Posted on 09/21/2003 6:25:48 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
If the nineteenth century was the age of the machine and the twentieth century the information age, this century is, by most accounts, the age of biotechnology. In this biotech century we may witness the invention of cures for genetically linked diseases, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, and a host of maladies that cause tremendous human suffering. We may see amazing developments in food production with genetically modified foods that actually carry therapeutic drugs inside them. Bioterrorism and high-tech weaponry may also be in our future. Some researchers are even suggesting that our future might include the remaking of the human species. The next stage of human evolution, they argue, will be the post-human stage.
The New Utopians Utopianism—the idea that we can enjoy a perfect society of perfect people on a perfect earth—is not new at all. Novelists, playwrights, social engineers, and media moguls have played with the idea for millennia. The new utopians, however, are a breed apart, so to speak. They are what we might call “techno-utopians” or “technopians.” That is, they believe that technology is the key to achieving the perfect society of perfect people on a perfect earth.
The new technopians actually have a name for themselves: transhumanists. According to the World Transhumanist Association: “Transhumanism (as the term suggests) is a sort of humanism plus. Transhumanists think they can better themselves socially, physically, and mentally by making use of reason, science, and technology. In addition, respect for the rights of the individual and a belief in the power of human ingenuity are important elements of transhumanism. Transhumanists also repudiate belief in the existence of supernatural powers that guide us. These things together represent the core of our philosophy. The critical and rational approach which transhumanists support is at the service of the desire to improve humankind and humanity in all their facets.”
Again, the idea of improving society through technology is not new. In fact, most of the last century was spent doing just that. What is new, however, is how the transhumanists intend to use technology. They intend to craft their technopia by merging the human with the machine. Since, as they argue, computer speed and computational power will advance a million fold between now and the year 2050 A.D., artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence. The only way humans can survive is by merging with machines, according to the transhumanists. Do the movies AI or Bicentennial Man come to mind?
Now, before you dismiss the transhumanists as just another group of space-age wackos, you need to know who some of them are. One of the brains behind the movement is a philosopher at Oxford University, Nick Bostrom. Bostrom’s website (www.nickbostrom.com) sets out his worldview quite clearly. He wants to make better humans through technology.
Another transhumanist is a professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading in England. Kevin Warwick deserves the distinction of being the first “cyborg.” He wears implanted computer chips in his arm and wrist. The next stage of human evolution, argues Warwick, is the cybernetic age. As Warwick told Newsweek in January 2001, “The potential for humans, if we stick to our present physical form, is pretty limited . . . The opportunity for me to become a cyborg is extremely exciting. I can’t wait to get on with it.” And so he has.
Rodney Brooks, professor of robotics at MIT, believes that through robotics we are reshaping what it means to be human. His recent book Flesh and Machines is an exploration of his worldview. For many of the transhumanists, human beings are merely what AI guru Marvin Minsky has called, “computers made of meat.” So, melding biological computers (the human brain) with silicon brains (computers) seems like a good thing to do.
What do the Transhumanists all have in common? First, to be most charitable, they find the problem of human suffering, limitation, and death to be unacceptable. The technopian vision is of a pain-free, unlimited, eternal humanity. While their motivation may be commendable, the real question is whether the means to get to their goals are ethically justifiable.
Secondly, and less charitably, the Transhumanists display what can only be called self-loathing. They are very perturbed by humanity and its finitude. The body and its limitations have become a prison for them and they want to transcend the boundaries of mortality. In their view, transhumanism offers the greatest freedom.
Thirdly, they are confident—even triumphalistic—evolutionists. Theirs is not the Darwinian evolutionary view of incredibly slow, incremental progress of the fittest of the species. No, this is good old Western pull-ourselves-up-by-our-bootstraps, relatively instant, designer evolution. But, with all of our human frailties, are we going to make ourselves better through technology? Since we are so limited, error-prone, and bounded, we might just destroy ourselves! The problem of self-extinction worries a few of the Transhumanists, especially Nick Bostrom.
Robots and computers will of course never become human. Why not? Because being “one of us” transcends functional biology. Human beings are psychosomatic soulish unities made in the image of God. The image of God is fully located neither in our brain nor our DNA. We, and all who are “one of us,” are unique combinations of body, soul, and mind. We might quibble theologically about how best to describe the components of our humanity, but most Christians agree that we are more than the sum of our biological and functional parts.
The technopians, however, do not share our view of what it means to be “one of us.” Even though computers and robots may never become “one of us,” some will doubtless attribute to them human characteristics and—it is not inconceivable to imagine—human rights, including a right not to be harmed. One day it may be illegal to unplug a computer and so end its “life” at the same time that it is an ethical duty to unplug a human being whose biology has ceased to function efficiently.
