Too late.
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.
Good grief, OWK, what a muddle! Or am I misunderstanding you? It seems to me you're saying that a man is free to do whatever he wants to, regardless of whether his values are good or corrupt; and that it is wrong in principle to violate his freedom to do whatever it pleases him to do by means of force (or "fraud").
But what if the man is a child rapist, or a cannibal? Your moral theory leaves society utterly defenseless to restrain that person from perpetrating such atrocious acts. Yet it is precisely here that society requires forceful restraint of such a person. For he endangers the society, and society has the right, even the duty, to defend itself against such creatures.
This is not a question about the "pursuit of happiness" on society's part here. This is a pursuit of basic safety and security, and any sane person would understand that restraining force can be legitimately invoked in such cases.
Is it a correct understanding of your moral code to say that the child rapist/cannibal has all the rights, and society has none?
Surely you understand that these things initiate force.
Human genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years.
He was in spirit, though not in person.
We look to you for leadership by example....
Too late.
And so they are wrong solely by virtue of the fact that they require initiation-of-force in order to take place?
Is there no other way to understand the wrongfulness of child rape, for instance, than as a projection of force? The force part doesn't seem to be the only, or even the main reason why such acts horrify us; what horrifies is that someone would choose to damage a helpless, innocent child (physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually) simply for his own cheap self-gratification.
The force part is a necessary, yet comparatively negligible part of the great enormity of such crimes. It is the means to an end; yet in the final analysis, it is the end that horrifies us.
Why do you need one? Wrong, is wrong.
Since the "muddle" was at least partially an attempt to explain my meaning of the assertion, "the purpose of a human beings life is their enjoyment of it," and I too was a bit confused by the explanation, maybe I ought to speak for myself.
In the first place, almost all discussions of moral or ethical principles begin in the worng place. They don't begin with our relationships with others, first what must define what is morally right for individuals, then we can determine how those individual moral principle apply socially. You cannot make a moral society with immoral people by any system.
I quote some of my personal notes, which are a prelude to a detailed discussion of specific ethical principles, which I spare you.
| Ideals What purpose, what goal, what objective is it human beings desire to achieve or reach that requires moral values to accomplish? Values presuppose some goal or purpose, and values are the means of determining what things further the pursuit of that purpose or goal (and are therefore good) and what things inhibit or prevent the pursuit of that purpose (and are therefore bad). The ultimate purpose of all life is the life itself, but more specifically, the purpose of every living organism is the life of that organism as the kind of organism it is. The ultimate purpose of human life is the life of the individual human as a human, that is, the fulfillment of their nature as human beings. We say, the purpose of your life is your enjoyment of it, but that purpose can only be fulfilled as a human being, as fully human in every way as possible, because that is what the nature of human life requires. What is a human being, and what is it about human nature that defines fulfillment? It is human potential as determined by those characteristics that are uniquely human. Every animal eats, for example, but human beings become gourmets. It is human nature that determines what is possible and necessary to achieve the human ideal, it is those same abilities and necessities that make that ideal achieveable. These characteristics of human nature that define the human ideal can be reduced to these four essential aspects of human nature: volition, knowledge, creativity, and enjoyment.
|
Hank
But how do you know that something is "wrong?" That is, by what standard do you judge an act to be wrongful? You seem to indicate this has something to do with the initiation of force. Further you seem to suggest that a person is free to do as he chooses, regardless of whether the values informing his actions are good or bad ones, but that it is wrong to restrain that person from committing actions informed by bad values in principle.
Beyond that, your exposition falls silent. I would have liked to learn your criteria for distinguishing good from bad, beyond the simple construction "freedom = good, force/fraud = bad."
So, you can see why I'm a little confused about your moral theory.
How many times to we have to cover the same ground?
If an act initiates force or fraud, it is wrong.
Else, not.
I state categorically that it is immoral to initiate force or fraud.
And that acts initiating force or fraud, morally empower the use of restraining and or punative force in defense of the rights of the victim.
Why is this confusing to you?
Looks like you've changed your mind about accepting my invitation.... :^)
BTW, this is very interesting material, IMO. I hope to return to it later.
Hmm, linking 3 elements. Each element is failure prone, so the combination of the 3 is failure prone to the 3rd power. Not to mention the weak link, which is human reason.
Sounds like a bad idea.
Shalom.
So if society, via its duly-constituted public safety officials, initiates and projects force to restrain a child rapist, the society is committing a wrong?
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.