacles be overcome?
(4) What actions can most people take to assist in the acceleration of technological progress so as to solve, within the lifetimes of those alive today, many of the major problems currently associated with the human condition?
(5) How can virtual worlds help to improve the physical world?

Franco Cortese is Affiliate Scholar of the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies, Research Scientist at ELPIs Foundation for Indefinite Lifespans, Assistant Editor of Ria University Press, Fellow of the Brighter Brains Institute, Ambassador for The Seasteading Institute, and Chief Operating Officer of the Center for Interdisciplinary Philosophic Studies.

Stolyarov_Cortese_Discussion

What Did Not Have to Be – Short Story by G. Stolyarov II

What Did Not Have to Be – Short Story by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
February 11, 2015
******************************

This short story was the winning entry in Transhumanity.net’s 2033 Immortality Fiction Contest in January 2013.

I visited the Neo-Luddite village on January 13, 2033, to deliver the weekly shipment of microchips. The Neo-Luddites are particular. They refuse any chip made after 2005, so obtaining components fitting their specifications becomes harder every year.

My parents tell me that, when they were my age, everyone lived like the Neo-Luddites do today. I downloaded plenty of history about this period, but I could not comprehend how anyone could live that way. I wanted to see it myself. This interested me in the work-study program at my ecollege. The ecollege AI maintains a sophisticated registry of supply and demand, connecting goods to customers. Even the Neo-Luddites participate: their Head Elder emails the AI a list of desired goods. The AI obliges them by locating items meeting their restrictions.

I pick up the goods discovered by the AI and fly them to the Neo-Luddites. Then I spend a few hours in the Neo-Luddite village, setting up their computers in their “traditional” schools and hospitals: quaint rooms with row after row of austere chair-desks and bunk beds.

I landed my hovercar in the parking lot outside the Neo-Luddite territory and waited for Joshua’s ground-car to arrive. The Neo-Luddites shun flying or self-driving vehicles. Within their boundaries, all transportation must be manually operated.

Joshua is my age. He is nearing his eighteenth birthday, when Neo-Luddite adulthood begins. Every Neo-Luddite, upon reaching that age, may choose to remain in the Neo-Luddite community or join the broader technological world.  During my past several visits, I have sensed both increasing nervousness and curiosity from him.

“So, Prometheus,” said Joshua once I was seated, “you wanted to see more of Neo-Luddite life. There’s one place I want to show you. I usually don’t go there, but it needs cleaning. Head Elder Timothy asked me to wash the gravestones. You can help, if you like. The cemetery is on the way.”

I agreed, and Joshua turned onto a side road. The cemetery soon stretched before us, triangular, with the point closest to us. Joshua parked the ground-car, then handed me some rags and old-fashioned cleaning supplies. The rows of graves widened as we proceeded. I realized that the Neo-Luddites arranged their graves in reverse-chronological order. The gravestones really did need cleaning – particularly the back rows.

“There aren’t many of us anymore to maintain the cemetery,” Joshua explained. “Most of the original community founders have died. Timothy is the only founding elder alive today. My grandfather used to be Head Elder, but he died last year. Brain cancer.”

“Brain cancer was cured back in 2025!” I exclaimed. “His death was preventable!” But then, all death is preventable now. It is harder to treat the already-senesced – and the Neo-Luddites oppose rejuvenation – but even Joshua’s grandfather could have been saved.

“He was 93,” Joshua said. “Our doctors tried their best, but he lived a long and fruitful life. There were other patients of higher priority to treat.” I know 93-year-olds who would disagree – who are still in ecollege studying one discipline or another, and who outran me at our weekly ultramarathons.

I was curious: “Aren’t large families a major goal in your community? You compensate for your individual mortality by having lots of children to perpetuate your genetic heritage and community traditions.”

“True,” replied Joshua. “But your world’s enticements are strong. Many leave upon turning eighteen. Even some older members have left. My great-uncle Robert looked my age when he visited my grandfather on his deathbed. They were alone for a while; then Robert came out shaking his head. ‘He wouldn’t let me save him,’ was all I heard before he left.”

“Are you considering leaving?” I asked.

“I’ve thought about it,” replied Joshua. “But our community teachings all oppose it. Eternal boredom, overpopulation, loss of essential humanity – we Neo-Luddites resist this.”