The Church and a Truly Human Future The apostle Paul could identify with some of the Transhumanists’ concerns. He, too, found the limitations of our fallen humanity bothersome. In 2 Corinthians 4 and 5, he groans about this earthly tabernacle or tent. He longs to be freed from the suffering, the pain, and the finitude. Yet, his hope is not in his own abilities to transcend his humanity, but in God’s power to transform his humanity through redemption. He is confident that this mortality shall put on immortality—that we have a dwelling place not made with human hands, but eternal and heavenly.
Much of what the Transhumanists long for is already available to Christians: eternal life and freedom from pain, suffering, and the burden of a frail body. As usual, however, the Transhumanists—like all of us in our failed attempts to save ourselves—trust in their own power rather than God’s provision for a truly human future with him. Since the role of the prophet is to declare the Word of the Lord to his covenant people, the church must mount a massive educational ministry to help Christians understand biotechnology from a Christian worldview perspective. That is to say, since all truth is God’s truth, and since we live in a world that faces the brave new world of biotechnology, Christians have an obligation to understand how God’s revelation applies to those technologies.
This will mean that seminaries will have to equip ministers to address the ethics of genetic engineering, gene therapy, transgenics, xenotransplantation, stem cell research, and a growing number of other issues. Currently most seminaries provide only limited opportunities to address these difficult areas. This is unfortunate because these are, and will increasingly become, the context of thorny pastoral problems. Pastors are even now being asked to provide counsel regarding reproductive technologies but few are prepared to help because they find themselves uninformed not only about the technologies, but also about how to think about them.
Further, the church in her prophetic role must use her regular educational ministry to develop a Christian mind on these issues. Every church member has a stake in the biotechnology revolution. Bioengineered plants and animals are already sold in grocery stores, often without labeling. Gene therapy will increasingly become the standard of care for many illnesses. Attempts will soon be made to create biochips for transferring information into and out of the human brain. Nanotechnology promises to create machines the size of molecules that will perform complex functions and microsurgery inside the human body.
Lastly, through her prophetic role, the church must help shape public policy related to biotechnology. Each of these technologies will require laws or policies to regulate or in some cases (such as cloning a human being) outlaw their use. At this point relatively few Christians—and even fewer churches—are informed about these issues. More alarming, they do not know how to impact the public policy process. This must change if the church is to be a faithful prophet to her culture and to her members. CBHD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Adapted from the authors’ new book Does God Need Our Help? Cloning, Assisted Suicide, & Other Challenges in Bioethics (Tyndale, 2003). Available from CBHD or the publisher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ben Mitchell, PhD is Senior Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and teaches Bioethics and Contemporary Culture at Trinity International University. He also serves as bioethics consultant for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
John F. Kilner, PhD is President of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Franklin Forman Chair of Ethics at Trinity International University, both in Bannockburn, IL.
Copyright 2003 by The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CBHD, its staff, board or supporters. Permission to reprint granted as long as The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and the web address for this article is referenced.
I can make out his meaning because I've spoken with OWK before. However, I think he is having similar trouble seeing your point.
I will try to step into the middle here because it is an interesting discussion.
There are two big issues. The first is that this concept that you have a right to any behvior that does not involve coersion is contested. You believe it to be true, but others do not. In order to impose this belief, you will have to coerce. You may believe it is justified, but those you coerce do not agree. Therefore, is it truly justified? Is it justified if you are in the majority but not if you are in the minority? Or is there an absolute standard to which you can appeal that would make you justified even if you were the only one?
Second, coersion takes on many forms. Suppose someone is looking at my wife, making her uncomfortable, and making both she and I concerned that he may cause her harm. Is that coersion? Am I justified in applying coersion - even physical force - as a response? Does he actually have to do something forceful before I can respond with force?
Real standards of right and wrong, based on a fundamental understanding of the operating principles of human societies, don't yield these kinds of questions. The non-coersion standard does not have the strength to stand up as such a fundamental understanding because of the problems that it creates.
So, OWK is clear - if you start it I am justified if I finish it, but nobody is justified to start it.
Betty Boop is also clear - not everyone agrees with OWK which means he will have to start something. The definitions of who started it and who finished it are often not clear, and it is exactly these unclear circumstances for which law is made.
One final interesting point. Those who do the most worrying about their rights are probably those who are least secure in them. Those who know the source of their rights are very secure, even in a nation like China which will not secure the rights of its citizens. The very wealthy and the very poor don't worry about their money, only those in the middle. It is the same with rights.
If your abiding passion is protecting your rights, maybe they're not inalienable.
Shalom.
Behaviors that do no initiate force or fraud, are peaceful, and cannot inhibit anyone else's ability to act in accordance with their will. Whether others believe this to be so or not, is irrelevant. It remains so, whether they wish it to be, or not.
So in order for someone to declare peaceful behaviors (those not initiating force or fraud) as anything other than a right, they must initiate force or fraud against otherwise peaceful men to restrain those behaviors.
In declaring their willingness to initiate force or fraud to restrain otherwise peaceful behaviors (those behaviors not initiating force or fraud), they must forfeit any moral claim to any protection the notion of rights might afford to their own peaceful behaviors.
