THE
ISSUE
In
recent
years,
astonishing
technological
developments
have
pushed
the
frontiers
of
humanity
toward
far-reaching
morphological
transformation
that
promises
in
the
very
near
future
to
redefine
what
it
means
to
be
human.
An
international,
intellectual,
and
fast-growing
cultural
movement
known
as
transhumanism,
whose
vision
is
supported
by a
growing
list
of
U.S.
military
advisors,
bioethicists,
law
professors,
and
academics,
intends
the
use
of
biotechnology,
genetic
engineering,
nanotechnology,
cybernetics,
and
artificial
intelligence
as
tools
that
will
radically
redesign
our
minds,
our
memories,
our
physiology,
our
offspring,
and
even
perhaps—
as
Joel
Garreau,
in
his
bestselling
book
Radical
Evolution,
claims—our
very
souls.
The
technological,
cultural,
and
metaphysical
shift
now
underway
unapologetically
forecasts
a
future
dominated
by
this
new
species
of
unrecognizably
superior
humans,
and
applications
under
study
now
to
make
this
dream
a
reality
are
being
funded
by
thousands
of
government
and
private
research
facilities
around
the
world.
The
issues
raised
by
human-transforming
science
must
be
addressed
by
Christian
leaders
in a
serious
national
conversation.
To
fail
in
this
responsibility
may
lead
to
the
question
"what
does
it
mean
to
be
human"
being
abdicated
to a
frightening
transhuman
vision.
The
Letter...
Dear
Pastor
and
Christian
Leader,
Brent
Waters,
Director
of
the
Jerre
L.
and
Mary
Joy
Stead
Center
for
Ethics
and
Values
has
written,
"If
Christians
are
to
help
shape
contemporary
culture—particularly
in a
setting
in
which
I
fear
the
posthuman
message
will
prove
attractive,
if
not
seductive—then
they
must
offer
an
alternative
and
compelling
vision;
a
counter
theological
discourse
so
to
speak."
Although
the
Vatican
in
2008
issued
a
limited
set
of
instructions
on
bioethics
primarily
dealing
with
in
vitro
fertilization
and
stem
cell
research
(Dignitas
Personae
or
“the
Dignity
of
the
Person”
[pdf])
and
a
handful
of
Christian
scientists,
policy
makers,
and
conservative
academics
have
hinted
in
public
commentary
on
the
need
for
a
broader,
manifesto-like
document
on
the
subject,
the
church
as
an
institution
has
failed
at
any
concerted
effort
to
focus
on
the
genetics
revolution,
the
government’s
interest
in
human
enhancement,
the
viral
transhumanist
philosophy
capturing
the
mind
of a
generation
at
colleges
and
universities
(not
to
mention
via
popular
media),
and
the
significant
moral
and
ethical
issues
raised
by
these
trends.
At
the
time
this
open
letter
is
being
posted,
four
thousand
evangelical
leaders
from
two
hundred
nations
are
planning
to
convene
in
South
Africa
to
adopt
a
new
manifesto
related
to
missiology
and
“a
statement
on
Nature.”
This
gathering
is
organized
by
Billy
Graham’s
Lausanne
Committee
for
World
Evangelism
(LCWE)
and
we
pray
it
will
include
something
significant
on
bioethics,
because
other
than
a
nearly
decade-old
Lausanne
“Occasional
Paper
No.
58,”
which
discussed
ways
in
which
bioethics
could
be
used
as a
tool
for
evangelism
(very
important),
no
documentation
we
have
seen
thus
far
indicates
that
the
new
LCWE
gathering
will
substantially
debate
the
moral
limits
of
human-enhancement
technologies,
which
have
quietly
and
dramatically
evolved
since
the
brief
“Occasional
Paper
No.
58.”
While
the
Vatican’s
Dignitas
Personae
likewise
failed
to
provide
instructions
on
the
greater
issue
of
biological
enhancement
(as
envisioned
by
transhumanists
and
espoused
by
agencies
of
the
U.S.
and
other
federal
governments
as
the
next
step
in
human
evolution),
its
positional
paper
did
provide
an
important
bird’s-eye
view
on
the
clash
developing
between
traditional
morality
and
the
contradictory
adoption
of
transhumanist
philosophy
by
Christian
apologists,
who
likewise
have
begun
to
question
what
it
means
to
be
human
and
whose
competing
moral
vision
could
ultimately
shape
the
future
of
society.
Immediately
following
the
release
of
Dignitas
Personae,
Catholic
scientist
William
B.
Neaves,
in
an
essay
for
the
National
Catholic
Reporter,
reflected
the
new
biblical
exegesis,
causing
reporter
Rod
Dreher
to
describe
it
as
clearly
illustrating
“the
type
of
Christianity
that
is
eager
to
jettison
the
old
morality
and
embrace
the
new.”
The
subtleties
behind
Neaves’
comments
included:
An alternative point of view to the Vatican’s, embraced by many Christians, is that personhood [a transhumanist concept] occurs after successful implantation in the mother’s uterus, when individual ontological identity is finally established.... If one accepts the viewpoint that personhood begins after implantation, the moral framework guiding the development and application of medical technology to human reproduction and treatment of disease looks very different from that described in Dignitas Personae.
In the alternative moral framework, taking a pill to prevent the products of fertilization from implanting in a uterus is morally acceptable. Using ivf [in vitro fertilization] to complete the family circle of couples otherwise unable to have children is an unmitigated good. Encouraging infertile couples with defective gametes to adopt already-produced ivf embryos that will otherwise be discarded is a laudable objective. And using embryonic stem cells to seek cures [creating human embryos for research “parts”] becomes a worthy means of fulfilling the biblical mandate to heal the sick.
Notwithstanding
that
the
discussion
by
Neaves
was
limited
to
the
Vatican’s
position
on
embryos,
his
introduction
of
memes
involving
personhood
and
“ensoulment”
represents
worrisome
Christian
theological
entanglement
with
transhumanist
philosophy,
further
illustrating
the
need
for
a
solid
manifesto
providing
a
conservative
vision
for
public
policy
with
regard
to
human
experimentation
and
enhancement.
In
the
letter
to
the
church
at
Ephesus,
Paul
states
the
responsibility
of
the
Church
as
the
agent
of
God's
wisdom,
concluding
this
was
by
divine
intention.
“His
intent
was
that
now,
through
the
church,
the
manifold
wisdom
of
God
should
be
made
known
to
the
rulers
and
authorities
in
the
heavenly
realms”
(Ephesians
3:10).
Making
known
the
“righteous”
and
manifold
wisdom
of
God
must
include
human-affirming
virtues
of
Christian
morality
that
are
intrinsic
to
His
divine
order
and
the
Great
Commission.
In
every
generation,
there
is
no
middle
ground
for
preachers
of
righteousness
in
these
matters.
Christian
leaders
must
be
actively
engaged
in
ideological
warfare
for
the
mind
of a
generation
especially
in
an
age
where
people
are
seeking
reasons
to
believe,
despite
everything
they
are
being
told,
that
the
church
remains
relevant.
To
fail
this
responsibility
could
be
to
abdicate
to a
frightening
transhuman
vision
of
the
future
such
as
was
predicted
by
theologian
and
Christian
apologist
C.
S.
Lewis
in
The
Abolition
of
Man.
Lewis
foresaw
the
day
when
transhumanist
and
scientific
reasoning
would
win
out,
permanently
undoing
mankind
through
altering
the
species,
ultimately
reducing
Homo
sapiens
to
utilitarian
products.
Here
is
part
of
what
he
said:
In order to understand fully what Man’s power over Nature, and therefore the power of some men over other men, really means, we must picture the race extended in time from the date of its emergence to that of its extinction. Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors. This modifies the picture which is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power. In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases [transhuman/posthuman], all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them. And if, as is almost certain, the age which had thus attained maximum power over posterity were also the age most emancipated from tradition, it would be engaged in reducing the power of its predecessors almost as drastically as that of its successors.... The last men, far from being the heirs of power, will be of all men most subject to the dead hand of the great planners and conditioners and will themselves exercise least power upon the future.... The final stage [will have] come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology...shall have “taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho” [one of the Three Fates in mythology responsible for spinning the thread of human life] and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?
