From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 06:35:46 MDT
Commenting on Wesley J. Smith's National Review article,
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith092002.asp
Jeff Davis wrote:
> Excerpted from the article is the following comment/proposal:
>
> > I propose that the United States outlaw the genetic manipulation of
> > human embryos with non-human DNA."
> So--HELLO!! Too late, pal!--'human' DNA is already 99.9% 'non-human'.
I don't think so. I think the standard measure of the difference
between humans and chimpanzees is 97-98%.
The logic flaw I find is the statement:
> All three misanthropic ideologies - animal rights, "personhood" bioethics,
> and transhumanism - threaten universal human equality.
Even a small amount of "reasonable" thought would find almost the opposite
to be true.
Unfortunately in this case, Greg's book, "Redesigning Humans" works
against the transhumanist perspective because it focuses on the
modification of embryos and thus links the concept of changing
"humanity" with reproductive and to a lesser extent therapeutic
cloning (Greg doesn't really do this IMO, its Smith and presumably
other conservatives that are/will). The debate would be slanted
much differently if we were to link transhumanism to the modification
of adult humans with rights of "self-direction".
The real *crux* of the argument against the proposed "outlawing" is
what right should a government have to prevent an individual from
modifying his or her *own* DNA. Does it disallow gene therapies
on embryos? (So you would allow a child to grow up with a severe
mental defect that could only be corrected when they reach adulthood?
Or even worse cause the child to die *before* they reach adulthood?).
If you *allow* "repairs" only to be applied to embryos then you
are presumably attempting to repair "defects". Then the question
arises -- What is a "defect"? Is everyone who will be estimated
to gain an IQ of less than 100 defective? Or do you set the bar
at 120? This immediately gives rise to the question of what is
a "perfect" human. Or do you want to allow only "natural" humans.
Presumably since this would sentence a "defective" child
to premature and potentially painful deaths one should consider
it to be a violation of the "The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights" (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm). For example,
article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Now, of course this Declaration has never been turned into a treaty
or convention, see:
http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/about/understanding.asp
http://www.pust.edu/oikonomia/pages/magg/un.htm
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Issues_and_Causes/Human_Rights/Treaties__Pacts__and_Agreements/
Presumably the thrust of Smith's perspective would want to be:
"I propose that the United States outlaw the genetic manipulation
of *any* human with non-human DNA."
(i.e. separating the debate entirely from the modification of embryos)
Which means that adults could not improve or enhance themselves,
e.g. replacing their "natural" DNA repair systems with that of
the radioresistant bacteria Deinococcus radiodurans to decrease
cancer incidence. In essence the thrust seems to be -- the genome
you get is the genome you are stuck with, live with it.
Its a repulsive Hitleresque/Stalinesque control perspective on
the part of people whose "beliefs" are threatened by technology.
Worth noting is that Smith is a Senior Fellow at the the Discovery
Institute (http://www.discovery.org) which is definately a
conservative think tank with most probably evangelical leanings
(they have pointers to articles involving C.S. Lewis as well as
"The Politics of Revealation and Reason" by John G. West, Jr.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:12 MST