Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human Future

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity ^ | August 29, 2003 | C. Ben Mitchell and John F. Kilner

[hocndoc]

The only reason we have hunger now is the human factors involved in distribution. (In the US, we have more problems with obesity than with hunger.)

In Afghanistan, before the US invaded at least, the problem was not a lack of food sent to the country, but the fact that the Taliban and powers that be would not allow distribution (or stole and sold the supplies sent in by the UN and US).

I believe that this - greed and power of a few tyrants, not a normal profit-making - is the problem in much of the world.


http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLCE/87FE68D27F14CD5285256D34006C86F3?OpenDocument&StartKey=Southern+Africa+Humanitarian+Crisis&ExpandView
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/263781.htm
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,53877.jsp

[hocndoc]

I find it ironic that at the same time those who breed animals and plants - especially food sources - are finding how important it is to maintain genetic diversity and native gene pools because of the risk of loosing an entire species to disease or climate change when the genotype is homogenous, humans are playing a game of chance with our own genome.

Diversity is good -- especially genetic diversity. We just don't know enough to play with the genes of humans.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all for the heads ups! Hugs!

[narses]

Ping.

[John Will]

Oh god, do they actually want to create a caste system?
the Iq diffrence will be so greatend.

[cpforlife.org]

"So we should neglect technology and the possibilities that it has for man because why exactly?"

I never detected even a HINT suggesting that we neglect technology in any way.

It is a matter of abusing technology. All things are neutral, it is the "what" we use them for that is the issue.

[realpatriot71]

So if we could use technology change our genes to stop cancer, I think the author would be on board, but if we used the same technology to increase longevity or brain function it then becomes evil? The criteria seems so subjective to be absurd.

[Hajman]

If these guys are right and successfully pull off their schemes, everyone will live forever, no one will ever get sick, and everyone will be happy. Who will complain about that? If they are wrong, they are wrong, and nothing they are dreaming about will ever happen. So what is everyone worried about?

That 1) humans will lose part of their humanity, 2) how they'll achieve it (the ends don't justify the means), and 3) it's a bad idea for a reproducing species (with a reproductive rate as relatively high as humans) to 'live forever'. And it's doubtful everyone will be happy. Happiness isn't defined by how healthy or wealthy you are. I see your opinion as a bit simplistic. (And I haven't a clue what the verse you included in your post has anything to do with this).

-The Hajman-

[MHGinTN]

Scientists would like for the world to consider them neutral, above the 'pettiness of religion, uninterested in social engineering', but the greed/power-lust of some significant scientists (mischaracterized as compassion for those in need of cures NOW) is exposed in the stem cell debates and cloning controversies. Ask yourself why the scientists wishing to do human cloning for stem cells and body tissues, now, have abandoned the past methodology of animal models until more exact understanding is found, before going into human experimenting. I wonder, if the energy expended on stirring up public chaos regarding human embryonic stem cell exploitation had been used to study more fully the higher mammalian models, would the scientists now know how to take adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells and 'back them up' to bring them forward again developing tissue specific categories?

[Hajman]

Also, who desides what 'upgrades' humans get, and which ones are 'better', and who desides how to handle the consequences of said upgrades (highly increased longevity has serious consequences. Namely, growth rate outgrowing resource rate. We have no problems at the moment, because our resources can keep up, and we have a relatively small growth rate. What happens when, instead, the population doubles each generation if we increase our longevity, say, 3 fold?)

-The Hajman-

[cpforlife.org]

This is very complicated and no one person has all the answers. But most agree that technology can be used for good or evil and there must be some way to maintain human dignity.

I'll give you a case in point.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, for the last few years has been sounding an alarm bell with regard to genetic enginnering.

He explains that there is a group of engineers who already plan to create two new races: a "Master Race" and a "Worker Race". Dr. Nathanson explains in great detail the plans to have a master race with all the perfections that they can imagine, and a race of people that are genetically part horse. They will be genetically dumbed down, have super human strength and stamina to do manual labor and will be housed in human barns. They will be as disposable as old horses as well.