Lewis
foresaw
the
progressive
abandonment
of
what
we
would
call
“moral
law”
based
on
Judeo-Christian
values
giving
way
to
“the
dead
hand
of
the
great
planners
and
conditioners”
who
would
decide
what
men
should
biologically
become.
The
terms
“great
planners
and
conditioners”
correspond
perfectly
with
modern
advocates
of
transhumanism
who
esteem
their
blueprint
for
the
future
of
the
species
as
the
one
that
will
ultimately
decide
the
fate
of
man.
A
recent
step
toward
establishing
this
goal
occurred
when
the
U.S.
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF)
and
the
Human
Enhancement
Ethics
Group
(based
at
California
Polytechnic
State
University,
whose
advisory
board
is a
wish
list
of
transhumanist
academics
and
institutions
worldwide)
released
its
fifty-page
report
entitled
“Ethics
of
Human
Enhancement:
25
Questions
&
Answers.”
This
government-funded
report
addressed
the
definitions,
scenarios,
anticipated
societal
disruptions,
and
policy
and
law
issues
that
need
to
be
considered
en
route
to
becoming
posthuman
(the
full
NSF
report
can
be
downloaded
for
free
at
our
Web
site:
www.ForbiddenGate.com).
Some
of
the
topics
covered
in
the
new
study
include:
-
What are the policy implications of human enhancement?
-
Is the natural-artificial distinction of human enhancement morally significant?
-
Does human enhancement raise issues of fairness, access, and equity?
-
Will it matter if there is an “enhanced divide” between “new” people classifications?
-
How would such a divide make communication difficult between “normals” and the “enhanced”?
-
How should the enhancement of children be approached?
-
What kind of societal disruptions might arise from human enhancement?
-
Should there be any limits on enhancement for military purposes?
-
Might enhanced humans count as someone’s intellectual property?
-
Will we need to rethink the very meaning of “ethics,” given the dawn of enhancement?
The
“Ethics
of
Human
Enhancement”
report
was
authored
by
the
NSF-funded
research
team
of
Dr.
Fritz
Allhoff
(Western
Michigan
University),
Dr.
Patrick
Lin
(California
Polytechnic
State
University),
Prof.
James
Moor
(Dartmouth
College),
and
Prof.
John
Weckert
(Center
for
Applied
Philosophy
and
Public
Ethics/Charles
Sturt
University,
Australia)
as
part
of a
three-year
ethics
study
on
human
enhancement
and
emerging
technologies.
This
came
on
the
heels
of
the
US
National
Institute
of
Health
granting
Case
Law
School
in
Cleveland
$773,000
of
taxpayers’
money
to
begin
developing
the
actual
guidelines
that
will
be
used
for
setting
government
policy
on
the
next
step
in
human
evolution–“genetic
enhancement.”
Maxwell
Mehlman,
Arthur
E.
Petersilge
Professor
of
Law,
director
of
the
Law-Medicine
Center
at
the
Case
Western
Reserve
University
School
of
Law,
and
professor
of
bioethics
in
the
Case
School
of
Medicine,
led
the
team
of
law
professors,
physicians,
and
bioethicists
over
the
two-year
project
“to
develop
standards
for
tests
on
human
subjects
in
research
that
involves
the
use
of
genetic
technologies
to
enhance
‘normal’
individuals.”
Following
the
initial
study,
Mehlman
began
offering
two
university
lectures:
“Directed
Evolution:
Public
Policy
and
Human
Enhancement”
and
“Transhumanism
and
the
Future
of
Democracy,”
addressing
the
need
for
society
to
comprehend
how
emerging
fields
of
science
will,
in
approaching
years,
alter
what
it
means
to
be
human,
and
what
this
means
to
democracy,
individual
rights,
free
will,
eugenics,
and
equality.
Other
law
schools,
including
Stanford
and
Oxford,
are
now
hosting
similar
annual
“Human
Enhancement
and
Technology”
conferences,
where
transhumanists,
futurists,
bioethicists,
and
legal
scholars
are
busying
themselves
with
the
ethical,
legal,
and
inevitable
ramifications
of
posthumanity.
“No
matter
where
one
is
aligned
on
this
issue,
it
is
clear
that
the
human
enhancement
debate
is a
deeply
passionate
and
personal
one,
striking
at
the
heart
of
what
it
means
to
be
human,”
explained
Dr.
Lin
in
the
NSF
report.
Then,
with
surprising
candor,
he
added,
“Some
see
it
as a
way
to
fulfill
or
even
transcend
our
potential;
others
see
it
as a
darker
path
towards
becoming
Frankenstein’s
monster.”
Because
any
attempt
at
covering
each
potential
GRIN-tech,
catastrophic,
Frankenstein's
monster
possibility
in
an
open
letter
such
as
this
would
be
impractical,
I
summarize
below
a
few
of
the
most
important
areas
in
which
conservatives,
bioethicists,
regulators,
and
especially
Christians
could
become
informed
and
involved
in
the
public
dialogue
over
the
potential
benefits
and
threats
represented
by
these
emerging
fields
of
science:
SYNTHETIC
BIOLOGY
Synthetic
biology
is
one
of
the
newest
areas
of
biological
research
that
seeks
to
design
new
forms
of
life
and
biological
functions
not
found
in
nature.
The
concept
began
emerging
in
1974,
when
Polish
geneticist
Waclaw
Szybalski
speculated
about
how
scientists
and
engineers
would
soon
enter
“the
synthetic
biology
phase
of
research
in
our
field.
We
will
then
devise
new
control
elements
and
add
these
new
modules
to
the
existing
genomes
or
build
up
wholly
new
genomes.
This
would
be a
field
with
the
unlimited
expansion
[of]
building
new...‘synthetic’
organisms,
like
a
‘new
better
mouse.’”
Following
Szybalski’s
speculation,
the
field
of
synthetic
biology
reached
its
first
major
milestone
in
2010
with
the
announcement
that
researchers
at
the
J.
Craig
Venter
Institute
(JCVI)
had
created
an
entirely
new
form
of
life
nicknamed
“Synthia”
by
inserting
artificial
genetic
material,
which
had
been
chemically
synthesized,
into
cells
that
were
then
able
to
grow.
The
JCVI
Web
site
explains:
Genomic science has greatly enhanced our understanding of the biological world. It is enabling researchers to “read” the genetic code of organisms from all branches of life by sequencing the four letters that make up DNA. Sequencing genomes has now become routine, giving rise to thousands of genomes in the public databases. In essence, scientists are digitizing biology by converting the A, C, T, and G’s of the chemical makeup of DNA into 1’s and 0’s in a computer. But can one reverse the process and start with 1’s and 0’s in a computer to define the characteristics of a living cell? We set out to answer this question [and] now, this scientific team headed by Drs. Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith, and Clyde Hutchison have achieved the final step in their quest to create the first...synthetic genome [which] has been “booted up” in a cell to create the first cell controlled completely by a synthetic genome.
The
JCVI
site
goes
on
to
explain
how
the
ability
to
routinely
write
the
software
of
life
will
usher
in a
new
era
in
science,
and
with
it,
unnatural
“living”
products
like
Szybalski’s
“new
better
mouse.”
Jerome
C.
Glenn
added
for
the
2010
State
of
the
Future
14th
annual
report
from
the
Millennium
Project,
“Synthetic
biologists
forecast
that
as
computer
code
is
written
to
create
software
to
augment
human
capabilities,
so
too
genetic
code
will
be
written
to
create
life
forms
to
augment
civilization.”
The
new
better
mice,
dogs,
horses,
cows,
or
humans
that
grow
from
this
science
will
be
unlike
any
of
the
versions
God
made.
