I have wanted to introduce Creative Minority readers to transhumanism for awhile now. It is, in my personal opinion, the most dangerous movement that no one knows about. When it showed up on a new Disney Channel series, I decided the time is now.
What is transhumanism? Transhumanism is a philosophy that advocates using technologies like genetic engineering, drugs, and nanotechnology to go beyond treating or preventing disease and use them to enhance otherwise healthy humans beyond natural capabilities. They envision a world where you can leave your “sick and stupid” existence behind and enhance your way to being super-smart, super-strong, super-happy, basically super-human. Transhumanists want to take man’s evolution into their own hands creating a race of “post-humans.”
An example of transhumanism would be removing a perfectly healthy limb and replacing it with an artificial one that performs “better” than the original. Or to use genetic engineering to go beyond curing genetic disease with gene therapy and use it to genetically enhance ourselves or our children.
The transhumanist will often set a trap where they say that the technology used to treat and cure disease is transhumanism. They often present the scenario that in accepting medical progress for treating disease or disability, one must also accept technology to enhance man beyond what can be accomplished by nature. Opposing transhumanism means “opposing medical and scientific progress.” They insist that rejecting enhancement means taking away Grandma’s hip replacement and Grandpa’s defibrillator and only the angry, hate-filled Luddites of the world would want that.
In reality, technologies like genetic engineering, artificial limbs and pharmacology are not all or nothing. We can make the decision to limit these technology for therapeutic uses only. Which is what the Catholic Church teaches specifically about human genetic engineering (and which is now considered good medical practice.)
There are many flaws in transhumanist utopian ideas. Flaws that they find hard to address. Most notably that transhumanism will result in a world where the enhanced super-humans will naturally rule over the “stupid and weak” unenhanced. Those that can afford or have access to enhancements will be the elite and those who do not or cannot be enhanced will be second class citizens.
The transhumanist also contends that enhancements will always be a matter of choice. But in a world where enhancements are commonplace, average people will be compelled to have invasive modifications on their brains and bodies just to keep up. At this point, I contend that we will become slaves to the technology we created.
Transhumanism is philosophically flawed as well, assuming that our nature needs enhancing. That we must take the evolution of our species in our own hands and go beyond being simply human. We have tried to take human evolution into our own hands before. It was called eugenics. Not surprisingly the term transhumanism was coined by a well known eugenicist back in 1957. (And we all how the eugenics movement ended.)
Now you may believe that transhumanism is nothing you and your family need to worry about. It is the stuff of science fiction and you are not being exposed to transhumanist ideas. Except you and your children are slowing being boiled in the transhumanist pot.
Consider Captain America, a super-hero not born of an accident or natural genetic mutation, but of enhancement experiments performed by the United States Army. Consider also the TV series Chuck where an unsuspecting computer nerd is cognitively enhanced by the CIA.
And consider the brand new Disney series Lab Rats where three of the main characters are teenagers that, according to the promotional material, are super-human kids genetically engineered with enhancements by a billionaire inventor to “save the world.”
The message is getting louder and louder and your children are listening. (I know because mine are.) To be a super hero you need to be enhanced and it is OK (and even cool) to let the government or scientists experiment on you. It is time to have a conversation with your children. Tell them enhancements, while fun to watch on TV or in the movies, are morally wrong and that their faith says so. Even if the intentions are good, experimenting on otherwise healthy people is wrong. Enhancing humans will create a an unfair world where those that are enhanced will rule over those that aren’t. And enhancing children, like the Lab Rats, who cannot give informed consent is super wrong.
If we are not successful in educating ourselves and our children, I fear transhumanism with widespread human enhancements is our future. This was a simple introduction. There is so much more to know about the transhumanism movement. If you want to go more in depth please visit Mary Meets Dolly and read on!
March 4, 2012 at 11:28 pm
"Intentionally genetically altering our offspring or ourselves is nothing like random mutations that normal human reproduction produces. Watch out equating the two. Genetic engineering (inserting genes or extra chromosomes) is a dangerous prospect…"
Wait, how is it different? People are born with extra, or too few chromosomes all the time. It is a completely natural occurrence. You still haven't proven why human intention, when added to our picture, is wrong. You would concede that removing an extra chromosome intentionally, when nature has produced too many, is a good, am I correct?
March 5, 2012 at 12:15 am
@Blackrep: do you fail to grasp the difference between therapy and enhancement? Nobody (at least nobody Catholic) objects to the use of genetic engineering as a therapy. But if it, or various forms of "cybernetic" modification, are used to enhance human beings, well…I must have missed the abolition of all class distinctions, because absent absolute economic equality (which is both a physical and a logical impossibility), all that Transhumanism would lead to is the "haves" and "have-nots" becoming two different species. And I trust you know what human beings do when they regard other persons as a different species from themselves?
