"Traditionally, human technologies have been aimed outward, to control our environment, resulting in, for example, clothing, agriculture, cities and airplanes. Now, however, we have started aiming our technologies inward. We are transforming our minds, our memories, our metabolisms, our personalities and our progeny. Serious people, including some at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, consider such modification of what it means to be human to be a radical evolution -- one that we direct ourselves. They expect it to be in full flower in the next 10 to 20 years."
Of course, there's always the clown who Just Doesn't Get It:
"'Genetic engineering,' writes Michael J. Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard, is 'the ultimate expression of our resolve to see ourselves astride the world, the masters of our nature. But the promise of mastery is flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift, and to leave us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will.'"
I beg to differ; I think precisely the opposite is likely to be true for the majority of posthumans.
6 comments:
The reason I have reservations about genetic engineering is that, *after a certain point*, I think that the old adage holds true - viz., that it is not wise to mess with mother nature. Our physiological composition is a carefully balanced terminus of a long evolutionary process about which we have only a rudimentary knowledge. If we begin fucking with that composition without a full knowledge of everything that came before (setting the stage, also, for everthing that will come after) - and again, we DON'T have that knowledge - I think that in the long run we will only be creating more problems - pretty serious ones - for ourselves. Anyway, that's my take on it.
kennyjc,
I never said they were moral religious issues. My point was that the human race is a terminal product of a long evolutionary process. Everything about our physiology (even those things that we would find convenient - at least theoretically - to alter through genetic manipulation) is a carefully balanced composition - i.e., the *best* possible conditions under which our species can continue - conditions to which we have conformed over millions of years through natural selection. If we fuck with that balance by attempting to "improve" or to eradicate parts of it, then the result would be like yanking threads out of an elaborate tapestry. What happens then? The whole damn thing unravels. Serious inbalances would begin to result in various aspects of our existence through our physiology. Really, it's not really that different from us fucking with the environment by seeking to improve living conditions for ourselves. Look at all the imbalances we have begun to see emerge in the natural world. IMO the idea of "inventing our evolution" is surfing a very thin wave; it comes from the same basic (western) mentality that is now destroying the natural environment.
The only conceivable way by which we *might* (and there is no certainty here) be able to improve our species through genetic engineering WITHOUT inevitably fucking things up would be if we had a full and complete comprehension of our entire physiological past and development, as well as a view to where things would have headed (and still maybe headed) had we not been a terminus. With such a comprehension of things, we maybe able to add a little here and take a little there without sending everything down a path that would eventually run amok because we have a broad view of the material which we are trying to mold. The catch is that if we wish to make any lasting improvements through genetic engineering, we must work WITH nature rather than against it or inspite of it. This is precisely what is not possible for us at this point in time. And it may never be possible.
Good arguments, however I have my own opinion. I don't think humans are the terminus of anything. The longer I live, the more I see evidence humans and human culture are just sort of kludged together. Case in point: pain. Pain as a warning system far outlives it's usefulness long after we are alerted something is wrong. It stays with us and drives us mad. This is not really a good result of our evolution, and as such, now that we have the power to do it, should (if we want to) tamper with our genetic structure.
Personally I don't think there is anything we could do that isn't "natural", as products of nature, by definition everything we do is nature. Provided it's done responsibly, which is really where the problems begin. We as a race, may not have the ability to be responsible with our tools and tech because the evidence suggests, we have so far mananged not to with pretty much everything. Too many personal agendas are in play outside the greater good defining what that greater good even is.
So, unfortunately, I just bummed myself out with my own argument. I'm all for tampering, provided strict protocols are in place to avoid fucking up the rest of the folks who aren't into it.
Would it be nature if we discovered that we are genetically made, I mean, what if the human specie is the result of a intelligent race that combined their DNA with the DNA of a monkey, we no longer by natural, we would be out of the natural process of creation.
Very useful piece of writing, much thanks for your post.
Post a Comment