From: nanowave (nanowave@shaw.ca)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 04:33:30 MDT
The Transhumanists
The next great threat to human dignity.
Well at least we’re not being dismissed as the next weenie threat.
By Wesley J. Smith
Paraphrased by Russell Evermore
In recent years, scientists have mixed the DNA of a jellyfish with that of a
monkey, creating a "transgenic" animal that glows in the dark. ("Transgenic"
means possessing the genes of more than one type of organism.) Scientists
have also inserted spider DNA into the genes of goats, creating ewes that
produce milk containing spider-web silk. The goal of the project is to
extract sufficient web silk — one of the strongest and lightest substances
known — to create an industry in spider-silk products.
Other researchers are creating transgenic animals that contain minute
quantities of human DNA. For example, the team that stunned the world with
Dolly the cloned sheep, hope to genetically engineer cloned animals that
produce human enzymes and proteins in their blood or milk, and then extract
these substances — a process known as "pharming" — for use in the
manufacture of human medicines.
Off to a great factual start!
But what about human transgenic research? Are any biotech companies or
researchers putting animal DNA into human embryos? Nobody knows.
Nobody knows? Hey that doesn’t make sense, if someone’s already doing it, as
is implied, surely that same “someone” must know they’re doing it.
But, unbelievable as it may sound, some bioethicists and philosophers
explicitly endorse engineering animal DNA into human embryos as one method
of producing the "post-human" race.
There are a lot of things wrong with this statement, and they all stem from
a single tiny word. Imagine how different it would read if Wesley had chosen
the word “a” in place of the word “the.” After all - are any of us
explicitly stating that there will be only ONE posthuman race? And isn’t
saying there will only be one posthuman race tantamount to saying NO HUMANS
ARE LIKELY TO SURVIVE. Gosh, for a casual human reader, that might just be a
bit scary.
Welcome to the surreal world of "transhumanism," a nascent and explicitly
eugenic philosophy that advocates taking control of human evolution through
gene modification.
I have yet to find a definition of the word “eugenic” that doesn’t go
something like:
-The study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding
(especially as applied to human mating)
So when was the last time anyone on this list told you who you should or
shouldn’t breed with?
Transhumanism may seem like something posted on the web by a guy who wears a
crystal pyramid on his head to keep the CIA from intercepting his thoughts.
Translation: You’re going to think this is really flaky.
To the contrary. Transhumanists come from the highest levels of academe. The
founder of the movement, Nick Bostrom, is a professor of philosophy at Yale
University who recently received a three-year fellowship at Oxford.
Translation: I haven’t done much homework, but since I already told you
transhumanism is nascent, I better not look farther back than this Oxford
professor who probably wears a pyramid on his head to keep the CIA from
intercepting his thoughts.
Other pioneer transhumanists include Professor James Hughes of Trinity
College, Hartford, and Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine,
Technology, and Society at the School of Medicine, UCLA, and author of the
recent book Redesigning Humans.
Translation: Two other guys are responsible, they have jobs, and here’s
where they work.
Transhumanists are breaking the intellectual ground they hope will
eventually lead to public acceptance of genetic manipulation — not just to
improve health, but to change our very natures.
Hey, only if you’re up for it pal. Unless, of course, you take the term
“human RACE” in a kind of literal Olympic sense whereby OUR improving OUR
natures is somehow seen by you as cheating - like taking steroids to bulk up
or something.
Indeed, Stock expects that within several generations, post-humans will be
so diverse they will require artificial help to procreate because their
heterodox genetic makeup will be incompatible with natural reproduction.
Within several generations we will be on the other side of the singularity
and Stock knows better than to EXPECT anything so precise as that. If he
does say what you said, perhaps it’s to sell books to domesticated primates
who delight in imagining dystopian scenarios..
Transhumanists are biotech absolutists. They claim humans should not merely
be allowed to metamorphose themselves through surgery, cybertechnology, and
the like, but should have the right to control the destiny of their genes by
means of progeny design and fabrication.
Progeny design and fabrication? Most transhumanists don’t even like
children – too illogical, they don’t type fast enough, and your neck gets
really sore whenever you talk to them for any length of time.
This could include replacing natural chromosomes with artificial
chromosomes, increasing or decreasing the number of chromosomes in offspring
or clones, and even — in Hughes's words — "mixing species boundaries through
transgenic technologies."
God loves to mix and match. Every time a bell rings another angel gets his
wings.
ANIMAL RIGHTS AND THE BRAVE NEW WORLD
Ohhh, you just knew he was going to mention that stupid book. Hey Wesley,
read David Pierce’s excellent review before you run out and buy a copy ok?
(oops, I just pointed him to an animal-rights activist)
Transhumanist theory has arisen in the context of a strengthening nexus
between the views already popular in bioethics and animal-rights advocacy.
This intellectual intertwining is most evident in "personhood theory" —
according to which rights come not from simply being human but rather from
possessing relevant cognitive capacities.
Translation: human babies, like animals, are cognitively challenged, so
transhumanists presume human babies have no rights at all and they can be
killed at will (unlike their own misbegotten high IQ transgenic progeny).