But no, tell me again why we should have such total faith in the benevolence of the wealthy that we should let them take on a power that rivals the gods of mythology.
March 5, 2012 at 4:22 am
Blackrep – Sophia's Favorite is correct. There is a difference between intentionally genetically altering your offspring to be super human and gene therapy which would correct a genetic abnormality. The Church is clear that genetic engineering to cure or treat disease, bringing back normal human function is laudable. That is not transhumanism.
The transhumanist wants to be able to intentionally genetically alter themselves (or their offspring) beyond what occurs in nature. Transhuman means "beyond" human which means beyond what nature could produce. Think glow-in-the-dark people like the glow-in-the-dark cats and dogs. You think that is ridiculous but it is certainly in the realm of what they are suggesting. Mixing of human and animal DNA is part of the package. It may not begin there, but that is certainly where things will head. In fact one transhumanist has even recently suggested genetically altering carnivores so that they no longer hunt, catch and eat prey, to reduce the suffering in the animal kingdom. Nothing is beyond a redesign in many transhumanist's minds.
Don't equate the natural duplications and rearrangements that occur in human reproduction with the intentional addition of genetic material, whether human or not, for enhancement purposes. Especially when it would be intentionally done to children without their consent. They are not even close to being morally equivalent.
This section from the Charter for Health Care Workers is particularly relevant:
"In moral evaluation a distinction must be made between strictly manipulation, which aims to cure illnesses caused by genetic or chromosome anomalies (genetic therapy), from manipulation the human genetic patrimony. A curative intervention, which is also called "genetic surgery," "will be considered desirable in principle. provided its purpose is the real promotion of the personal well-being of the individual, without damaging his integrity or worsening his condition of life.
On the other hand, interventions which are not directly curative, the purpose of which is 'the production of human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities,' which change the genotype of the individual and of the human species, 'are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being, to his integrity and to his identity. Therefore they can be in no way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results for humanity in the future,' 'no social or scientific usefulness and no ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome unless it be therapeutic, that is its finality must be the natural development of the human being."
March 5, 2012 at 4:29 am
Kinda like the difference between taking pain meds because you hurt and taking pain meds because it makes you a better fighter, or you just enjoy it.
March 5, 2012 at 5:35 am
"Don't equate the natural duplications and rearrangements that occur in human reproduction with the intentional addition of genetic material, whether human or not, for enhancement purposes."
Please give me some reason NOT to equate them, instead of telling me simply not to. I said nothing about mixing animal DNA. I said nothing about experimenting on children. I said nothing about cybernetics. These are boogey men that distract from my central question. Explain to me me the difference between a genetic change that naturally occurs and one that is manipulated in a lab. My claim is that there is no ontological difference, except that one was produced by humans and another by human intention.
About therapy and enhancement: you are assuming that our genetic patrimony is static and perfect. A biological geneticist would tell you it was certainly not, and our common sense, when reflecting on our tiny feet holding up large bodies, our weak lower backs, and our odd sharing of the same "pipes" for respiration and nutrition (thus our predisposition to asphyxiate on food) gives us insight into a better, stronger, more resilient model for our human bodies.
If you could take a gene therapy, humanely produced, that would render the disks in your lower back impervious to stress for a lifetime, would you take it? Why would such enhancement be wrong? You didn't have a "sick" spine in the first place, just a poorly designed one.
In answer to Sophia's Favorite: Why would you assume that I have "total faith in the benevolence of the wealthy?" I never said that. There will always be inequality in this world, and the point is not to coerce equality, but to encourage an atmosphere of virtue, where the "have-nots" are not encouraged in the vice of envy, and the "haves" are encouraged in the virtue of charity (novo nihil sub sol).
Another point: as long as humans are rational animals, they remain the same species. That being said, trans-humanism, as it was discussed here, is philosophically impossible. It's fun to talk about it, but as long as you are a rational animal, you happen to be a human being. Whether you have a super-spine, or a blowhole, or an eye in the back of your head.
(And since I am a parent, I think I want that last one)
March 5, 2012 at 5:41 am
Let me correct the sentence. It should read:
"My claim is that there is no ontological difference, except that one was produced by CHANCE and another by human intention."
Thank you for reading!
March 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Blackrep- gene therapy is taking a risk to cure a serious problem; genetic enhancement is taking a risk to make someone more than human. Unstated is that it may kill them.
Look at the cybernetics situation for a similar organization: if your heart is bad, sure you can get a fake heart, even though that involves cutting out your heart and all the risks associated with it (grossly simplifying); if there's nothing wrong with your heart, that sort of risk to be more than human is different.
The difference between aiming for proper function and aiming for something else.