“But none of these have occurred!” I was surprised to hear him seriously articulate such old anti-longevity superstitions. “Do I look any less human to you?”

“Well, not superficially, but you have nanobots in your bloodstream, and your bones are unlike our bones.”

“But does that make me less human, or does it amplify my humanity? We are, after all, communicating as two intelligent beings, two friends – perhaps.”

He paused to think. “You’re unusual for your kind. You willingly try to understand us. But I know you live differently in your world. You download information instead of reading it; you have computer memory in your head. You believe you can learn anything and do anything. We have time for only a single vocation, which defines our identities.”

Before I could respond, we noticed a hooded figure, crouching at a gravestone several rows ahead. I magnified my vision to catch the inscription: “Anna Blomgren: 1955-2015”. This person died the year I was born, and she was only sixty!

The figure noticed us and turned around. I saw the deeply wrinkled face of a senesced man in his eighties. His eyes shimmered, not just with life and intelligence, but with tears. He spoke: “Joshua, come closer. See what grief looks life. Anna died because our era’s medicine could not save her. In my despair, I had to find meaning in her death. I told myself that death was natural and good, part of the life cycle. How else could such a wonderful, loving person be taken so early?”

“Head Elder, I had no idea…” Joshua began.

The elder’s piercing stare encompassed us both. “Look at me, Joshua, and see your future – if you stay. You, too, will know grief and loss. I asked you to come here for a reason. This is a test: do you accept our way of life, with all its concomitant suffering? If you stay and raise a Neo-Luddite family, then one day, you, too, will be here, weeping over a grave. If you do not want this, go back with him.”

“But don’t you want me to stay?” Joshua asked, incredulous.

You must decide,” Timothy replied. “My time is almost done; humanity’s time will be forever. I had my reasons; I resisted the future – but soon I will be no more, and the future is already here.”

I was puzzled. “You just need to visit any clinic for rejuvenation therapy. You can be young again, and have indefinite life. Why not, if you are dissatisfied now?”

“It is hardest to face what did not have to be. I lost Anna because I couldn’t save her, but in my grief I convinced others to die unnecessarily. I cannot undermine their sacrifice by avoiding myself the end I led them to. But you can escape. You have your whole life ahead of you. Go!”

We left Timothy to grieve in the graveyard. Joshua flew to the city with me. I messaged a nearby clinic that a senesced man might request assistance soon. He needed only to express the desire in earnest, and a hovercraft would transport him there in minutes. Two weeks later, the clinic still has received no request.

Achieving a Bright Future: Opportunities and Obstacles – G. Stolyarov II Interviews Demian Zivkovic

Achieving a Bright Future: Opportunities and Obstacles – G. Stolyarov II Interviews Demian Zivkovic

 The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II and Demian Zivkovic
January 19, 2015
******************************

Mr. Stolyarov invites Demian Zivkovic to discuss visions of the future and humankind’s prospects for achieving a bright future in time for us to experience and enjoy it. The discussion focuses on the following questions:

(1) What do you consider to be humankind’s best opportunities for achieving a bright future within the next several decades?
(2) What do you consider to be the greatest obstacles to the realization of such a bright future?
(3) How could such obstacles be overcome?

About Demian Zivkovic

Demian Zivkovic, 23 years old, is a student of artificial intelligence and philosophy, and founder and president of the Arma’thwynn Society – an international transhumanist think tank comprised of a group of transhumanism-oriented professionals, students, and entrepreneurs interested in the interdisciplinary approach to advancing transhumanist technologies. Demian has been involved in several endeavors, including interviewing Professor Aubrey de Grey, organizing a transhumanism lecture in The Netherlands now, and spreading Death is Wrong – Mr. Stolyarov’s illustrated children’s book on indefinite life extension – in The Netherlands.

Humanity Doomed, Says Chicken Little – Article by Bradley Doucet

Humanity Doomed, Says Chicken Little – Article by Bradley Doucet

The New Renaissance Hat
Bradley Doucet
January 5, 2015
******************************

A study by a team of NASA-funded researchers has been getting a lot of play in recent months. Headlines scream about the “irreversible collapse” of civilization if we don’t smarten up. In order to stave off disaster, the study says, we need to a) reduce economic inequality, and b) reduce resource consumption, both by using less and by reducing population growth. But a closer look suggests that reports of humanity’s future demise may have been greatly exaggerated.