In
fact,
researchers
at
the
University
of
Copenhagen
may
look
at
what
Venter
has
accomplished
as
amateur
hour
compared
to
their
posthuman
plans.
They’re
working
on a
third
Peptide
Nucleic
Acid
(PNA)
strand—a
synthetic
hybrid
of
protein
and
DNA—to
upgrade
humanity’s
two
existing
DNA
strands
from
double
helix
to
triple.
In
so
doing,
these
scientists
“dream
of
synthesizing
life
that
is
utterly
alien
to
this
world—both
to
better
understand
the
minimum
components
required
for
life
(as
part
of
the
quest
to
uncover
the
essence
of
life
and
how
life
originated
on
earth)
and,
frankly,
to
see
if
they
can
do
it.
That
is,
they
hope
to
put
together
a
novel
combination
of
molecules
that
can
self-organize,
metabolize
(make
use
of
an
energy
source),
grow,
reproduce
and
evolve.”
PATENTING
NEW
LIFE-FORMS
Questions
are
evolving
now
over
“patenting”
of
transgenic
seeds,
animals,
plants,
and
synthetic
life-forms
by
large
corporations,
which
at a
minimum
has
already
begun
to
impact
the
economy
of
rural
workers
and
farmers
through
such
products
as
Monsanto’s
“terminator”
seeds.
Patenting
of
human
genes
will
escalate
these
issues,
as
best-selling
author
Michael
Crichton
pointed
out
a
while
back
in a
piece
for
the
New
York
Times
titled,
“Gene
Patents
Aren’t
Benign
and
Never
Will
Be,”
in
which
he
claimed
that
people
could
die
in
the
future
from
not
being
able
to
afford
medical
treatment
as a
result
of
medicines
owned
by
patent
holders
of
specific
genes
related
to
the
genetic
makeup
of
those
persons.
Former
special
counsel
for
President
Richard
Nixon,
Charles
Colson,
added,
“The
patenting
of
genes
and
other
human
tissue
has
already
begun
to
turn
human
nature
into
property.
The
misuse
of
genetic
information
will
enable
insurers
and
employers
to
exercise
the
ultimate
form
of
discrimination.
Meanwhile,
advances
in
nanotechnology
and
cybernetics
threaten
to
‘enhance’
and
one
day
perhaps
rival
or
replace
human
nature
itself—in
what
some
thinkers
are
already
calling
‘transhumanism.’”
HUMAN
CLONING
The
prospect
of
human
cloning
was
raised
in
the
nineties
immediately
after
the
creation
of
the
much-celebrated
“Dolly,”
a
female
domestic
sheep
clone.
Dolly
was
the
first
mammal
to
be
cloned
using
“somatic
cell
nuclear
transfer,”
which
involves
removing
the
DNA
from
an
unfertilized
egg
and
replacing
the
nucleus
of
it
with
the
DNA
that
is
to
be
cloned.
Today,
a
version
of
this
science
is
common
practice
in
genetics
engineering
labs
worldwide,
where
“therapeutic
cloning”
of
human
and
human-animal
embryos
is
employed
for
stem-cell
harvesting
(the
stem
cells,
in
turn,
are
used
to
generate
virtually
any
type
of
specialized
cell
in
the
human
body).
This
type
of
cloning
was
in
the
news
recently
when
it
emerged
from
William
J.
Clinton
Presidential
Center
documents
that
the
newest
member
of
the
Supreme
Court,
Elena
Kagan,
had
opposed
during
the
Clinton
White
House
any
effort
by
Congress
to
prevent
humans
from
being
cloned
specifically
for
experimental
purposes,
then
killed.
A
second
form
of
human
cloning
is
called
“reproductive
cloning”
and
is
the
technology
that
could
be
used
to
create
a
person
who
is
genetically
identical
with
a
current
or
previously
existing
human.
While
Dolly
was
created
by
this
type
of
cloning
technology,
the
American
Medical
Association
and
the
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science
have
raised
caution
on
using
this
approach
to
create
human
clones,
at
least
at
this
stage.
Government
bodies
including
the
U.S.
Congress
have
considered
legislation
to
ban
mature
human
cloning,
and
though
a
few
states
have
implemented
restrictions,
contrary
to
public
perception
and
except
where
institutions
receive
federal
funding,
no
federal
laws
exist
at
this
time
in
the
United
States
to
prohibit
the
cloning
of
humans.
The
United
Nations,
the
European
Union,
and
Australia
likewise
considered
and
failed
to
approve
a
comprehensive
ban
on
human
cloning
technology,
leaving
the
door
open
to
perfect
the
science
should
society,
government,
or
the
military
come
to
believe
that
duplicate
or
replacement
humans
hold
intrinsic
value.
REDEFINING
HUMANS
AND
HUMAN
RIGHTS
Where
biotechnology
is
ultimately
headed
includes
not
only
redefining
what
it
means
to
be
human,
but
redefining
subsequent
human
rights
as
well.
For
instance,
Dr.
James
Hughes,
whom
I
have
debated
on
his
syndicated
Changesurfer
Radio
show,
wants
transgenic
chimps
and
great
apes
uplifted
genetically
so
that
they
achieve
“personhood.”
The
underlying
goal
behind
this
theory
would
be
to
establish
that
basic
cognitive
aptitude
should
equal
“personhood”
and
that
this
“cognitive
standard”
and
not
“human-ness”
should
be
the
key
to
constitutional
protections
and
privileges.
Among
other
things,
this
would
lead
to
nonhuman
“persons”
and
“nonperson”
humans,
unhinging
the
existing
argument
behind
intrinsic
sanctity
of
human
life
and
paving
the
way
for
such
things
as
harvesting
organs
from
people
like
Terry
Schiavo
whenever
the
loss
of
cognitive
ability
equals
the
dispossession
of
“personhood.”
These
would
be
the
first
victims
of
transhumanism,
according
to
Prof.
Francis
Fukuyama,
concerning
who
does
or
does
not
qualify
as
fully
human
and
is
thus
represented
by
the
founding
concept
that
“all
men
are
created
equal.”
Most
would
argue
that
any
human
fits
this
bill,
but
women
and
blacks
were
not
included
in
these
rights
in
1776
when
Thomas
Jefferson
wrote
the
Declaration
of
Independence.
So
who
is
to
say
what
protections
can
be
automatically
assumed
in
an
age
when
human
biology
is
altered
and
when
personhood
theory
challenges
what
bioethicists
like
Wesley
J.
Smith
champion
as
“human
exceptionalism”:
the
idea
that
human
beings
carry
special
moral
status
in
nature
and
special
rights,
such
as
the
right
to
life,
plus
unique
responsibilities,
such
as
stewardship
of
the
environment.
Some,
but
not
all,
believers
in
human
exceptionalism
arrive
at
this
concept
from
a
biblical
worldview
based
on
Genesis
1:26,
which
says,
“And
God
said,
‘Let
us
make
man
in
our
image,
after
our
likeness:
and
let
them
have
dominion
over
the
fish
of
the
sea,
and
over
the
fowl
of
the
air,
and
over
the
cattle,
and
over
all
the
earth,
and
over
every
creeping
thing
that
creepeth
upon
the
earth.’”
NANOTECHNOLOGY
AND
CYBERNETICS
As
discussed
in
the
upcoming
new
book
Forbidden
Gates,
technology
to
merge
human
brains
with
machines
is
progressing
at a
fantastic
rate.
Nanotechnology—the
science
of
engineering
materials
or
devices
on
an
atomic
and
molecular
scale
between
1 to
100
nanometers
(a
nanometer
is
one
billionth
of a
meter)
in
size—is
poised
to
take
the
development
between
brain-machine
interfaces
and
cybernetic
devices
to a
whole
new
adaptive
level
for
human
modification.
This
will
happen
because,
as
Dr.
C.
