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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 15, 2005

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.

You misunderstand me.  We did explode the bomb, but we have not destroyed the world.  It is a matter of restraint.  If Saddam or Muamar had gotten the bomb, do you think they would have hesitated to use it?

But when I say if it can be done, it will be done, I do not mean we are going to carry anything to the ultimate detriment of mankind.  Hopefully, before then, saner minds will step in.  But someone is going to clone people,and try messing with the genes.  It is only a matter of time.  And whether it is a cops 38, or a thugs saturday night special, when you are shot, the end result is the same.

on Mar 15, 2005
And whether it is a cops 38, or a thugs saturday night special, when you are shot, the end result is the same.


No, when you are shot by a cop chances are that you are a criminal who had it coming,(of course there are execptions), when you get shot by a thug you are dead because a criminal fuckwit shot you an innocent man. One result is a dead criminal and the other is a dead innocent man. Got the difference?

We did explode the bomb, but we have not destroyed the world.

So just because something can be done doesn't mean that we will then... My point exactly.
on Mar 15, 2005
So just because something can be done doesn't mean that we will then... My point exactly.


We are arguing degrees. I did not mean that since we could destroy the world, we would. Only that man's curiousity means he will try everything, within moderation. I dont see an army of clones, but I do see clones. It will be done, because it can be done.
on Mar 15, 2005
What difference does cloning make? Sure you get a copy, but it still has to be raised from scratch, just like any other kid. And it's even less likely to be like you than a twin, since the environmental factors (nature vs. nurture) will be completely different.

Forget the moral issues, what's the point? The feeble attempt to mass reproduce a few lousy traits isn't worth the money or the effort, much less the argument.
on Mar 16, 2005

Forget the moral issues, what's the point?

The point isn't clones for the reasons you state. The point is what we already do with cloned organs, skin, and gene therapy and how much better those things could be.

2 Pages1 2