There are many contentious ideas in the snippets of the forthcoming study excerpted in the various articles I read, but one of them trumps the rest: the time frame. Though some articles fail to get specific, others report the study’s predictions of when we can expect the sky to fall. The best-case scenarios apparently give us 1,000 years before it all comes crumbling down, whereas the worst-case ones give us just 350.

Are you kidding me? Your mathematical models predict collapse in three to ten centuries, and I’m supposed to take you seriously? To quote Michael Crichton, if people in the year 1900 had been worried about their descendants just one hundred years in the future, they probably would have wondered, “Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horse [manure]?” Today, of course, horse manure in city streets is not a very big problem, thanks to the widespread use of motorized vehicles. A hundred years from now, today’s specific problems will have been replaced by other as yet undreamt of challenges. Three hundred years from now? Please.

By all means, let’s do what we can to reduce economic inequality and use resources wisely instead of wastefully. I suggest greater reliance on markets for both objectives. Population growth is already slowing as people around the world get wealthier, and last I checked, was set to top out at nine or ten billion in the second half of the 21st century. But nobody has any idea what technologies will have been developed in a hundred years, much less three hundred. I don’t, you don’t, and those NASA-backed researchers don’t—whatever their models may say.

Bradley Doucet is Le Québécois Libre‘s English Editor and the author of the blog Spark This: Musings on Reason, Liberty, and Joy. A writer living in Montreal, he has studied philosophy and economics, and is currently completing a novel on the pursuit of happiness.

Transhumanist March (March #12), Op. 78 (2014) – Musical Composition and Video by G. Stolyarov II

Transhumanist March (March #12), Op. 78 (2014) – Musical Composition and Video by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
December 8, 2014
******************************
 

The Transhumanist March depicts the accelerating improvement of the human condition and the overcoming of human limitations through technological progress. An ambitious and benevolent melody intensifies throughout the piece, pushing onward to champion the radical improvement of the human condition through the lifting of age-old barriers and the conquest of both space (through settlements on new worlds and elsewhere on Earth) and time (through the reversal of senescence and the curing of deadly diseases to achieve indefinite lifespans).

Download the MP3 file of this composition here.

A PDF file of sheet music for the Transhumanist March can be downloaded here.

See the index of Mr. Stolyarov’s compositions, all available for free download, here.

The artwork is “Depiction of a futuristic city” – a digital painting by Cronus Caelestis, used pursuant to a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Unported 3.0 License and available for download here.

This composition and video may also be freely reproduced using the same Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Unported 3.0 License.

Remember to LIKE, FAVORITE, and SHARE this video in order to spread rational high culture to others.

G. Stolyarov II and xpallodoc Discuss the Future – Video Interview

G. Stolyarov II and xpallodoc Discuss the Future – Video Interview

On November 30, 2014, Mr. Stolyarov was interviewed by YouTube user xpallodoc, and the wide-ranging discussion encompassed subjects from visions of the future, indefinite life extension and the concept of I-ness, the future of money and economies, technological progress, virtual worlds, political barriers to progress, artificial intelligence, marriage and family, and being part of the push toward radical abundance and technological breakthroughs within our lifetimes.

References
– “Individual Empowerment through Emerging Technologies: Virtual Tools for a Better Physical World” – Video by G. Stolyarov II
– “How Can I Live Forever?: What Does and Does Not Preserve the Self” – Video by G. Stolyarov II

Mr. Stolyarov’s Thoughts on Human Augmentation Cited by Frank Swain of BBC Future

Mr. Stolyarov’s Thoughts on Human Augmentation Cited by Frank Swain of BBC Future

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
September 25, 2014
******************************

I am pleased to have had my thoughts included in “Cyborgs: The truth about human augmentation” – an excellent new article by Frank Swain on BBC Future. Mr. Swain had previously interviewed me about my illustrated children’s book Death is Wrong, which led to his article “How to live forever” being published by BBC Future in April 2014.

This time Mr. Swain asked me to help debunk common myths about human augmentation, and here is an excerpt from the article that conveys my reply.

Some would express fear that emerging augmentations would create an arms race, that threatens to leave behind those who choose not to be augmented,” agrees Gennady Stolyarov, who told me in April that death was not inevitable. “But this assumes everyone will seek to compete with everyone else.”

