[Inspired by The Speculist's Fast Forward Radio podcast, via Accelerating Future]

The value of consent - the anti-eugenic idea that people be allowed to refuse modifications as well as take them on - is somewhat obvious and agreeable, both in Humanism and Transhumanism.

But what Dale Carrico adds, and that I hope can be acknowledged further, is that this commitment, in detail, should mean more than a lack of coercion. In labor markets, what often qualifies as "consensual" is pretty weak. Take by way of example California's recent law prohibiting employers from requiring their employees to take RFID implants. If jobs are scarce, and competition among workers necessitates taking on modifications in order to compete effectively, then a form of market-driven distributed duress (Dale's term) accomplishes an effective circumvention of self-determination even where direct coercion may not.

So our commitment to morphological liberty, if it is to be authentic, demands a bit more than simply enjoining direct forms of coercion, but also the creation and maintenance of societies where relinquishment of technological interventions is not only permitted, but actually practicable; not only allowed, but accommodated.

We have to take care of tomorrow's Amish.

Comments –Nato