From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 23 1999 - 15:51:17 MST
I cannot recommend strongly enough the article you'll find at:
http://www.reasonmag.com/9912/fe.rb.petri.html
Although written by someone with very extropian values in a magazine that
also has a very extropian editorial policy, the article portrays the
significant and GROWING opposition on both the "left" and the "right" to
almost all forms of advanced biotech in the U.S. That opposition is already
well-rooted in Europe. If the biotech companies don't get up off their asses
and start fighting back in the media BIG TIME, we're going to have real
trouble.
Here are some selections from the article:
REASON * December 1999
Petri Dish Politics
Biotechnology will make it possible for us to live longer and better. So why
are some people dead set against it?
By Ronald Bailey
"Death to death," declares Gregory Stock, director of UCLA's Program on
Medicine, Technology, and Society, at a conference on life extension. "Aging
itself can be considered to be a disease," says Cynthia Kenyon, the
biochemist who last year discovered genes that quadrupled the life of the
nematode C. elegans.
. . . .
Repairing broken bodies, extending life, and improving individuals'
capabilities may sound like good things. But the promises of biomedicine
increasingly attract opposition. A chorus of influential conservative
intellectuals is demanding that the new technologies be crushed immediately,
and many in Congress are listening. These "luddicons," as one observer has
dubbed them, see in biomedicine the latest incarnation of human evil. "In
the 20th century, we failed to stifle at birth the totalitarian concepts
which created Nazism and Communism though we knew all along that both were
morally evil--because decent men and women did not speak out in time,"
writes the British historian Paul Johnson in an article in the March 6,
1999, issue of The Spectator. "Are we going to make the same mistake with
this new infant monster [biotechnology] in our midst, still puny as yet but
liable, all too soon, to grow gigantic and overwhelm us?"
The most influential conservative bioethicist, Leon Kass of the University
of Chicago and the American Enterprise Institute, worries both that our
quest for ever-better mental and physical states is too open-ended and,
contradictorily, that it is utopian. "`Enhancement' is, of course, a soft
euphemism for improvement," he says, "and the idea of improvement
necessarily implies a good, a better, and perhaps even best. But if
previously unalterable human nature no longer can function as a standard or
norm for what is regarded as good or better, how will anyone truly know what
constitutes an improvement?"
Kass argues that even "modest enhancers" who say that they "merely want to
improve our capacity to resist and prevent diseases, diminish our
propensities for pain and suffering, decrease the likelihood of death" are
deceiving themselves and us. Behind these modest goals, he says, actually
lies a utopian project to achieve "nothing less than a painless,
suffering-free, and, finally, immortal existence."
What particularly disturbs these conservatives is biomedicine's potential to
overthrow their notion of human nature--a nature defined by suffering and
death. "Contra naturam, the defiance of nature, used to be a sufficient
argument for those who were not persuaded by contra deum, provoking the
wrath of God," writes historian Gertrude Himmelfarb in The Wall Street
Journal. "But what does it mean today, when we have defied, even violated,
nature in so many ways, for good as well as bad?" She goes on to suggest
that cloning, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and even the
pill might be "against nature." Himmelfarb continues, "But the ultimate
question is how far we may go in defying nature without undermining our
humanity....What does it mean for human beings, who are defined by their
mortality, to entertain, even fleetingly, even as a remote possibility, the
idea of immortality?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:50 MST