Christopher
Hook
points
out:
Engineering or manipulating matter and life at nanometer scale [foresees] that the structures of our bodies and our current tools could be significantly altered. In recent years, many governments around the world, including the United States with its National Nanotechnology Initiative, and scores of academic centers and corporations have committed increasing support for developing nanotechnology programs. The military, which has a significant interest in nanotechnology, has created the Center for Soldier Nanotechnologies (csn) [which is] interested in the use of such technology to help create the seamless interface of electronic devices with the human nervous system, engineering the cyborg soldier.
TRANSHUMAN
EUGENICS
In
the
early
part
of
the
twentieth
century,
the
study
and
practice
of
selective
human
breeding
known
as
eugenics
sought
to
counter
dysgenic
aspects
within
the
human
gene
pool
and
to
improve
overall
human
“genetic
qualities.”
Researchers
in
the
United
States,
Britain,
Canada,
and
Germany
(where,
under
Adolf
Hitler,
eugenics
operated
under
the
banner
of
“racial
hygiene”
and
allowed
Josef
Mengele,
Otmar
von
Verschuer,
and
others
to
perform
horrific
experiments
on
live
human
beings
in
concentration
camps
to
test
their
genetic
theories)
were
interested
in
weeding
out
“inferior”
human
bloodlines
and
used
studies
to
insinuate
heritability
between
certain
families
and
illnesses
such
as
schizophrenia,
blindness,
deafness,
dwarfism,
bipolar
disorder,
and
depression.
Their
published
reports
fueled
the
eugenics
movement
to
develop
state
laws
in
the
1800s
and
1900s
that
forcefully
sterilized
persons
considered
unhealthy
or
mentally
ill
in
order
to
prevent
them
from
“passing
on”
their
genetic
inferiority
to
future
generations.
Such
laws
were
not
abolished
in
the
U.S.
until
the
mid-twentieth
century,
leading
to
more
than
sixty
thousand
sterilized
Americans
in
the
meantime.
Between
1934
and
1937,
the
Nazis
likewise
sterilized
an
estimated
four
hundred
thousand
people
they
deemed
of
inferior
genetic
stock
while
also
setting
forth
to
selectively
exterminate
the
Jews
as
“genetic
aberrations”
under
the
same
program.
Transhumanist
goals
of
using
biotechnology,
nanotechnology,
mind-interfacing,
and
related
sciences
to
create
a
superior
man
and
thus
classifications
of
persons—the
enhanced
and
the
unenhanced—opens
the
door
for
a
new
form
of
eugenics
and
social
Darwinism.
GERM-LINE
GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Germ-line
genetic
engineering
has
the
potential
to
actually
achieve
the
goals
of
the
early
eugenics
movement
(which
sought
to
create
superior
humans
via
improving
genetics
through
selective
breeding)
through
genetically
modifying
human
genes
in
very
early
embryos,
sperm,
and
eggs.
As a
result,
germ-line
engineering
is
considered
by
some
conservative
bioethicists
to
be
the
most
dangerous
of
human-enhancement
technology,
as
it
has
the
power
to
truly
reassemble
the
very
nature
of
humanity
into
posthuman,
altering
an
embryo’s
every
cell
and
leading
to
inheritable
modifications
extending
to
all
succeeding
generations.
Debate
over
germ-line
engineering
is
therefore
most
critical,
because
as
changes
to
“downline”
genetic
offspring
are
set
in
motion,
the
nature
and
physical
makeup
of
mankind
will
be
altered
with
no
hope
of
reversal,
thereby
permanently
reshaping
humanity’s
future.
A
respected
proponent
of
germ-line
technology
is
Dr.
Gregory
Stock,
who,
like
cyborgist
Kevin
Warwick,
departs
from
Kurzweil’s
version
of
Humans
2.0
first
arriving
as a
result
of
computer
Singularity.
Stock
believes
man
can
choose
to
transcend
existing
biological
limitations
in
the
nearer
future
(at
or
before
computers
reach
strong
artificial
intelligence)
through
germ-line
engineering.
If
we
can
make
better
humans
by
adding
new
genes
to
their
DNA,
he
asks,
why
shouldn’t
we?
“We
have
spent
billions
to
unravel
our
biology,
not
out
of
idle
curiosity,
but
in
the
hope
of
bettering
our
lives.
We
are
not
about
to
turn
away
from
this,”
he
says,
before
admitting
elsewhere
that
this
could
lead
to
“clusters
of
genetically
enhanced
superhumans
who
will
dominate
if
not
enslave
us.”
The
titles
to
Stock’s
books
speak
for
themselves
concerning
what
germ-line
engineering
would
do
to
the
human
race.
The
name
of
one
is
Redesigning
Humans:
Our
Inevitable
Genetic
Future
and
another
is
Metaman:
The
Merging
of
Humans
and
Machines
into
a
Global
Superorganism.
Besides
the
short
list
above,
additional
areas
of
concern
where
Christian
leaders
may
wish
to
become
well
advised
on
the
pros
and
cons
of
enhancement
technology
include
immortalism,
postgenderism,
augmented
reality,
cryonics,
designer
babies,
neurohacking,
mind
uploading,
neural
implants,
xenotransplantation,
reprogenetics,
rejuvenation,
radical
life
extension,
and
more.
HEAVEN
AND
HELL
SCENARIOS
While
positive
advances
either
already
have
been
or
will
come
from
some
of
the
science
and
technology
fields
we
are
discussing,
learned
men
like
Prof.
Francis
Fukuyama,
in
his
book,
Our
Posthuman
Future:
Consequences
of
the
Biotechnology
Revolution,
warn
that
unintended
consequences
resulting
from
what
mankind
has
now
set
in
motion
represents
the
most
dangerous
time
in
earth’s
history,
a
period
when
exotic
technology
in
the
hands
of
transhumanist
ambitions
could
forever
alter
what
it
means
to
be
human.
To
those
who
would
engineer
a
transhuman
future,
Fukuyama
warns
of a
dehumanized
“hell
scenario”
in
which
we
“no
longer
struggle,
aspire,
love,
feel
pain,
make
difficult
moral
choices,
have
families,
or
do
any
of
the
things
that
we
traditionally
associate
with
being
human.”
In
this
ultimate
identity
crisis,
we
would
“no
longer
have
the
characteristics
that
give
us
human
dignity”
because,
for
one
thing,
“people
dehumanized
à la
Brave
New
World...don’t
know
that
they
are
dehumanized,
and,
what
is
worse,
would
not
care
if
they
knew.
They
are,
indeed,
happy
slaves
with
a
slavish
happiness.”
The
“hell
scenario”
envisioned
by
Fukuyama
is
but
a
beginning
to
what
other
intelligent
thinkers
believe
could
go
wrong.
On
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum
and
diametrically
opposed
to
Fukuyama’s
conclusions
is
an
equally
energetic
crowd
that
subscribes
to a
form
of
technological
utopianism
called
the
“heaven
scenario.”
Among
this
group,
a
“who’s
who”
of
transhumansist
evangelists
such
as
Ray
Kurzweil,
James
Hughes,
Nick
Bostrom,
and
Gregory
Stock
see
the
dawn
of a
new
Age
of
Enlightenment
arriving
as a
result
of
the
accelerating
pace
of
GRIN
(genetics,
robotics,
artificial
intelligence,
and
nanotechnology)
technologies.
As
with
the
eighteenth-century
Enlightenment
in
which
intellectual
and
scientific
reason
elevated
the
authority
of
scientists
over
priests,
techno-utopians
believe
they
will
triumph
over
prophets
of
doom
by
“stealing
fire
from
the
gods,
breathing
life
into
inert
matter,
and
gaining
immortality.
Our
efforts
to
become
something
more
than
human
have
a
long
and
distinguished
genealogy.
Tracing
the
history
of
those
efforts
illuminates
human
nature.
In
every
civilization,
in
every
era,
we
have
given
the
gods
no
peace.”
Such
men
are
joined
in
their
quest
for
godlike
constitutions
by a
growing
list
of
official
U.S.
departments
that
dole
out
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
each
year
for
science
and
technology
research.