March 5, 2012 at 3:01 pm
(Incidentally, major creepy points– I just had a similar argument with someone who claimed that since embryos fail to implant all the time, there's nothing wrong with killing embryos. NOT equating the two- just the similar formulation made me shudder.)
March 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Couple of things:
Blackrep, what's the difference between a naturally-occurring abortion which results from chance, and one that results from the actions of man?
There's clearly a big difference.
That said, I'm inclined to disagree with Rebecca on a different basis, and to agree with Blackrep that manimals and cyborgs with big metal arms are not to be included in the same category as natural enhancements to the human body's already existing abilities.
In the former case something is being added that couldn't possibly be present naturally; in the latter case something is being made to work according to its natural function, just more so.
Rebecca, I would also like to see the church document that explains all this clearly, because I fear you may be at odds with that wonderful apologist Jimmy Akin on some of these points. He is on record, for example, saying that he would welcome (more or less) a formula that instantly increases the human age range well into the 200's.
That, to me, seems like a medically-induced, extra-human/trans-human/meta-human result, of which Mr. Akin is in favor. I can even find the link for you, if you're interested.
Not to start an apologist war or anything; I just think there are worlds of difference between General Grievous and, say, a US soldier having his retinas genetically enhanced to allow night vision.
March 5, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Internet Peasant, I quoted the Charter for Health Care Workers by the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance above. It clearly states that any genetic intervention must be therapeutic in nature.
Which means altering a soldier to have night vision is wrong. That is not my opinion. That is what is stated both in the Charter for Health Care Workers and also in Dignitas Personae 25-27 which discusses the difference between gene therapy and genetic enhancement. Dignitas Personae states that genetic enhancements are eugenic in nature and are in "contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals."
As for Blackrep, if you cannot see the difference between the purposeful genetic altering by man of another person and natural mutations then I can't help you. Death is also natural, but we certainly draw the line between death that occurs naturally and one that is brought about by human intervention.
March 5, 2012 at 5:40 pm
I think it is clear that a foundation in the differences between gene therapy and genetic enhancement (and somatic and germ-line modifications) is needed. I have posted about these before on CMR and so thought a review wasn't necessary. Here they are in case anyone wants a refresher:
https://creativeminorityreport.com/2011/04/controlling-human-genetic-engineering.html
https://creativeminorityreport.com/2011/04/controlling-human-genetic-engineering_12.html
March 5, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Could Jesus have been referring to this on the way to Calvary?
Luke 23:28-31
Jesus turned to them and said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, 'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.' At that time people will say to the mountains, 'Fall upon us!' and to the hills, 'Cover us!' for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?"
March 7, 2012 at 5:40 pm
"As for Blackrep, if you cannot see the difference between the purposeful genetic altering by man of another person and natural mutations then I can't help you. Death is also natural, but we certainly draw the line between death that occurs naturally and one that is brought about by human intervention."
If I kill someone in a just war, I have committed no wrong, so, no, that example is not "helpful." You have to have some other criteria other than "something caused by human intervention" to determine a wrong. If we, as Catholics, are going mediate and add to this scientific debate, we are going to have to have real, philosophical reasons for prohibiting human enhancement – not just some feeling that it's wrong. Enhancement is not wrong simply because it is enhancement.
This is something I really want you to think about: what if I got an eye enhancement through genetic manipulation, and would pass that excellent eyesight on to my progeny… or at least a percentage of them. What is so wrong with that? What if I could strengthen the fibers of the uterus so that they wouldn't rupture? What if I could develop redundant systems for the major organs? These would be improvements, if humanely arrived at, of inestimable worth. In fact, an argument could be made that, because of our participation in bringing about human excellence, our creative work is akin to God's, and we are partners with Him in the perfection of all things.
The "human intervention" principle that you suggest fails miserably in these cases, so you are going to have to ground your prohibition in something more substantial. Does the principle of "equality" fill the bill? The principle of equality that you've used from Dignitatis is misapplied: the "fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings" is not PHYSICAL equality. Just look around you to see vast inequalities among completely healthy people. The principle of equality does not stand up to scrutiny, because there is not this equality, even in nature.
If your principle is some notion of human dignity, then you had better be prepared to explain exactly how better vision, more resilient body parts, or longer life would be a violation of human dignity.
I say this not to be a gadfly, or be contrary, but as someone sincerely interested in Catholic scientists mounting compelling arguments to the scientific community about the nature of human dignity. Improving on the human genome is not against his dignity. I understand that you want to save mankind from the slavery of use, from pain, and from tyranny, but arguing against genetic enhancement just because it is genetic enhancement isn't helpful.
This may be helpful: what is the line that is crossed when enhancements are no longer suited to man's dignity? I would suggest that it's at the point where his rationality or free agency is diminished. Or perhaps one of his qualities is amplified so as to promote his use as an object. But it can't be that enhancement is wrong because it is enhancement!