The debate over transhumanism
Published on March 14, 2005 By greywar In Current Events

    Update : Glenn Reynolds has a link to this article on life extension (worth the click) which adds to the meat of this article. 

    There is a debate brewing in this nation between traditional values groups and the transhumanists. Simply put the transhumanists would like to push the human race forward through use of genetic engineering, nanotech, and cloning while traditionalists would prefer not to tinker with such matters for a variety of different reasons.

     I have been interested in the topic for some years (most sci-fi geeks are) and my awareness level rose recently due Glenn Reynold’s linkage to a few articles discussing the subject. I firmly believe that this will become the hottest of hot-button issues in the next decade eclipsing abortion, gay marriage, and foreign policy simply due to the overarching ramifications for the nation who takes the lead in this emerging area of technology.

Frankly the opinion split over the custom design of human beings will make the opposing sides of the abortion debate look beer willing lodge buddies in comparison. Already the Catholic Church is (unsurprisingly) throwing it’s weight squarely in the corner of tradition as seen in this Boston.com article.

As a card carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy I am supposed to be shocked an appalled by transhumanism :

 By definition, social conservatives oppose the transhumanists”  According to Utne Magazine.

Strangely I find myself on the other side of the political aisle on this one. I don’t believe humanity or DNA to be beyond our capacity to improve through judicious application of science. I remember how excited I was when I first heard of Radial Keratotmy back in the early 90’s. As a lifelong myopia sufferer I didn’t dare allow myself to believe that one day I might never need grope for my glasses every morning or that perhaps I would be able to look unaided on distant objects without a concave plastic lens floating in my eye. Nowadays the surgery is quite common and nearing ubiquitousness.

Likewise you might lump sight restoration, cybernetics, hormone replacement, and gene therapy in with transhumanism. All of these disciplines are based on the presumption that the human form is not perfectly designed and humans themselves are able to enhance or correct these design flaws. Now the Holy See certainly would not be senseless enough to condemn these things today as their condemnation would fly in the face of the undeniable benefits they have given the world. Il Papa and the College of Cardinals have learned through hard experience that the time to squash knowledge is before it has been tested thoroughly and before the masses have seen the results benefiting their children.

Perhaps the Church’s opposition to this is more atavistic than I first thought? Arthur C. Clarke once said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”, and the Church has never gotten on well with magic or magicians unless they are of it’s own making of course. Like him or Him :

 

 

 

Site Meter
Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 14, 2005
This one is a sticky one with me. There are just too many pros and cons for me to just outright accept it, or patently reject it.

Pro: If modern technology is not all about making life better, then what good is it. Correcting the frailties of this bag of bones should be as acceptable a use of technology as using it to repair anything else.

Con: The problem enters the picture at the word "correcting". Those of us with hearing look to the Deaf and see them as "handicapped", however spend a little time among the Deaf and you quickly learn that "handicapped" is not how they see themselves (or each other). To them, there is no more a difference between the hearing and the Deaf than there is between being tall or short.

Pro: When natural parts wear out, why not turn to "spares" for replacement parts. We think nothing of prosthetic limbs, and all of us who were alive at the time cheered on Barney Clark when he survived for a little while longer with the Jarvix Heart beating in his chest. People go to dialysis up to a few times a week. If we could create kidney machines that would fit where the kidneys used to be... why not?

Con: How long before "replacement" and "enhancement" give in to "designer humans". We already have an epidemic in this country. . Completely oblivious to the fact that, not even the models really look that perfect, some people will go to great lengths (even risk of health and death), to look like what they see in the magazines. When the technology catches up, will parents genetically and mechanically alter their kids, just for vanity's sake?

The biggest concern to me though as more to do with the technology of cloning than mechanical. Will clones be accepted as the humans they are, or are we creating yet another second class status???
on Mar 14, 2005
wow, Grey, you've been prolific while I've been travelling. You get a big thumbs up from me, because not just anybody can use "ubiquitousness" in casual conversation.
on Mar 14, 2005

Those of us with hearing look to the Deaf and see them as "handicapped", however spend a little time among the Deaf and you quickly learn that "handicapped" is not how they see themselves (or each other).

That doesn't really include those who were not born deaf. The people who have become deaf through accident or disease would certainly want the option available to fix it.

Will clones be accepted as the humans they are, or are we creating yet another second class status???

That will be up to each individual religion of course but if they choose to live within the social contract history tends to force the issue (women, blacks, non-adherents to your religion...)

When the technology catches up, will parents genetically and mechanically alter their kids, just for vanity's sake?

How about correcting genetic disorders? Fixing siamese twins before they happen?