Another one. Embryo farms. They've been here in some capacity for decades. Some scientists are trying to develop artificial wombs to completely concieve and bring to term people in what will amount to human parts factories.

The movie "Logan's Run" and others like it will be a reality. Someone has to draw the line somewhere, because some will not stop anywhere.

Our technology is FAR outpacing our ethics/morality.

We are in essence building a "New tower of Bable"

[Hajman]

(And as an addendum to my previous post, yes, I realize the growth rate will stabilize to a new higher level after people start to die off. What do we do about a higher growth level, and until they start dying off again?).

-The Hajman-

[Hank Kerchief]

I said: If these guys are right and successfully pull off their schemes, everyone will live forever, no one will ever get sick, and everyone will be happy. Who will complain about that? If they are wrong, they are wrong, and nothing they are dreaming about will ever happen. So what is everyone worried about?

You said: That 1) humans will lose part of their humanity, 2) how they'll achieve it (the ends don't justify the means), and 3) it's a bad idea for a reproducing species (with a reproductive rate as relatively high as humans) to 'live forever'. And it's doubtful everyone will be happy. Happiness isn't defined by how healthy or wealthy you are. I see your opinion as a bit simplistic. (And I haven't a clue what the verse you included in your post has anything to do with this).

First the verses. If you go to verse 34 of the chapter I referred to, (Acts 5:35-39), you will see the speaker is Gamaliel, a Pharisee, and very wise man. The counsel in Jerusalem were planning to slay the desciples for spreading their dangerous heresy. It was to this counsel that Gamaliel spoke. His argument is essentially this, if this apparent heresy is really of God, than to fight against it would be to fight against God, but if it is really a heresy, God is not in it, and it will go nowhere. It is better to do nothing.

It is the same with these Transhumanists. Most of what they propose is simply science fiction and being afraid of it is like those who were afraid of a Martian invasion after Orson Wells made H.G. Wells War of the Worlds into a good radio program. 'It ain't gonna happen.'

Certainly science will find new cures for disease, prosthetics will be improved for those who need them, new technology will continue to improve the lot of man in every way, but the grand scheme these guys are dreaming of is impossible.

But, supposing it were possible, and it did happen, what in the world do you think could be done to stop it?

Now your points:

humans will lose part of their humanity... Nah. The specific aspect of human nature that differentiates humans from all other organisms is their rational/volitional nature, that is, the necessity and ability to live by conscious choice. Except for his means of reproduction, almost no single aspect of a human being is necessary to human nature. If this were not true, we would consider people with handicaps or other anomolies non-human or less than human, and we do not. As far as the rational/volitional nature is concerned, that cannot be changed at all or it ceases to be altogether.

Besides, philosophically this is impossible. A thing is what it is, that is, whatever nature a thing has, it has that nature and no other. If you change the nature of anything, it is not the same thing with a new natue, it is a different thing altogether, even if it is very similar to the original.

how they'll achieve it (the ends don't justify the means) this fear cuts both ways. Of course, immoral acts are immoral acts, regardless of the objective of those acts, but that is true as much about those who want to stop the transhumanists from pursuing their objectives as it is the transhumanist objectives themselves. How do you intend to stop them? The ends do not justify the means?

it's a bad idea for a reproducing species (with a reproductive rate as relatively high as humans) to 'live forever'.... I'm not so sure cyborgs are all that interested in that activity that results in offsping anyway, so I wouldn't worry about this one.

And it's doubtful everyone will be happy.... Probably true since they are certainly not happy now.

I see your opinion as a bit simplistic. Well, this is only a forum, and I've discovered in depth explanations are usually misunderstood (as you misunderstood my allusion to Gamaliel) or ignored. Nevertheless, the criticism is correct. This post is implistic too, by intention.

Hank

[PGalt]

reference bump

[ninenot]

Mention in the Transhumanist roll call should be issued to the University of Wisconsin-Madison for their work (supported fully by Tommy Thompson, current Sec. HHS) in fetal stem-cell "research."

