FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 01/13/2003 9:09:37 AM PST by Aquinasfan
In recent years, scientists have mixed the DNA of a jellyfish with that of a monkey, creating a "transgenic" animal that glows in the dark. ("Transgenic" means possessing the genes of more than one type of organism.) Scientists have also inserted spider DNA into the genes of goats, creating ewes that produce milk containing spider-web silk. The goal of the project is to extract sufficient web silk — one of the strongest and lightest substances known — to create an industry in spider-silk products.
Other researchers are creating transgenic animals that contain minute quantities of human DNA. For example, the team that stunned the world with Dolly the cloned sheep, hope to genetically engineer cloned animals that produce human enzymes and proteins in their blood or milk, and then extract these substances — a process known as "pharming" — for use in the manufacture of human medicines.
But what about human transgenic research? Are any biotech companies or researchers putting animal DNA into human embryos? Nobody knows. But, unbelievable as it may sound, some bioethicists and philosophers explicitly endorse engineering animal DNA into human embryos as one method of producing the "post-human" race. more...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
This revolution is currently driven by an academic group. But this revolution will burst open when couples are offered the opportunity to "improve" their children.
"Transgenics" is based on physical possibility (i.e., it is both logically possible (has no internal contradiction) and does not contradict the laws of nature. The concept of physical possibility, then appeals to the laws of nature, whereas the Aristotelian concept of potentiality appeals to essence, where it is the nature of matter that gives it the specific potential to receive a form.
That explains the existence of Hillary Clinton and Gray Davis.
So, in the end, speeding up the process will change very little.If the change results in an new species, things will have changed radically.
There are a lot of folks at FR who claim that there is no moral content in an atheist view of the theory of evolution. Here is proof that there is.
There are a lot of folks at FR who claim that there is no moral content in an atheist view of the theory of evolution.Assuming that morality judges the right and wrong of human behavior, in what sense is there a moral content in the theory of evolution?
My intellectual life can be divided between the time before learning Aristotle's Four Causes and the time afterwards, and I still have much to learn. This qualification of the nature of matter is news to me, and makes sense intuitively, as does most of Aristotle's philosophy.
Besides the question of the morality of this eugenic endeavor, I'm also interested in the question as to what exactly these animal/human chimeras will be, besides monsters. What light can Aristotle's philosophy shed on this?
The idea that there is no fixed or essential human nature is a logical corollary to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design upholds the idea of a fixed nature or essence of humanity.
Even without a massive infusion of investment money, cloning research has advanced to the point that companies are seeking patents on human life — the ultimate act of dehumanization. Yet when Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) introduced legislation to prohibit human life from being a proper subject of patent, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) took to the Senate floor and yelled a speech stating his unequivocal opposition.I would have guessed that such a position was too low even for Ted Kennedy. This incident leads me to believe that this movement is very far along amongst the so-called intellectual elite. This idea didn't just pop into Teddy's head.
Let's be clear: I referred to the moral content of an atheist view of evolution, wherein "morality" has to be viewed solely from the perspective of natural, material processes.
We see it in this article, especially in the passage I posted. One of the basic precepts of a belief in "unalienable rights" is that we humans are, in some sense, separate from and above "the animals." We explicitly assume that a person has certain rights simply because he is a human.
An atheist view of evolution does not provide any rational basis for such human exceptionalism -- we are what we are by virtue of lucky genetic happenstance. We might hold to certain beliefs or practices for the sake of convenience or optimal results, but we must also recognize that evolution has also produced viable and optimal results that we Westerners would call immoral. Evolution is nothing more or less than a validation of a utilitarian moral view.
Thus, we might plausibly argue that, over time, evolution will produce a some species that is superior to us. There is no reason for us to require that that species need be any nicer to us, than we are to apes or (God forbid) cows. Our only recourse in the matter is to claim that our cognative ability confers upon us some special consideration; however, there is no logical basis for a claim that cognition actually confers upon us "unalienable" rights. It's quite likely that our hypothetical competing species might just as well decide to exterminate us -- which is entirely consistent with evolution.
The transhumanists exemplify this moral reasoning when they treat humanity as something to be adjusted and controlled according to the needs/desires of the genetic designers. If you can adjust offspring to suit your desires, then there is quite obviously nothing morally special about humans: one human is merely the means to some other human's ends.
In that case, the difference between natural evolutionary pressures and human-inspired changes is one of degree, not of kind.
Actually, I'd be more inclined to chalk Teddy's tirade up to the same sort of reflexive anti-religionism/anti-moralism that's so common to those on the left. Sure, he may have tacked some reasons onto his bias, but I think at root that's what it all boils down to.
DESIGNER BABIES SURVEY SHOWS MANY AMERICANS READY FOR A BRAVE NEW FUTUREThese numbers should suggest some strategies for proponents of genetic self-determination. First, the religious bioLuddites are passionate but outnumbered and shrinking. When asked if respondents thought of these issues mainly in terms of health and safety or mainly in terms of religion and morality, 54% chose “health and safety” and only 33% “religion and morality.” (Not that one can’t have religious or moral views that respect bodily autonomy, but “religion and morality” tend to be codewords for anti-scientific religious dogma). Younger people were also much more supportive of these technologies than older people. When push comes to shove, I suspect a majority of the moralizers will also want the tangible benefits to be had from gene therapy or stem cell research. But in the meantime, we need to be appealing to the younger secularist majority to get as riled up about bodily autonomy as the aging, religious bioLuddites.
This "religious bioLuddite" is sadly in agreement with the Transhumanists on this one.
Besides the question of the morality of this eugenic endeavor, I'm also interested in the question as to what exactly these animal/human chimeras will be, besides monsters. What light can Aristotle's philosophy shed on this?Aristotle made a distinction among living things on the basis of various faculties -- nutrition (plant), sensation (animals) and reason (man). To the extent that these faculties are peculiar to living things, they are faculties of the principal of life which gives the matter of living things its intrinsic unity: the soul. Thus, for Aristotle, the nature of a living thing is described in terms of its faculties (cf. "Man is a rational animal").
So if, for example, Alexander the Great had sent Aristotle a living sponge-man that he encountered during his conquest of the known world, and if Aristotle had been able to reason with this being, I assume Aristotle would have classified it as a rational animal, and would then have had to opine a fourth faculty to distinguish man from sponge-man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.