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 looked, but saw no philosophy here. Or didn't see the philosophy. Or didn't see something indicating an underlying philosophy. If we change our physical bodies, will we still be 'us'?
Possibly. There should be more discussion of the situation.
Hi Hank! You say that other than reproduction capabilities, there is "almost no single aspect of a human being necessary to human nature." One gathers that there is no other aspect of man that makes him man, other than "the rational/volitional" aspect and reproduction.
But does the content and quality of the rational/volitional aspect have any bearing on a man's ability to reveal his nature as a human being? That is, are there any standards by which a man can be said to reason and act in a truly human way? And is there any legitimate limit to "volition" -- that is, appetite? Does man make up his own standards with respect to such criteria -- as the word "autonomist" suggests he does?
If there are no standards that define what it is to be human that are not of man's own arbitrary, personal choice, then by what means can we judge him to be "human" at all?
As for reproduction as key criterion of humanness: All animals reproduce. This is not a uniquely human calling. If there is no standard that defines what a man is, then why bother to reproduce? I mean, what's the point of begetting offspring at all if we can't even be sure they're human? You can't "impose" their humanity on them. By your logic, it's up to them to write the rules that they will live by -- at least sometimes. As long as the rules stay convenient, that is, and don't constrain appetite too much....
A thing is what it is, that is, whatever nature a thing has, it has that nature and no other.
If you can say this, doesn't that really constrain the "autonomist?" At least as long as he wishes to be a man, and not a beast? If we wishes to be a man, he must think and act humanely; otherwise, he can become beast and not be a man at all.
To say there are criteria for humane action and human nature is to say that the autonomist does not make up his own rules without running the risk of descent into the animal.
If you change the nature of anything, it is not the same thing with a new nature, it is a different thing altogether, even if it is very similar to the original.
Similar? Or simulacrum? Is man "devolving?"
Actually, the rational/volitional aspect of man's nature is the only essential aspect of his nature without which he would not be human, assuming he is alive. I mentioned the reproductive aspect only because it is an aspect of all life, that each comes only form its own kind. It is not necessary for an individual to have this capacity. A eunuch is certainly human.
But does the content and quality of the rational/volitional aspect have any bearing on a man's ability to reveal his nature as a human being? That is, are there any standards by which a man can be said to reason and act in a truly human way?
Absolutely.
And is there any legitimate limit to "volition" -- that is, appetite? Volition is the ability to make conscious choice. In those beings who are volitional, (humans) all behavior must be chosen. A human being cannot act or think without consciously choosing to act or think.
The "appetite," as well as all other passions, desires, feeling, emotions, are perceptions, which a human being must understand the nature of, evaluate, then choose according to that evaluation the appropriate action. Appetites cause no action, only choices do.
Does man make up his own standards with respect to such criteria -- as the word "autonomist" suggests he does?
No, truth is never "made up" by anyone, especially not "standards," by which I assume you mean moral standards. Moral or ethical values, like all truth, are not decided or dictated, it is discovered, and determined by the nature of those things the truth pertains to. In the case of moral value, they are determined by the nature of man and the nature of the world he lives in.
The world "autonomist" means, "self-rule," and is the recognition of the fact that every individual must learn and understand the truth themselves (even if they learn it from someone else), must choose every thing they think and do themselves, (even if they choose to follow an authority, they must choose to do it, and choose which authority to follow) and, therefore, every individual is totally responsible for all their thoughts, choices, and actions.
Responsibility and authority always go together. The person who has the authority to make the decisions and choices is the one responsible for those decisions and choices. An autonomist is just one who explicitly chooses to be responsible for his own life.
As for reproduction as key criterion of humanness ...
It isn't a "key." It was probably a mistake to mention it, but I had in mind your next point, that a thing is its nature, which we, like all animals, inherit. But it would have been better if I had not mentioned it. I really only meant we have to get here before we can be anything, and so far, the only way anyone get's here is by being reproduced.
If there is no standard that defines what a man is ...
But there is. Where in the world did you get that? I mean, what's the point of begetting offspring at all if we can't even be sure they're human?
I don't know what this means. Offspring universally means "like kind." Offspring of cattle are cattle, offspring chickens are chickens, and offspring of humans are human.
By your logic, it's up to them to write the rules ...
Where did you get that. You did not get that from anything I or any autonomist, or even any Objectivist ever wrote. Moral and ethical principles are as absolute and inviolable as the laws of physics or mathematics. They are not decided by anybody, they are discovered, like all other truth.