The
National
Science
Foundation
and
the
United
States
Department
of
Commerce
anticipated
this
development
over
a
decade
ago,
publishing
the
government
report
Converging
Technologies
for
Improving
Human
Performance
(download
here)—complete
with
diagrams
and
bullet
points—to
lay
out
the
blueprint
for
the
radical
evolution
of
man
and
machine.
Their
vision
imagined
that,
starting
around
the
year
2012,
the
“heaven
scenario”
would
begin
to
be
manifested
and
quickly
result
in
(among
other
things):
-
The transhuman body being “more durable, healthy, energetic, easier to repair, and resistant to many kinds of stress, biological threats, and aging processes.”
-
Brain-machine interfacing that will “transform work in factories, control automobiles, ensure military superiority, and enable new sports, art forms and modes of interaction between people.
-
“Engineers, artists, architects, and designers will experience tremendously expanded creative abilities,” in part through “improved understanding of the wellspring of human creativity.”
-
“Average persons, as well as policymakers, will have a vastly improved awareness of the cognitive, social, and biological forces operating their lives, enabling far better adjustment, creativity, and daily decision making....
-
“Factories of tomorrow will be organized” around “increased human-machine capabilities.”
Beyond
how
human
augmentation
and
biological
reinvention
would
spread
into
the
wider
culture
following
2012
(the
same
date
former
counter-terrorism
czar,
Richard
Clark,
in
his
book,
Breakpoint,
predicted
serious
GRIN
rollout),
the
government
report
detailed
the
especially
important
global
and
economic
aspects
of
genetically
superior
humans
acting
in
superior
ways,
offering
how,
as a
result
of
GRIN
leading
to
techno-sapien
DNA
upgrading,
brain-to-brain
interaction,
human-machine
interfaces,
personal
sensory
device
interfaces,
and
biological
war
fighting
systems,
“The
twenty-first
century
could
end
in
world
peace,
universal
prosperity,
and
evolution
to a
higher
level
[as]
humanity
become[s]
like
a
single,
transcendent
nervous
system,
an
interconnected
‘brain’
based
in
new
core
pathways
of
society.”
The
first
version
of
the
government’s
report
asserted
that
the
only
real
roadblock
to
this
“heaven
scenario”
would
be
the
“catastrophe”
that
would
be
unleashed
if
society
fails
to
employ
the
technological
opportunities
available
to
us
now.
“We
may
not
have
the
luxury
of
delay,
because
the
remarkable
economic,
political
and
even
violent
turmoil
of
recent
years
implies
that
the
world
system
is
unstable.
If
we
fail
to
chart
the
direction
of
change
boldly,
we
may
become
the
victims
of
unpredictable
catastrophe.”
This
argument
parallels
what
is
currently
echoed
in
military
corridors,
where
sentiments
hold
that
failure
to
commit
resources
to
develop
GRIN
as
the
next
step
in
human
and
technological
evolution
will
only
lead
to
others
doing
so
ahead
of
us
and
using
it
for
global
domination.
The
seriousness
of
this
for
the
conceivable
future
is
significant
enough
that
a
recent
House
Foreign
Affairs
(HFA)
committee
chaired
by
California
Democrat
Brad
Sherman,
best
known
for
his
expertise
on
the
spread
of
nuclear
weapons
and
terrorism,
is
among
a
number
of
government
panels
currently
studying
the
implications
of
genetic
modification
and
human-transforming
technologies
related
to
future
terrorism.
Congressional
Quarterly
columnist
Mark
Stencel
listened
to
the
HFA
committee
hearings
and
wrote
in
his
March
15,
2009,
article,
“Futurist:
Genes
without
Borders,”
that
the
conference
“sounded
more
like
a
Hollywood
pitch
for
a
sci-fi
thriller
than
a
sober
discussion
of
scientific
reality…with
talk
of
biotech’s
potential
for
creating
supersoldiers,
superintelligence,
and
superanimals
[that
could
become]
agents
of
unprecedented
lethal
force.”
George
Annas,
Lori
Andrews,
and
Rosario
Isasi
were
even
more
apocalyptic
in
their
American
Journal
of
Law
and
Medicine
article,
“Protecting
the
Endangered
Human:
Toward
an
International
Treaty
Prohibiting
Cloning
and
Inheritable
Alterations,”
when
they
wrote:
The new species, or “posthuman,” will likely view the old “normal” humans as inferior, even savages, and fit for slavery or slaughter. The normals, on the other hand, may see the posthumans as a threat and if they can, may engage in a preemptive strike by killing the posthumans before they themselves are killed or enslaved by them. It is ultimately this predictable potential for genocide that makes species-altering experiments potential weapons of mass destruction, and makes the unaccountable genetic engineer a potential bioterrorist.
Observations
like
those
of
Annas,
Andrews,
and
Isasi
support
Prof.
Hugo
de
Garis’
nightmarish
vision
(The
Artilect
War)
of a
near
future
wherein
artilects
and
posthumans
join
against
“normals”
in
an
incomprehensible
war
leading
to
gigadeath.
Notwithstanding
such
warnings,
the
problem
could
be
unavoidable,
as
Prof.
Gregory
Stock,
in
his
well-researched
and
convincing
book,
Redesigning
Humans:
Our
Inevitable
Genetic
Future,
argues
that
stopping
what
we
have
already
started
(planned
genetic
enhancement
of
humans)
is
impossible.
“We
simply
cannot
find
the
brakes.”
Scientist
Verner
Vinge
agrees,
adding,
“Even
if
all
the
governments
of
the
world
were
to
understand
the
‘threat’
and
be
in
deadly
fear
of
it,
progress
toward
the
goal
would
continue.
In
fact,
the
competitive
advantage—economic,
military,
even
artistic—of
every
advance
in
automation
is
so
compelling
that
passing
laws,
or
having
customs,
that
forbid
such
things
merely
assures
that
someone
else
will
get
them
first.”
In
what
we
found
to
be a
bit
unnerving,
academic
scientists
and
technical
consultants
to
the
U.S.
Pentagon
have
advised
the
agency
that
the
principal
argument
by
Vinge
is
correct.
As
such,
the
United
States
could
be
forced
into
large-scale
species-altering
output,
including
human
enhancement
for
military
purposes.
This
is
based
on
solid
military
intelligence,
which
suggests
that
America’s
competitors
(and
potential
enemies)
are
privately
seeking
to
develop
the
same
this
century
and
use
it
to
dominate
the
U.S.
if
they
can.
This
worrisome
“government
think
tank”
scenario
is
even
shared
by
the
JASONS—the
celebrated
scientists
on
the
Pentagon’s
most
prestigious
scientific
advisory
panel
who
now
perceive
“Mankind
2.0”
as
the
next
arms
race.
Just
as
the
old
Soviet
Union
and
the
United
States
with
their
respective
allies
competed
for
supremacy
in
nuclear
arms
following
the
Second
World
War
through
the
1980s
(what
is
now
commonly
known
as
“the
nuclear
arms
race
during
the
cold
war”),
the
JASONS
“are
worried
about
adversaries’
ability
to
exploit
advances
in
Human
Performance
Modification,
and
thus
create
a
threat
to
national
security,”
wrote
military
analyst
Noah
Shachtman
in
“Top
Pentagon
Scientists
Fear
Brain-Modified
Foes.”
This
recent
special
for
Wired
magazine
was
based
on a
leaked
military
report
in
which
the
JASONS
admitted
concern
over
“neuro-pharmaceutical
performance
enhancement
and
brain-computer
interfaces”
technology
being
developed
by
other
countries
ahead
of
the
United
States.
“The
JASONS
are
recommending
that
the
American
military
push
ahead
with
its
own
performance-enhancement
research—and
monitor
foreign
studies—to
make
sure
that
the
U.S.’
enemies
don’t
suddenly
become
smarter,
faster,
or
better
able
to
endure
the
harsh
realities
of
war
than
American
troops,”
the
article
continued.
