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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.