If you can say this, doesn't that really constrain the "autonomist?" At least as long as he wishes to be a man, and not a beast? If we wishes to be a man, he must think and act humanely; otherwise, he can become beast and not be a man at all.
Absolutely. Man is the only creature that to be fully what he is, he must choose to be what he is. Most men compromise some aspect of their nature by not discovering what the requirements of their nature are and choosing to conform to those requirements. A man can choose to live other than as a man, that is the nature of volition; but a man cannot live contrary to his nature and be successful, and will fail to achieve the purpose of his life, which is his enjoyment of it.
You seem to have some misconceptions about what an autonomist is. I hope some of my response have clearified some of these issues.
I hope you don't think anything I posted was in support of what the transhumanists are promoting. I don't think they know what human beings are now, much less do they have any idea how to improve them.
Hank
This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!
Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.
Secular Humanism
With that case, a whole new trend was established and secular humanism became the religion of America. In 1992 the Supreme Court stated the unthinkable. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. In 1997, 40 prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars wrote a position paper entitled, "We Hold These Truths," in which they stated, "This is the very ... antithesis --- of the ordered liberty affirmed by the Founders. Liberty in this debased sense is utterly disengaged from the concept of responsibility and community and is pitted against the ‘laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Such liberty degenerates into license and throws into question the very possibility of the rule of law itself.
I have no idea what you think I believe, but, for the record, I believe every cell in the human body is alive, a human zygote is alive from conception, as is every other zygote. Why in the world would you think I would not say they are alive? Aren't you sure they are alive?
...since you do not consider the alive embryo age as an alive human being...
Within the context of biology, a human embryo is a stage in a human life. Within the context of political definitions, neither a human embryo or even a young child ought to be considered a fully developed human, and laws that apply to adult human beings ought not apply, at least in the same way, to the unborn or recently born.
Hank
I hope you don't think anything I posted was in support of what the transhumanists are promoting. I don't think they know what human beings are now, much less do they have any idea how to improve them.
Nevertheless, some of what you posted I think needs examination.
People with any brains at all would have noticed a scary trend...
I know you meant the part about, "people with any brains at all," metphorically, because people without brains do not survive, so even transhuminists have brains, or they would not be alive. But that is, nevertheless significant, because transhumists do have brains, and they do not consider genetic manipulation the least bit scary.
This, at least, is to their credit. They are very mistaken about what is possible and what human nature is, but at least they do not entertain irrational fears of knowledge and its application to human endeavors.
I am very sympathetic to your views about the pathetic nature of many pets and other animals. I personally would not want a dog that my kitty could eat for lunch. Where I strongly disagree with you is, just because we do not like some of the products of that technology that enables humans to produce plants and animals they find useful and enjoyable, we ought to prevent others from producing or enjoying them.
There is one point you have made that you may not, yourself, understand the significance of. You described some of the results of breeding as, "worthless pathetic little mutants ... inbred, retarded, and basically genetically diseased and should all be ground up and fed to something that is a little more fit for survival.
If the efforts of those dreamers that believe humans can be improved by genetic manipualtion produce the kinds of undesireable creatures you imagine, they will be just like the animals you detest, essentially innocuous and of no threat to anyone. The one thing the genetic engineers cannot do is change you, or anyone that is normally produced.
If the human race is so terrible it can produce things that will result in its own annhilation, and then use them, it ought to be annhilated. If the human race is so noble that it ought not to be annhilated, it will not do so.
The problem with being a luddite is, being one inflicts, through emotional stress, the very kinds of personal unahppiness and misery the luddites fear will be inflicted on them by technology.
Hank
Not really ... the smart ones will be exploring the intellect and aging curves. The true visionaries will be exploring the pantropy options for humans.
What would I be trying to obfuscate? Nothing can be truly understood without understanding the context of whatever is being examined. Nothing exists in a vacuum. There is always a context. To ignore contexts is obfuscation.
Philosophy defines a human as "rational animal" to differentiate humans from all other animals. In that context, any creature that is not capable of being rational, potentially or actually, is not human.
Biology defines humans in terms of the genetic nature of the species. Anything that bears the genetic nature of a human is human.
I did not invent any of this. Those are the definitions. How is that obfuscation?
What is it you believe is true that you believe I disagree with? Please describe this within a specific context and indicate what that context is. You may be right, for all I know. I really do not know what it is you are getting at. I have certainly made mistakes, especially in the way I have expressed my views in the past, and would not be surprised to discover I have done it again. So far, you have not shown me where that mistake is, but I'm willing to be shown, if you choose to show me.
Hank
A very true statement. As the problems with cloning have shown us - it's not as easy as they think.
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.