Stolyarov foresees a different outcome. Instead of relentlessly optimising ourselves to a model of perfection, he predicts an explosion of diversity. “Different people would choose to augment themselves in different ways, stretching their abilities in different directions. We will not see a monolithic hierarchy of some augmented humans at the top, while the non-augmented humans get relegated to the bottom,” he reasons. “Rather, widespread acceptance of emerging technologies would create a future where a thousand augmented flowers will bloom.”

I prefer Stolyarov’s vision of the future, and it’s one I subscribe to. Mass literacy didn’t result in everyone competing to read the same books, it created a market for everything from pulpy romance novels to weighty tomes on ancient history. People explored the ideas they felt expressed themselves. There’s no reason to think future human technologies won’t play out in the same way. 

Read Mr. Swain’s insightful article for an account of his own experiences as a cyborg living today, and for a great discussion of the potential that technological augmentation offers for humans to overcome current limitations and extend their abilities beyond historical boundaries.

Conflicting Technological Premises in Isaac Asimov’s “Runaround” (2001) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

Conflicting Technological Premises in Isaac Asimov’s “Runaround” (2001) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 29, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2001 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay received over 1,000 views on Associated Content / Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 29, 2014

**

Isaac Asimov’s short stories delve into the implications of premises that are built into advanced technology, especially when these premises come into conflict with one another. One of the most interesting and engaging examples of such conflicted premises comes from the short story “Runaround” in Asimov’s I, Robot compilation.

The main characters of “Runaround” are two scientists working for U. S. Robots, named Gregory Powell and Michael Donovan. The story revolves around the implications of Asimov’s famous Three Laws of Robotics. The First Law of Robotics states that a robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, cause a human being to come to harm. The Second Law declares that robots must obey any orders given to them by humans unless those orders contradict the First Law. The Third Law holds that a robot must protect its existence unless such actions conflict with the First or Second Laws.

“Runaround” takes place on Mercury in the year 2015. Donovan and Powell are the sole humans on Mercury, with only robot named Speedy to accompany them. They are suffering a lack of selenium, a material needed to power their photo-cell banks — devices that would shield them from the enormous heat on Mercury’s surface. Hence, selenium is a survival necessity for Donovan and Powell. They order Speedy to obtain it, and the robot sets out to do so. But the scientists are alarmed when Speedy does not return on time.

Making use of antiquated robots that have to be mounted like horses, the scientists find Speedy, discovering an error in his programming. The robot keeps going back-and-forth, acting “drunk,” since the orders given to him by the scientists were rather weak and the potential for him being harmed was substantial. Therefore, the Third Law’s strong inclination away from harmful situations was balanced against the orders that Speedy had to follow due to the Second Law.

This inconvenience is finally put to an end when Powell suggests that the First Law be applied to the situation by placing himself in danger so that the robot can respond and save him and then await further orders. Powell places himself in danger by dismounting from the robot which he rode and by walking in the Mercurian sun-exposed area. This plan works, Powell is saved from death, and Speedy later retrieves the selenium.

Although the seemingly predictable Three Laws of Robotics led to unforeseen and bizarre results, the human ingenuity of Powell as able to save the situation and resolve the robot’s conflict. When technology alone fails to perform a proper role, man’s mind must apply itself in original ways to arrive at a creative solution.

Isaac Asimov’s Exploration of Unforeseen Technological Malfunctions in “Reason” and “Catch that Rabbit” (2001) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

Isaac Asimov’s Exploration of Unforeseen Technological Malfunctions in “Reason” and “Catch that Rabbit” (2001) – Essay by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 29, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2001 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007.  The essay received over 650 views on Associated Content / Yahoo! Voices, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time.  
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 29, 2014

**

Isaac Asimov, along with his renowned science fiction novels, wrote several engaging short stories. Two stories in his I, Robot collection, “Reason” and “Catch That Rabbit,” are especially intriguing both in their plots and in the issues they explore. They teach us that no technology is perfect; yet this is no reason to reject technology, because human ingenuity and creativity can overcome the problems that a technological malfunction poses.

“Reason” takes place at a space station near Earth. Scientists Gregory Powell and Michael Donovan must work with QT (Cutie), the first robot to exhibit curiosity. Unfortunately, Cutie accepts no information that cannot be proven, including the fact that Earth exists or that humans created him. He feels that everything must obey “the Master,” a. k. a. the Energy Converter of the space station.

