George: I am tremendously enjoying writing this report!  This "whole transhumanist thing", from the increasing awareness of scientific potential, to the Web interaction, to the opportunities to meet people who actually care about things I've been obsessed with since childhood, to being able to do what I love and have it be appreciated for what it is -- information -- is seriously a dream-come-true for this avowed nerdgirl.  I'm having a lot of fun responding to your presentation (which will be discussed in part 4 of the report, which I will hopefully be able to post tomorrow evening but possibly not until Thursday, depending on how long it takes to get all the words out properly).

Mr. Farlops:  One part of my own Transhumanist Agenda (we've all got one, IMO) is to help emphasize and encourage the potential for post-birth modifications and de-emphasize germline or fetal manipulations that have nothing to do with viability.  This is partly a practical concern -- people who are already alive, and who have the impetus and means to fund and support enhancement research -- might be more motivated to do so if the research would lead to things that could help them, not just hypothetical future persons.

I also think that there are quite a few germline-level manipulations that could help a lot of people without hurting diversity -- I get the impression that when some people think in terms of "germline enhancement" they think of "Gattaca", when that doesn't necessarily need to be the case at all.  My idea of an "enhancement" at the fetal level would be something like increased cancer resistance (without hastening senescence, of course), improved longevity potential, resistance to chronic conditions like hypertension, etc.  When discussing germline enhancements, I definitely think that we have what might be a moral imperative to focus on viability and disease resistance, rather than on trying to eliminate divergent neurologies or create supermodel clones.  If someone is alive, and healthy, then their potential for self-directed evolution becomes infinite the moment they are born.  And I am wholly in favor of *self*-directed, participatory evolution.  This is quite different from compulsory standardizarion, but I have a feeling that there are very, very few transhumanists who wouldn't gape in horror at the notion of compulsory standardization and the creation of a homogenized society.

Ack, I hope I didn't contradict myself in the previous entry -- I still do think that germline interventions should be de-emphasized in favor of "post-childhood somatic technology", but I also do *not* think that germline interventions should be banned.  There is use for that technology, but we need to be more careful with it.