The relativist approach of bioethics, ironically, dovetails nicely with the
absolutist view of animal-rights ideology that accepts no moral distinction
between humans and "nonhuman animals.
Hmm, no moral distinction whatsoever?? Are you pulling our legs here?
" Moreover, both ideologies advance the march toward Brave New World. After
all, if the human race is merely another animal herd, then why not
eugenically "improve" it through the new technologies of genetic husbandry —
as we are beginning to do with pigs and cows?
There’s that book again. Wesley might try to find a single transhumanist who
will go on record as saying “the human race is MERELY another animal herd”.
But that aside, the idea of improving humans has been around since before
Jesus. We just have better tools now.
This is certainly the approach of University of Alabama bioethicist Gregory
E. Pence, an enthusiastic proponent of reproductive cloning. In his book
Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? Pence writes, "In some ultimate sense, humans
are both nothing more, and as wonderful as, compassionate monkeys."
I’m sorry, and Pence claims to be a transhumanist then? I dunno, just
asking.
By "weakening the ethical boundary between non-human and human animals," he
asserts that it will be easier to "do to humans some of the things we think
quite sane to do to animals," beginning with cloning and moving from there
to genetic modification.
Translation: If transhumans arrive, they’re bound to use humans for lab
rats.
After that, for transhumanists, would come the long march to post-humanity.
Oh, now I know Wesley hasn’t been doing his homework – the *LONG* march??
And here, too, animal-rights ideology comes into play. James Hughes sees
animal-rights activists and transhumanists as natural allies since both are
"opposed to [human] anthropocentrism." Hughes's point is this: Once we've
been knocked off our pedestal of moral superiority, society will accept
measuring a biological "platform's" (human, post-human, animal, etc.) moral
worth by determining its level of consciousness. Thus, post-humans, humans,
animals genetically engineered for intelligence, natural fauna, and even
machines, would all be measured by the same standards.
Translation: and if these mutant freaks move up the ladder, it will look as
though us normal folks are moving down. There ain’t no such thing as a
win-win situation.
All three misanthropic ideologies — animal rights, "personhood" bioethics,
and transhumanism — threaten universal human equality.
Um, what’s that?
Unfortunately, they have also arrived at a moment when traditional cultural
norms concerning the sanctity of human life have been significantly
undermined.
Translation: those fucking abortionists
And the future won't wait for us to regain our moral equilibrium. Genetic
science is advancing at mach-speed.
Resistance is futile!
In recent years we have tried to take control, but our record is not good.
Ahh, there’s the stripes, shinning in the sunlight fer all to see.
Yes, President Bush restricted federal funding for embryonic stem-cell
research. But the attempts to outlaw human cloning have generally foundered.
Despite polls showing that most Americans want to ban all human cloning,
apart from a few legislators in a handful of states, our government leaders
are at an impasse. The House passed a total ban on human cloning, but the
Senate has been unable to pass even a moratorium. And while it is clear that
a law outlawing cloning-to-produce-children (CPC) could pass easily, such a
ban would be worse than no law at all, since it would be linked to an
explicit license to engage in cloning-for-biomedical-research (CBR). Such a
law would ultimately result not only in clone children but in an opening of
the floodgates of venture capital to Brave New World entrepreneurs.
Am I missing something, this IS just a book he keeps referring to right?
Even without a massive infusion of investment money, cloning research has
advanced to the point that companies are seeking patents on human life — the
ultimate act of dehumanization.
Yikes this is scary – he means patents on specific genes right – not
specific people.
Yet when Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) introduced legislation to prohibit
human life from being a proper subject of patent, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.,
Mass.) took to the Senate floor and yelled a speech stating his unequivocal
opposition. This stalemate will require greater levels of imagination and
creativity from opponents of the post-human future.
Maybe we should develop a superintelligent AI to solve it.
We also need to learn from experience.
Actually experience shows that progress tends to proceed in an continually
accelerating fashion unabated.
The human cloning/patent controversies teach us that if we wait until the
science is already "here" before attempting to corral it, we may already be
too late. Thus, we should strive to think ahead, anticipate events — and
act, rather than react.
Thinking ahead's a good strategy. Stopping it? Hey toss a stone into the
river for me too while you're at it.
A MODEST SUGGESTION
So what to do pending a breaking of the cloning impasse? Allow me to suggest
a new tack that should not generate major opposition except from ideologues
with a science uber alles mentality: I propose that the United States outlaw
the genetic manipulation of human embryos with non-human DNA.
Banning transgenic research on human life would have several benefits.
First, we would show that we have some capacity to draw proper ethical
parameters beyond which biotechnological researchers may not stray. That
would be a badly needed win in this season of political frustration. Second,
such a law would be a small victory in the coming struggle with
transhumanism.
. . .Perhaps the Mother of all struggles?
Most importantly, by prohibiting researchers from manipulating nascent human
life, we would send a clarion message that we are not just another animal in
the forest. We cannot be manipulated like so many transgenic sheep. Human
life has ultimate value simply and merely because it is human.
Raise your hand if your life just won’t be special until you get a chance to
genetically manipulate Wesley Smith.
\!!!’
!
( ) /
! !
! !
/ \
Russell Evermore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST