We will explore the viewpoints of our two speakers in one post. Ronald Bailey first, then Christian Early.- Ed.
Friday was an eagerly anticipated day for the EMHS biotechnology class. It was the date of the 16th annual Biotechnology Symposium, which this class traditionally hosts. This year the professional speaker was the science writer Ronald Bailey. Bailey’s accomplishments include having a weekly column in Reason magazine, a published book titled Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution, and having various articles and reviews published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and many others. Bailey does not associate himself with Christianity, giving him a very unique viewpoint compared to many EMHS students and faculty.
Bailey’s topic for his lecture was titled Transhumanism and the Limits of Democracy. Transhumanism is a term describing human enhancement, including the areas of intelligence, athleticism, and the curing of disabilities. The process is done by taking a genome scan and replacing the undesired genes with preferred ones. The ethics of these procedures are highly debatable; however Bailey is on its supporting side.
His fifty-minute speech included the topics of embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproduction, lessening the affects of aging, lengthening humans’ life spans, and how transhumanism relates to all of these issues. He explained that the advancements that science has made in these various areas will be able to positively affect many Americans and people all around the world. He discussed how these technologies could be used for many different purposes, but the initial uses would most likely be pharmaceutical, and could be used to help virtually “anyone.”
Bailey felt that while some view transhumanism as a danger it is exactly the opposite. He sees this process as being quite freeing to the human race. “We are not robots run by our genes…we can now fix them. They no longer control us.”
During the question and answer section of this symposium Bailey was asked questions about what would happen if transhumanism was used for less than good purposes. He said, “I ask that technologies be made available to people who want to use them safely.” He went on to say that transhumanism is a choice that parents would make for their children. Children cannot give their consent to any of these changes of their bodies, but children have never had any power in the way of their own birth before. He stated, “I think we can more or less trust that parents will do what is good for their children.”
- Melisssa Jantzi
In response to the presentation by Ronald Bailey at the Biotechnology Symposium, Dr. Christian Early, a professor of philosophy at Eastern Mennonite University, stated some of his thoughts on transhumanism. Dr. Early broke transhumanism into two categories – gradual, like embryo scanning, and radical, like manipulation of genetic make-up.
Dr. Early began his response with a description of some of the similar views that he and Mr. Bailey shared. Both Dr. Early and Mr. Bailey feel that scanning for disease is ethical, and perfectly acceptable. As Dr. Early put it, “If we can see it coming, for heavens sake, duck!” He feels that a disease scan is a way that humans can use medicine to do what it's meant to – prevent and cure.
Dr. Early moved on to answer a question he proposed: What does it mean to be human? He brought out several points in which he gave his answer.
- emotions are used to navigate the world
- learning is nature's way of nurturing
- what we do, and why we do it, is shaped by learning
- two genetically similar people can be very different because of learning and experiences
With these points in mind, he criticized the idea of people being able to possibly choose their children's personality types – how would these kids be able to navigate in the world without natural emotions? He feels that if genetic make-up is modified, kids may be seen as different; a product of a project.
Another aspect of transhumanism that was a concern of Dr. Early's was the relationships that would be formed with genetically engineered kids, their parents, and their peers. He pointed out that if kids were modified by their parents, it would seem to produce no spontaneity in having kids. However, kids never, ever come out the way parents think – think of the “magic marker on antique furniture.” When a child doesn't conform to “expectations” set by the parents before birth, Early questions whether or not they will be able to attach themselves to parents who the child doesn't think they are “good enough” for. He also wonders whether or not genetically modified people would have to be set apart. What about those genetically designed to be honors students, or the genetically engineered athletes? Would they be an entirely new race and class of human?
- Malinda Bender
