-
9. The Biotechnology Debate
- Baylor University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
211 chapter nine The Biotechnology Debate In his award-winning book Redesigning Humans: Choosing Our Genes, Changing Our Future, Gregory Stock speaks to us of what in the literatures of computer science and biotechnology is termed a “transhumanist” or “posthumanist”: We know that Homo sapiens is not the final word in primate evolution , but few have yet grasped that we are on the cusp of profound biological change, poised to transcend our current form and character on a journey to destinations of new imagination. . . . Some imagine we will see the perils, come to our senses, and turn away from such possibilities. But when we imagine Prometheus stealing fire from the gods, we are not incredulous or shocked by his act. It is too characteristically human. To forgo the powerful technologies that genomics and molecular biology are bringing would be as out of character for humanity as it would be to use them without concern for the dangers they pose. We will do neither. The question is no longer whether we will manipulate embryos, but when, where, and how. . . . Well before this new millennium’s close, we will almost certainly change ourselves enough to become much more than simply human.1 The change referred to here is championed by posthumanists who appreciate the vision of what was earlier termed “postmodern wisdom”: a wisdom directed by the call of conscience that lies at the heart of human existence and that encourages us 212 • Perfection to stay wide open to the future, to its possibilities, and to how we might improve the human condition with, for example, the help of science and technology. The transformation, of course, is already underway. There was, for example, the Enlightenment. Eventually came the computer revolution. No technology in the history of humankind (with the exception of language itself) allows for and facilitates an experimenting with self-identity and acknowledging others more than the personal computer. Cyberspace offers itself as a postmodern dream become reality: an awesome transformation of space and time, an immense and easily accessible dwelling place for people to meet, possibly feel at home with others, and thereby know together what is going on in their lives. Sherry Turkle thus sees cyberspace as exhibiting “a postmodern ethos.”2 Indeed, here is a habitat made possible by the wonders of science and technology and where the challengeresponse (deconstructive-reconstructive) logic of human being is constantly being demonstrated in calls and responses. With these calls and responses, one might even feel that there is something holy going on here: “Where art thou?” “Here I am!” The call of conscience and the call of technology go hand in hand.3 The ways and means of cyberspace speak to us not so much of our being totally posthuman as they do of our heading in that direction. Actually becoming God, of course, would be the ultimate posthuman event. Artificial intelligence scientists like Hans Moravec and Ray Kurzweil head us in this awesome direction when discussing how humans will eventually be capable of downloading the cognitive self into computers so that they can outlive their bodies. The goal here is to transcend biology. Immortality awaits us.4 Taken with the call of technology, the scientist as posthumanist not only has a postmodern attitude toward the openness and possibilities of the future, but also revives the Enlightenment’s zeal for scientific and technological progress as the ultimate means for perfecting humankind. Key principles for conducting this work include “perpetual progress,” “self-transformation,” “practical optimism,” “intelligent technology,” “open society,” “self-direction,” and “rational thinking.”5 Such zeal is a source of criticism for many postmodernist critics who are concerned, for example, with the relationship between “patriarchal capitalism” [204.236.220.47] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 05:33 GMT) The Biotechnology Debate • 213 and the “business” of developing biotechnologies.6 The scientist as posthumanist answers these critics by making much of how his or her work is dedicated not only to improving the self’s existence but also the existence of others as biotechnology continues developing its tools (e.g., stem cell research, regenerative medicine , human embryonic cloning procedures) for the betterment of humankind. Having such tools at hand, the scientist as posthumanist is committed to fighting the disease of being rotten with imperfection. With all of these postmodernist and posthumanist thoughts and developments in mind, the newly formed President’s Council on Bioethics (PCB) was charged on November 28, 2001, with deliberating about the benefits and burdens of biotechnology and then...