The legacy passed to Mengele lives on...

[js1138]

placemarker

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

So if we could use technology change our genes to stop cancer, I think the author would be on board, but if we used the same technology to increase longevity or brain function it then becomes evil? The criteria seems so subjective to be absurd.

The death of Jesse Gelsinger during a 1999 gene therapy trial reverberated through the scientific community and the public at large. It was the end of our innocence about gene therapy. I believe that we should definitely continue to pursue gene therapy at the basic science level with maximum intensity because it does have a lot of promise; however, we also have to be realistic in recognizing that some of the scenarios portraying gene therapy as a panacea have been ahead of actual reality.

Certain questions have to be addressed if we are going to see a beneficial outcome of genetic research for the health of all. We have to be sure that misuses of this whole set of advances do not eclipse the benefits. If we are not vigilant, something that should have been a wonderful revolution will be turned into something harmful. There are a number of potential worries here, and it would benefit all of us involved in this discussion to keep Proverbs 19:2 in mind: "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way." Will we prevent people’s genes from being used against them? When is the right time for a genetic test to leave the research lab and move into clinical practice? Will medicine and science take the initiative in this decision, or will it be driven solely by the marketplace? Is the general public ready to incorporate genetic information into its medical care? The prospects for genetic medicine are complicated by the fact that access to health care is not universal. Zeal for doing God’s will and for a good outcome need to be combined with a clear commitment to understanding all of the intricacies of these issues.

Given the complex concerns raised by genetic research, some have asked why we are doing this at all. The New Testament book of Matthew serves as a powerful reminder of how much time Christ spent healing people in His very short time on this earth: "Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness" (Matthew 9:35). Perhaps because they are called to be Christ-like, Christians feel a particular responsibility for reaching out and healing the sick. That is one of the reasons why studying this aspect of our biology and trying to apply it medically is not merely a good idea, but a moral necessity. It is an ethical requirement of us. If we can develop the ability to heal, if genetic research holds out hope and promise and can prevent suffering in our fellow human beings, then we have to do it. However, we must also shoulder the responsibility of making sure that these powerful tools are used for good purposes and not for unethical ones.

Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. CBHD: Reflections from the Director of the National Human Genome ...

[realpatriot71]

I wonder, if the energy expended on stirring up public chaos regarding human embryonic stem cell exploitation had been used to study more fully the higher mammalian models, would the scientists now know how to take adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells and 'back them up' to bring them forward again developing tissue specific categories?

I suppose there could be some sort of "engineering conspiracy" (and I'm serious - its a possibility), but I personally think that the reason for the push to use human stem cells (embryonic or otherwise) is that other mammallian models do not overlap as nicely as science would like. Since we have the technology to work with human stems, we should - at least that is what I think the scientists in this area think.

[realpatriot71]

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, for the last few years has been sounding an alarm bell with regard to genetic enginnering. He explains that there is a group of engineers who already plan to create two new races: a "Master Race" and a "Worker Race". Dr. Nathanson explains in great detail the plans to have a master race with all the perfections that they can imagine, and a race of people that are genetically part horse. They will be genetically dumbed down, have super human strength and stamina to do manual labor and will be housed in human barns. They will be as disposable as old horses as well.

I hadn't heard this one. I'd like to read more. Do you have a link?

Our technology is FAR outpacing our ethics/morality.

This is a good point. Bioethics has definitely taken a turn into the "gray area" with the new technologies.

[realpatriot71]

As far as medicine is concerned, at least at the present, most of the genetic technologies that have been developed are used mainly for diagnosis (ie. specific viruses, bacteria, and caners can be derived within minutes sometimes), or in some rare instances medicine uses a specific chemical to control a specific novel mutation (detected by none other than these same technologies) - Gleevec in Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia and ATRA in Acute Myelogenous Leukemia-M3 are both good examples.

Gene therapy might in fact be a panacea for the future, but you're right we don't know enough to start playing directly with human chromosomes as yet. Getting ahead of ourselves could be quite disasterous.