As for designer humans used for clone organs? No need, we have already started using sheep and pigs for this purpose and the organsgown in them just as well... Plus Bacon!!!

on Mar 14, 2005
I very pro transhumanism. I have a wish list of body modifications I want to make to myself:
1. Two extra arms
2. Colour changing skin like cuttlefish have
3. Gills (save carrying around SCUBA equipment)
4. Gecko setae (microscopic hairs that allow geckos to climb up smooth surfaces)
5. The ability to communicate and download information directly via my brain
6. Echanced vision (being able to see in different wavelengths, polarised light and higher resolution)

That's just a few things I can think of.
on Mar 14, 2005

5. The ability to communicate and download information directly via my brain

The day I can get Google in my frontal lobe I will be fighting to be first in line!

on Mar 14, 2005
Toblerone, have you ever read the Orson Scott Card book, "Treason". If that is your wish list, you might like the story (if you're into SciFi).

5. The ability to communicate and download information directly via my brain


Let's hope firewalls have also improved by then!! ;~D
on Mar 14, 2005

Let's hope firewalls have also improved by then!! ;~D

More fun if they haven't.

on Mar 14, 2005
Personally I'm against cloning - at least for the next century or so. We're still not fully aware of what cloning does to the cloned creature. Sure we've got lab animals, but until we've done it enough with sufficiently complex creatures (orang-utans and other man-like apes might be a good start) to be aware of the side-effects and problems it would simply be cruel to inflict it on someone. What happens if like with Dolly cloning is generally accompanied with cell degradation?

Our public health system can hardly handle the load at the moment; what will we do when we start cloning slaves (somehow I think forced labour is a more likely use of cloning than having children)? Someone's going to have to look after them when they're too old or crippled to work.

Of course if we simply go the designer improvement route I'm more enthusiastic about. I'd love to never have to worry about heart disease or arthritis (that's what nanotech is for) or be able to have perfect vision. And never having to wear braces would be a blessing for a ton of kids with bad teeth and self-image problems.
on Mar 14, 2005
Our public health system can hardly handle the load at the moment
Assuming the slave thing below is even rational this statement certainly wouldnt be. If we started cloning humans whole hog for some reason why would we clone crappy ones?
what will we do when we start cloning slaves
Who proposed slave cloning? Got a link to anyone credible saying that? What happens when we start using Sodium Pentathol for mind control. Just because something is *possible* doesn't mean people will actually *do* it. Should we outlaw all tech with *possible* evil uses?
What happens if like with Dolly cloning is generally accompanied with cell degradation?
Only experimentation will find this out.
on Mar 14, 2005

This is a pandora's box that unfortunately will not wait until we are mature enough to master the perils to open it.

IN and of itself, I dont beleive that God gave us the capacity to reason and learn only to deny us the use of that capability.  But like the Atom Bomb, we often race ahead in our knowledge long before our Wisdom to handle the knowledge has a chance to catch up.  SO it is with Cloning.

I would also point to Star Trek, and Khan as an example of where knowledge used without wisdom can lead.  Lasik and PRK are one thing.  Creating a genetically engineered human is, while in the same category, definitely on a much higher plane. I hope we wise up a lot before we start making "Mr. Potato Heads" for real.

on Mar 15, 2005

I would also point to Star Trek, and Khan as an example of where knowledge used without wisdom can lead.

I would point to Dr. Strangelove as another example of how meaningless fictional examples are. Again just because something *could* be done doesn't mean it *will* be.

on Mar 15, 2005

I would point to Dr. Strangelove as another example of how meaningless fictional examples are. Again just because something *could* be done doesn't mean it *will* be.

Given that there are already people trying to clone humans, and of course Gene tinkering happening on a daily basis, the will is not an if, but a when.

on Mar 15, 2005
Given that there are already people trying to clone humans, and of course Gene tinkering happening on a daily basis, the will is not an if, but a when.
IF the only people who are doing the work are outlaws then yes. Much like gun control law in that regard.
on Mar 15, 2005

IF the only people who are doing the work are outlaws then yes. Much like gun control law in that regard

It matters not who they are.  If a thing can be done, it will be done.  Man is insatiable in his curiousity. It is illegall now, but that has not stopped that group (the name escapes me at this moment) from claiming to have already done it, and are actively trying to do it.

on Mar 15, 2005
If a thing can be done, it will be done.
The world can be destroyed by nuclear fire. But it hasn't been. Of course had the US never pursued nuclear tech and the USSR or Japan had unopposed then perhaps your argument would carry a bit more fright. Outlawing this tech will simply ensure that only outlaws are doing it.
2 Pages1 2