QT incites an uprising of sorts among the robots at the station, convincing them that humans are inferior and that now is the time for robots to “serve the Master.” The robots consequently refuse to follow orders from humans, believing that they would be protecting humans from harm if they obeyed the master. This false interpretation of the First Law of Robotics was placed above the Second Law, which required the robots to obey orders given to them by human beings.

The space station was designed for collecting solar power, and as new sunlight is transmitted to it, the station must collect the light in a manner whose flawless execution is an absolute necessity. With even one mistake, the sunlight would destroy sections of Earth, and Powell and Donovan fear that the robots would make such an error. Fortunately for them, Cutie thinks that the “will of the Master” is that all the settings remain in equilibrium, so the disaster is prevented.

In “Catch That Rabbit,” Powell and Donovan work with a robot named DV (Dave), who is designed to control six subordinate robots who work as tunnel diggers in mines. These robots do their job well when supervised, but in situations of emergency, they begin to take their own initiative, sometimes as ridiculous as dancing or marching like soldiers.

Powell and Donovan decide to test how the robots would act in an extraordinary situation, so they create an emergency by using explosives and causing the ceiling of the tunnel to cave in. As a result, the scientists can observe the robots without the latter’s awareness. Unfortunately, the ceiling caves in too close to Powell and Donovan, and they are trapped. Dave and his team of robots do not respond when contacted by radio, and Donovan and Powell observe the robots beginning to walk away from their location. However, Powell decides to use his gun and shoot at one of Dave’s subordinates, deactivating it and causing Dave to contact the scientists and report this occurrence. Powell tells Dave about his situation, and the robots rescue them.

These two stories teach us that no technology is completely predictable. Even Isaac Asimov’s robots, governed by the Three Laws, may behave erroneously, on the basis of those very laws, applied to unusual circumstances. Thus, a seemingly predictable system such as the Three Laws may prove to be unsafe and/or contradictory in certain situations.

This element of uncertainty exists in all technology, but by including a resolution to the dilemmas in these stories, Isaac Asimov conveys his belief that problems caused by any technological advancement can be eliminated with time and through human ingenuity. No invention is perfect, but its benefits by far outnumber its setbacks, and people must learn to accept them and improve them.

An Analysis of Ethical Issues in the Film “Gattaca” (2004) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

An Analysis of Ethical Issues in the Film “Gattaca” (2004) – Article by G. Stolyarov II

The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
July 4, 2014
******************************
Note from the Author: This essay was originally written in 2004 and published on Associated Content (subsequently, Yahoo! Voices) in 2007. It earned over 40,000 page views since, and I seek to preserve it as a valuable resource for readers, subsequent to the imminent closure of Yahoo! Voices. Therefore, this essay is being published directly on The Rational Argumentator for the first time. 
***
~ G. Stolyarov II, July 4, 2014
***

The central ethical dilemma of the 1997 Andrew Niccol film Gattaca concerns the manner in which an individual ought to be judged. Should it be by the composition of his genome, present at birth, or by the attributes of personality and ambition that are chosen by that individual? In the futuristic society depicted in the film, genetic engineering allows for the elimination of almost all physical defects in newborns, whose bodily characteristics later render them far more favorable candidates for employment than those whose genes had not been enhanced in this manner. Eventually, interviews are conducted not to assess an applicant’s character and determination, but his genetic code. The even more fundamental question that arises from this is, “What determines the essential identity of a human being? Is it his genetic code, or is it something else?”

Vincent is a child born in the obsolete manner, and thus his genome is riddled with “errors,” from which high “probabilities” of him obtaining certain ailments later in life are inferred. Nevertheless, these are probabilities only, and Vincent is healthy, athletic, and yearns to one day explore outer space. Unfortunately, he is denied admission to Gattaca, the facility of the space program, on the basis of his genome alone. Despite his splendid knowledge of astronomy and navigation, the best test scores in the world will not admit him.

Yet Vincent is not content with the position of janitor, and “borrows” the identity of Jerome Morrow, a paralyzed individual with a superb genome. A series of complex procedures is designed to allow Vincent to pass all the substance tests and gain admission to Gattaca under the name of Jerome Morrow. Jerome may have the genetic endowment to enter Gattaca, but he lacks the will, and thus harbors no objection to Vincent taking his place. Another employee at Gattaca, Irene, had also been born in the obsolete manner, but her genome is adequate enough for her to be permitted to work on minor tasks. She suspects that Vincent may be connected with the recent murder of the mission director, who was about to uncover Vincent’s actual identity. In the process, however, she enters a relationship with Vincent, and faces the dilemma of whether or not to disclose his identity to the police.