“The
JASONS
are
particularly
concerned
about
[new
technologies]
that
promote
‘brain
plasticity’—rewiring
the
mind,
essentially,
by
helping
to
‘permanently
establish
new
neural
pathways,
and
thus
new
cognitive
capabilities.’”
Though
it
might
be
tempting
to
disregard
the
conclusions
by
the
JASONS
as a
rush
to
judgment
on
the
emerging
threat
of
techno-sapiens,
it
would
be a
serious
mistake
to
do
so.
As
GRIN
technologies
continue
to
race
toward
an
exponential
curve,
parallel
to
these
advances
will
be
the
increasingly
sophisticated
argument
that
societies
must
take
control
of
human
biological
limitations
and
move
the
species—or
at
least
some
of
its
members—into
new
forms
of
existence.
Prof.
Nigel
M.
de
S.
Cameron,
director
for
the
Council
for
Biotechnology
Policy
in
Washington
DC,
documents
this
move,
concluding
that
the
genie
is
out
of
the
bottle
and
that
“the
federal
government’s
National
Nanotechnology
Initiative’s
Web
site
already
gives
evidence
of
this
kind
of
future
vision,
in
which
human
dignity
is
undermined
by
[being
transformed
into
posthumans].”
Dr.
C.
Christopher
Hook,
a
member
of
the
government
committee
on
human
genetics
who
has
given
testimony
before
the
U.S.
Congress,
offered
similar
insight
on
the
state
of
the
situation:
[The goal of posthumanism] is most evident in the degree to which the U.S. government has formally embraced transhumanist ideals and is actively supporting the development of transhumanist technologies. The U.S. National Science Foundation, together with the U.S. Department of Commerce, has initiated a major program (NBIC) for converging several technologies (including those from which the acronym is derived—nanotechnology, biotechnologies, information technologies and cognitive technologies, e.g., cybernetics and neurotechnologies) for the express purpose of enhancing human performance. The NBIC program director, Mihail Roco, declared at the second public meeting of the project...that the expenditure of financial and human capital to pursue the needs of reengineering humanity by the U.S. government will be second in equivalent value only to the moon landing program.
The
presentation
by
Mihail
Roco
to
which
Dr.
Hook
refers
is
contained
in
the
482-page
report,
Converging
Technologies
for
Improving
Human
Performance,
commissioned
by
the
U.S.
National
Science
Foundation
and
Department
of
Commerce.
Among
other
things,
the
report
discusses
planned
applications
of
human
enhancement
technologies
in
the
military
(and
in
rationalization
of
the
human-machine
interface
in
industrial
settings)
wherein
Darpa
is
devising
“Nano,
Bio,
Info,
and
Cogno”
scenarios
“focused
on
enhancing
human
performance.”
The
plan
echoes
a
Mephistophelian
bargain
(a
deal
with
the
devil)
in
which
“a
golden
age”
merges
technological
and
human
cognition
into
“a
single,
distributed
and
interconnected
brain.”
Just
visiting
the
U.S.
Army
Research
Laboratory’s
Web
site
is
dizzying
in
this
regard,
with
its
cascading
pages
of
super-soldier
technology
categories
including
molecular
genetics
and
genomics;
biochemistry,
microbiology
and
biodegradation;
and
neurophysiology
and
cognitive
neurosciences.
If
we
can
so
easily
discover
these
facts
on
the
Web,
just
imagine
what
is
happening
in
Special
Access
Programs
(saps)
where,
according
to
the
Senate’s
own
Commission
on
Protecting
and
Reducing
Government
Secrecy,
there
are
hundreds
of
“waived
saps”—the
blackest
of
black
programs—functioning
at
any
given
time
beyond
congressional
oversight.
Because
of
this
and
given
the
seriousness
of
weaponized
biology
and
human
enhancement
technology
blossoming
so
quickly,
on
May
24,
2010,
a
wide
range
of
experts
from
the
military,
the
private
sector,
and
academia
gathered
in
Washington
DC
for
an
important
conference
titled
“Warring
Futures:
A
Future
Tense
Event:
How
Biotech
and
Robotics
are
Transforming
Today's
Military—and
How
That
Will
Change
the
Rest
of
Us.”
Participants
explored
how
human
enhancement
and
related
technologies
are
unfolding
as
an
emerging
battlefield
strategy
that
will
inevitably
migrate
to
the
broader
culture,
and
what
that
means
for
the
future
of
humanity.
As
the
conference
Web
site
noted:
New technologies are changing warfare as profoundly as did gunpowder. How are everything from flying robots as small as birds to “peak warrior performance” biology [human enhancement] altering the nature of the military as an institution, as well as the ethics and strategy of combat? How will the adoption of emerging technologies by our forces or others affect our understanding of asymmetrical conflict? New technologies are always embraced wherever there is the greatest competition for advantage, but quickly move out to the rest of us not engaged in sport or warfare.
The
impressive
list
of
speakers
at
the
DC
conference
included
Vice
Admiral
Joseph
W.
Dyer
(U.S.
Navy,
retired),
president
of
the
Government
and
Industrial
Robots
Division
at
iRobot;
Major
General
Robert
E.
Schmidle
Jr.,
United
States
Marine
Corps
lead
for
the
2010
Quadrennial
Defense
Review;
Robert
Wright,
author
of
The
Evolution
of
God
and
a
Global
Governance
Fellow;
P.
W.
Singer,
Senior
Fellow
and
director
of
the
Twenty-First
Century
Defense
Initiative
at
the
Brookings
Institution;
Stephen
Tillery
from
the
Harrington
Department
of
Bioengineering
at
Arizona
State
University;
and
Jon
Mogford,
acting
deputy
director
of
the
Defense
Sciences
Office
at
Darpa.
Having
taken
the
lead
in
human-enhancement
studies
as a
U.S.
military
objective
decades
ago,
Darpa
saw
the
writing
on
the
wall
and
in
scenes
reminiscent
of
Saruman
the
wizard
creating
monstrous
Uruk-Hai
to
wage
unending,
merciless
war
(from
J.
R.
R.
Tolkein’s
Lord
of
the
Rings),
began
investing
billions
of
American
tax
dollars
into
the
Pentagon’s
Frankensteinian
dream
of
“super-soldiers”
and
“extended
performance
war
fighter”
programs.
Not
only
has
this
research
led
to
diagrams
of
soldiers
“with
hormonal,
neurological,
and
genetic
concoctions;
implanting
microchips
and
electrodes
in
their
bodies
to
control
their
internal
organs
and
brain
functions;
and
plying
them
with
drugs
that
deaden
some
of
their
normal
human
tendencies:
the
need
for
sleep,
the
fear
of
death,
[and]
the
reluctance
to
kill
their
fellow
human
beings,”
but
as
Chris
Floyd,
in
an
article
for
CounterPunch
a
while
back,
continued,
“some
of
the
research
now
underway
involves
actually
altering
the
genetic
code
of
soldiers,
modifying
bits
of
DNA
to
fashion
a
new
type
of
human
specimen,
one
that
functions
like
a
machine,
killing
tirelessly
for
days
and
nights
on
end…mutations
[that]
will
‘revolutionize
the
contemporary
order
of
battle’
and
guarantee
‘operational
dominance
across
the
whole
range
of
potential
U.S.
military
employments.’”
Related
to
these
developments
and
unknown
to
most
Americans
was
a
series
of
hushed
events
following
the
sacking
of
Admiral
John
Poindexter
(who
served
as
the
director
of
the
Darpa
Information
Awareness
Office
from
2002
to
2003)
during
a
series
of
flaps,
which
resulted
in
public
interest
into
the
goings-on
at
the
agency
and
brief
discovery
of
Darpa’s
advanced
human
enhancement
research.
When
the
ensuing
political
pressure
led
the
Senate
Appropriations
Committee
to
take
a
deeper
look
into
just
how
money
was
flowing
through
Darpa,
the
staffers
were
shocked
to
find
“time-reversal
methods”
in
the
special
focus
area,
and
unstoppable
super-soldiers—enhanced
warriors
with
extra-human
physical,
physiological,
and
cognitive
abilities
that
even
allowed
for
“communication
by
thought
alone”
on
the
drawing
board.