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
In order to impose this belief, you will have to coerce.
I have no desire to impose any view, and will not impose any view. I live my life as a free man. I have decided that state will do what state will do, and I will live free in spite of them. I will ignore them.
The only time I might act with force, would be in response to force initiated by others (either state or individuals). But note that my potential choice to employ force in my own defense, does not constitute coercion.
You may believe it is justified, but those you coerce do not agree. Therefore, is it truly justified?
Once again, I have no intention of coercing anyone. I simply intend to live my life freely and peacefully, initiating neither force nor fraud. Others may live as they choose, provided they do not initiate force or fraud upon me, or those I value. Unless and until this happens, they will have nothing but voluntary interaction from me.
Is it justified if you are in the majority but not if you are in the minority? Or is there an absolute standard to which you can appeal that would make you justified even if you were the only one?
I live peacefully. I do not initiate force or fraud. Any other actions I may undertake are morally justifiable, whether others believe them so, or not. The fact that I happen to be in the minority, or the majority, is irrelevant.
Truth, is truth.
Prove it.
Shalom.
We delegate to government the function of self-defense. ("To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.") The police, the courts, the jails, and the military (if they do their jobs properly) are acting as our agents in exercising our individual right of self-defense. This governmental use of force is a moral enterprise. It's the only universally acceptable reason that we have government.
As for the existence of this moral right of self-defense against aggression, it is (again, quoting Jefferson) self-evident. It's an obvious attribute of life. I don't see any need to dig any deeper to justify the right of self-defense, and I think it's a wild stretch to claim that no such right exists. Were that so, then aggressors would be free to kill and plunder at will, and no human society could survive.
Because recognition of the truth of the axioms established on this foundation, often lead to conclusions that people would rather not reach.
IMHO.
Your discussion (about the guy making your wife nervous) above reminded me of the Steven Spielberg / Tom Cruise futuristic movie Minority Report where the police received advance knowledge of a crime before it was committed. They arrived at the scene of the crime moments before it happened and arrested the (alleged) perpetrator before s/he could perform the dastardly deed. One can think and talk about (most) any crimes, but until it's actually committed is it a crime?
FWIW, and I realize it's very little, I understood OWK very well.
It's that word "clearly" that trips up your argument.
As my math teacher once told me, when the book says, "It is obvious," it means they don't want to waste the pages necessary to prove it.
Shalom.
And the moderators zorched it (along with the thread it was in).
I'm trying to hammer the proof into a stand-alone essay.
Time's been a little tight... but I'll try to finish it soon.
What about a crime that was illegal in the time that the "enforcers" exist, but not in the time the crime is about to be committed.
The real issue is the notion that everyone in the world would recognize the same set of circumstances as "initiation of force" without debate, and that they would all agree that initiation of force is always wrong.
OWK said he doesn't have to change their mind as long as they leave him alone. But he has that luxury because he lives in a society that agrees with him. What if they changed their collective mind?
Who is OWK to say they are wrong?
Shalom.
Please ping me to the thread. I doubt you will manage to do so as it has been tried by many brilliant men before. But you may be the brilliant man to succeed where they have all failed.
Shalom.
Yup.
But he has that luxury because he lives in a society that agrees with him.
Coulda fooled me.
What if they changed their collective mind?
They already have.
I am subjected to potential initiated force on the part of my do-gooder neighbors (collected into an entity they call government) all the time.
I do my best to avoid it.
I may ultimately find myself with no alternative but to defend myself.
If that day comes, I will die knowing my actions were moral.
That is enough.
Of that I can be sure, since you define your own morality. It's the same as Rush Limbaugh's claim of zero mistakes, since he determines what mistakes are.
I hope that the judge, if there is one, agrees with you.
Shalom.
No problem. I was already done with the subject. I didn't respond to that last post because my tolerance limit had been reached. You and I have different threshholds.
A grandiose assertion.
On what do you base this purely personal opinion?
Shalom.
Must be. It couldn't possibly be that you are incapable of seeing it.
Simply put, if you assert that something is right or wrong, that's just your opinion. I'm sure you've heard the old saw, "Don't force your morality on my body." Ironically, that is used to defend a person who wants to initiate force against another in order to deprive that other of his/her right to life.
Insertion of the word "clearly" is a way to say, "Everyone would agree." But the reality of mankind is that everyone will not agree. Therefore there will be winners and losers.
Unless there is some universal standard, some moral law that is above humanity and to which humanity is subject, you can not say, "this is right and that is wrong," or even, "this is clearly right and that is clearly wrong." You must appeal to a moral authority in order to do so.
As a Christian, I do appeal to a moral authority. And, according to that moral authority, the Libertarian notion of "consent" is not sufficient upon which to base a moral law.
Shalom.
Hillary would probably be happy to have you on her team.
Shalom.
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.