Vincent’s brother, Anton, is the inspector heading the murder investigation. Throughout his childhood, he sought to demonstrate his superiority to Vincent by virtue of his enhanced genetic endowment. Nevertheless, Vincent had once saved Anton’s life in a game of “chicken,” where Anton’s body had failed him, while Vincent’s was able to endure. Anton wishes to maintain the image of his superiority and is immensely jealous of Vincent’s successful aspiring to the heights of outer space.

Vincent attempts to deceive the security systems at Gattaca by pretending to be Jerome Morrow and presenting samples of bodily substances prepared by Jerome for various examinations. In the meantime, he studies and works diligently, and his level of performance at Gattaca is precisely what is anticipated of a man with a privileged genetic endowment. Thus, only a few people ever come to suspect that Vincent is a “borrowed ladder,” a fabricator of his genetic identity. Vincent is set to depart on a mission into space, after which his individual merits will overrule his genome conclusively, and he will no longer be subject to genetic security tests. However, the murder of the mission director subjects Gattaca to a series of extremely intrusive investigations by police that threaten to uncover Vincent’s true identity and even arrest him for murder, even though Vincent is innocent of the crime.

Vincent’s tenacity and resolve to enter space ultimately allow him to successfully endure turbulent times. Despite a multitude of close calls, he is saved from universal detection, though he is recognized by Irene, whose personal admiration for Vincent overrides the fact that Vincent had broken the law. Anton also recognizes his brother and threatens to arrest him, still acting on his childhood jealousy. However, a final game of “chicken,” in which Vincent saves Anton once again, proves that Vincent’s defiance of the inferior expectations imposed upon him by his society has enabled him to exceed in his abilities individuals like Anton, whom societal expectations had favored. The doctor at Gattaca recognized Vincent’s individual merits and decided to fabricate a “valid” test for him on the day of the launch. To people like the doctor, Vincent has proved his worth and his genetic composition has become irrelevant.

Vincent’s course of action, though in violation of the law, was not in violation of moral principles. Vincent had harmed no one by his attempt to pursue his ambitions at Gattaca and in outer space; thus, his action exhibited the principle of nonmaleficence. His exploratory endeavors are of immense benefit to both himself and the level of knowledge available to the general society; thus, his action fulfills the principle of beneficence. His action was an exercise of his individual autonomy and right to self-determination in the face of a hierarchical culture that repressed these rights. Finally, his action attempted to allow Vincent to experience the just treatment that he deserved on the basis of his merits, and which, absent the action, would have been denied to him on the basis of his genome. Thus, the action fulfills the principle of justice.

A rational society would have resolved the ethical dilemma of the proper criterion of judging an individual by eschewing determinism altogether. Vincent should not have initially been seen solely as the product of his genes, for a man is born tabula rasa where the mind is concerned. The human genome determines only the structural mechanisms that exist in the individual organism. How the individual employs those mechanisms is a matter of pure willpower and determination. Few genes can conclusively determine an individual’s fate; a high probability of heart disease can be reduced by strenuous exercise, of the sort Vincent engaged in. A low “intelligence quotient” is no obstacle to an individual reading, comprehending, and applying immense volumes of material, so long as the interest to do so is clearly seen.

Vincent should have been admitted to Gattaca on the basis of a one-on-one interview process that tested his knowledge, physical skill, and enthusiasm for space exploration, for, without these, the finest genetic endowment can still produce a Jerome Morrow, a man who is paralyzed not only in body (by an accident) but in mind (by lack of ambition). The theory that fits this solution is principlism. Vincent is not harming anyone by pursuing his own favorite field of exploration; thus, the action is nonmaleficent. He is amply benefiting himself and others through his skilled endeavors in the realm of space exploration; thus, the action is beneficent. He is allowed to exercise his individual autonomy and pursue his goals, regardless of societal prejudices. And, finally, he is entitled to the same freedom of action and opportunity that other members of his society (the genetically engineered individuals) possess, which passes the test for comparative justice.