Prof.
Joel
Garreau,
investigative
journalist,
provides
a
summary
of
what
happened
next:
The staffers went down the list of Darpa’s projects, found the ones with titles that sounded frighteningly as though they involved the creation of a master race of superhumans, and zeroed out their budgets from the defense appropriations bill. There is scant evidence they knew much, if anything, about these projects. But we will probably never know the details, because significant people are determined that the whole affair be forever shrouded in mystery. The levels of secrecy were remarkable even for Darpa; they were astounding by the standards of the notoriously leaky Senate. Even insiders said it was hard to get a feel for what the facts really were. It took months of reporting and questioning, poking, and prodding even to get a formal “no comment” either from the leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee or from Anthony J. Tether, the director of Darpa.
A careful study of Darpa’s programs a year later, however, showed little change. Considerable creative budgetary maneuvering ensued. The peas of quite a few programs now reside under new, and much better camouflaged, shells. “They’re saying, ‘Okay, this is the second strike. Do we have to go three strikes?’” one manager said. “It doesn’t stop anything. We’ll be smarter about how we position things.” Meanwhile, he said, new human enhancement programs are in the pipeline, “as bold or bolder” than the ones that preceded them.
Recent
hints
at
Darpa’s
“bold
or
bolder”
investment
in
human
enhancement
as
part
of
an
emerging
arms
race
is
reflected
in
two
of
its
newest
projects
(launched
July
2010),
titled
“Biochronicity
and
Temporal
Mechanisms
Arising
in
Nature”
and
“Robustness
of
Biologically-Inspired
Networks,”
in
which
the
express
intention
of
transforming
“biology
from
a
descriptive
to a
predictive
field
of
science”
in
order
to
boost
“biological
design
principles”
in
troop
performance
is
made.
Darpa’s
Department
of
Defense
Fiscal
Year
2011
President’s
Budget
also
includes
funding
for
science
that
will
lead
to
“editing
a
soldier’s
DNA”
while
more
exotically
providing
millions
of
dollars
for
the
creation
of
“BioDesign,”
a
mysterious
artificial
life
project
with
military
applications
in
which
Darpa
plans
to
eliminate
the
randomness
of
natural
evolution
“by
advanced
genetic
engineering
and
molecular
biology
technologies,”
the
budget
report
states.
The
language
in
this
section
of
the
document
actually
speaks
of
eliminating
“cell
death”
through
creation
of
“a
new
generation
of
regenerative
cells
that
could
ultimately
be
programmed
to
live
indefinitely.”
In
other
words,
whatever
this
synthetic
life
application
is
(Wired
magazine
described
it
as
“living,
breathing
creatures”),
the
plan
is
to
make
it
immortal.
Not
everybody
likes
the
imperatives
espoused
by
Darpa
and
other
national
agencies,
and
from
the
dreamy
fantasies
of
Star
Trek
to
the
dismal
vision
of
Aldous
Huxley’s
Brave
New
World,
some
have
come
to
believe
there
are
demons
hiding
inside
transhumanism’s
mystical
(or
mythical?)
“Shangri-la.”
“Many
of
the
writers
[of
the
U.S.
National
Science
Foundation
and
Department
of
Commerce
Commissioned
Report:
Converging
Technologies
for
Improving
Human
Performance
cited
above]
share
a
faith
in
technology
which
borders
on
religiosity,
boasting
of
miracles
once
thought
to
be
the
province
of
the
Almighty,”
write
the
editors
of
The
New
Atlantis:
A
Journal
of
Technology
and
Society.
“[But]
without
any
serious
reflection
about
the
hazards
of
technically
manipulating
our
brains
and
our
consciousness...
a
different
sort
of
catastrophe
is
nearer
at
hand.
Without
honestly
and
seriously
assessing
the
consequences
associated
with
these
powerful
new
[GRIN]
technologies,
we
are
certain,
in
our
enthusiasm
and
fantasy
and
pride,
to
rush
headlong
into
disaster.”
Few
people
would
be
more
qualified
than
computer
scientist
Bill
Joy
to
annunciate
these
dangers,
or
to
outline
the
“hell
scenario”
that
could
unfold
as a
result
of
GRIN.
Yet
it
must
have
come
as a
real
surprise
to
some
of
those
who
remembered
him
as
the
level-headed
Silicon
Valley
scientist
and
co-founder
of
Sun
Microsystems
(SM)
when,
as
chief
scientist
for
the
corporation,
he
released
a
vast
and
now-famous
essay,
“Why
the
Future
Doesn’t
Need
Us,”
arguing
how
GRIN
would
threaten
in
the
very
near
future
to
obliterate
mankind.
What
was
extraordinary
about
Joy’s
prophecy
was
how
he
saw
himself—and
people
like
him—as
responsible
for
building
the
very
machines
that
“will
enable
the
construction
of
the
technology
that
may
replace
our
species.”
“From
the
very
moment
I
became
involved
in
the
creation
of
new
technologies,
their
ethical
dimensions
have
concerned
me,”
he
begins.
But
it
was
not
until
the
autumn
of
1998
that
he
became
“anxiously
aware
of
how
great
are
the
dangers
facing
us
in
the
twenty-first
century.”
Joy
dates
his
“awakening”
to a
chance
meeting
with
Ray
Kurzweil,
whom
he
talked
with
in a
hotel
bar
during
a
conference
at
which
they
both
spoke.
Kurzweil
was
finishing
his
manuscript
for
The
Age
of
Spiritual
Machines
and
the
powerful
descriptions
of
sentient
robots
and
near-term
enhanced
humans
left
Joy
taken
aback,
“especially
given
Ray’s
proven
ability
to
imagine
and
create
the
future,”
Joy
wrote.
“I
already
knew
that
new
technologies
like
genetic
engineering
and
nanotechnology
were
giving
us
the
power
to
remake
the
world,
but
a
realistic
and
imminent
scenario
for
intelligent
robots
surprised
me.”
Over
the
weeks
and
months
following
the
hotel
conversation,
Joy
puzzled
over
Kurzweil’s
vision
of
the
future
until
finally
it
dawned
on
him
that
genetic
engineering,
robotics,
artificial
intelligence,
and
nanotechnology
posed
“a
different
threat
than
the
technologies
that
have
come
before.
Specifically,
robots,
engineered
organisms,
and
nanobots
share
a
dangerous
amplifying
factor:
They
can
self-replicate.
A
bomb
is
blown
up
only
once—but
one
bot
can
become
many,
and
quickly
get
out
of
control.”
The
unprecedented
threat
of
self-replication
particularly
burdened
Joy
because,
as a
computer
scientist,
he
thoroughly
understood
the
concept
of
out-of-control
replication
or
viruses
leading
to
machine
systems
or
computer
networks
being
disabled.
Uncontrolled
self-replication
of
nanobots
or
engineered
organisms
would
run
“a
much
greater
risk
of
substantial
damage
in
the
physical
world,”
Joy
concluded
before
adding
his
deeper
fear:
What was different in the twentieth century? Certainly, the technologies underlying the weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)—were powerful, and the weapons an enormous threat. But building nuclear weapons required...highly protected information; biological and chemical weapons programs also tended to require large-scale activities.
The twenty-first-century technologies—genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics...are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.
Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication.
I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment [emphasis added].
Joy’s
prophecy
about
self-replicating
“extreme
evil”
as
an
imminent
and
enormous
transformative
power
that
threatens
to
rewrite
the
laws
of
nature
and
permanently
alter
the
course
of
life
as
we
know
it
was
frighteningly
revived
this
year
in
the
creation
of
Venter’s
“self-replicating”
Synthia
species
(Venter’s
description).
Parasites
such
as
the
mycoplasma
mycoides
that
Venter
modified
to
create
Synthia
can
be
resistant
to
antibiotics
and
acquire
and
smuggle
DNA
from
one
species
to
another,
causing
a
variety
of
diseases.
The
dangers
represented
by
Synthia’s
self-replicating
parasitism
has
thus
refueled
Joy’s
opus
and
given
experts
in
the
field
of
counter-terrorism
sleepless
nights
over
how
extremists
could
use
open-source
information
to
create
a
Frankenstein
version
of
Synthia
in
fulfillment
of
Carl
Sagan’s
Pale
Blue
Dot,
which
Joy
quoted
as,
“the
first
moment
in
the
history
of
our
planet
when
any
species,
by
its
own
voluntary
actions,
has
become
a
danger
to
itself.”
As a
dire
example
of
the
possibilities
this
represents,
a
genetically
modified
version
of
mouse
pox
was
created
not
long
ago
that
immediately
reached
100
percent
lethality.
If
such
pathogens
were
unleashed
into
population
centers,
the
results
would
be
catastrophic.
This
is
why
Joy
and
others
were
hoping
a
few
years
ago
that
a
universal
moratorium
or
voluntary
relinquishment
of
GRIN
developments
would
be
initiated
by
national
laboratories
and
governments.
But
the
genie
is
so
far
out
of
the
bottle
today
that
even
college
students
are
attending
annual
synthetic
biology
contests
(such
as
the
International
Genetically
Engineered
Machine
Competition,
or
IGEM)
where
nature-altering
witches’
brews
are
being
concocted
by
the
scores,
splicing
and
dicing
DNA
into
task-fulfilling
living
entities.
For
instance,
the
IGEM
2009
winners
built
“E.
chromi”—a
programmable
version
of
the
bacteria
that
often
leads
to
food
poisoning,
Escherichia
coli
(commonly
abbreviated
E.
coli).
A
growing
list
of
similar
DNA
sequences
are
readily
available
over
the
Internet,
exasperating
security
experts
who
see
the
absence
of
universal
rules
for
controlling
what
is
increasingly
available
through
information
networks
as
threatening
to
unleash
a
“runaway
sorcerer’s
apprentice”
with
unavoidable
biological
fallout.
Venter
and
his
collaborators
say
they
recognize
this
danger—that
self-replicating
biological
systems
like
the
ones
they
are
building—hold
peril
as
well
as
hope,
and
they
have
joined
in
calling
on
Congress
to
enact
laws
to
attempt
to
control
the
flow
of
information
and
synthetic
“recipes”
that
could
provide
lethal
new
pathogens
for
terrorists.
The
problem,
as
always,
is
getting
all
of
the
governments
in
the
world
to
voluntarily
follow
a
firm
set
of
ethics
or
rules.
This
is
wishful
thinking
at
best.
It
is
far
more
likely
the
world
is
racing
toward
what
Joel
Garreau
was
first
to
call
the
“hell
scenario”—a
moment
in
which
human-driven
GRIN
technologies
place
earth
and
all
its
inhabitants
on
course
to
self-eradication.
IIronically,
some
advocates
of
posthumanity
are
now
using
the
same
threat
scenario
to
advocate
for
transhumanism
as
the
best
way
to
deal
with
the
inevitable
extinction
of
mankind
via
GRIN.
At
the
global
interdisciplinary
institute
Metanexus
(www.metanexus.net/),
Mark
Walker,
assistant
professor
at
New
Mexico
State
University
(who
holds
the
Richard
L.
Hedden
of
Advanced
Philosophical
Studies
Chair)
concludes
like
Bill
Joy
that
“technological
advances
mean
that
there
is a
high
probability
that
a
human-only
future
will
end
in
extinction.”
From
this
he
makes
a
paradoxical
argument:
In a nutshell, the argument is that even though creating posthumans may be a very dangerous social experiment, it is even more dangerous not to attempt it....
I suspect that those who think the transhumanist future is risky often have something like the following reasoning in mind: (1) If we alter human nature then we will be conducting an experiment whose outcome we cannot be sure of. (2) We should not conduct experiments of great magnitude if we do not know the outcome. (3) We do not know the outcome of the transhumanist experiment. (4) So, we ought not to alter human nature.
The problem with the argument is.... Because genetic engineering is already with us, and it has the potential to destroy civilization and create posthumans, we are already entering uncharted waters, so we must experiment. The question is not whether to experiment, but only the residual question of which social experiment will we conduct. Will we try relinquishment? This would be an unparalleled social experiment to eradicate knowledge and technology. Will it be the steady-as-she-goes experiment where for the first time governments, organizations and private citizens will have access to knowledge and technology that (accidently or intentionally) could be turned to civilization ending purposes? Or finally, will it be the transhumanist social experiment where we attempt to make beings brighter and more virtuous to deal with these powerful technologies?
I have tried to make at least a i>prima facie case that transhumanism promises the safest passage through twenty-first century technologies.
Katherine
Hayles,
professor
of
English
at
the
University
of
California,
in
her
book
How
We
Became
Posthuman
takes
it
one
step
further,
warning
that,
“Humans
can
either
go
gently
into
that
good
night,
joining
the
dinosaurs
as a
species
that
once
ruled
the
earth
but
is
now
obsolete,
or
hang
on
for
a
while
longer
by
becoming
machines
themselves.
In
either
case…the
age
of
the
human
is
drawing
to a
close.”
WHAT
WE
PROPOSE
While
the
“counter
theological
discourse”
Brent
Waters
mentioned
at
the
start
of
this
letter
would
be
reflective
of
the
everlasting
gospel
of
human
redemption
through
the
person
of
Jesus
Christ
and
antithetical
to
Mark
Walker's
salvation
plan
via
transhumanism,
any
serious
positional
paper
must
address
the
difficult
philosophical
and
ethical
questions
raised
by
modern
technology
and
the
portentous
move
by
governments
and
powers
to
use
biological
sciences
to
remanufacture
mankind.
The
message
would
need
to
be
relevant
and
appeal
to
the
questions
and
style
of a
generation
raised
during
the
Digital
Revolution,
an
age
of
personal
computing
and
information-sharing
technology
that
for
many
of
us
represents
a
shift
away
from
the
Industrial
Revolution’s
outdated
methods
of
communicating.
The
need
to
parse
information
is
changing
so
rapidly
that
we
expect
to
hit
the
knee
of
the
techno-info
curve
sometime
around
the
year
2012,
followed
by
Singularity
and
critical
mass.
As a
result,
we
are
teaming
with
a
group
of
ministries
and
intellectuals
to
organize
a
new
national
conference,
the
World
Congress
on
Emerging
Threats
and
Challenges
(tentative
conference
title),
the
first
of
which
is
to
be
held
the
third
week
of
July
2011
in
Branson,
Missouri.
More
information
on
this
event—and
why
you
should
be
there—will
be
posted
before
the
end
of
2010
at
www.ForbiddenGate.com,
including
how
the
conference
will
address,
among
other
things,
the
need
for
a
comprehensive
and
international
statement
on
human
enhancement
and
a
Christian
Manifesto
on
GRIN
Technology
and
Human
Dignity.
In
the
meantime,
this
open
letter
is a
personal
invitation
to
pastors
and
Christian
leaders
to
offer
feedback
and
comments
on
the
abbreviated
information
above
and/or
to
be
considered
as a
signatory
of
the
Christian
Manifesto
on
GRIN
Technology
and
Human
Dignity
planned
for
discussion
at
the
World
Congress
on
Emerging
Threats
and
Challenges.
If
you
would
like
to
participate
in
this
urgent
first
step
by
contributing
research
or
information,
we
welcome
all
philosophical
and
scientific
reasoning
that
is
firmly
tethered
to
biblical
truth.
Please
contact
us
by
emailing
tomhorn@defenderpublishing.com
POSTSCRIPT
Why
should
Christian
leaders
be
involved
in
the
human
enhancement
debate?
Because
transhumanists
in
league
with
US
National
agencies
are
hard
at
work
defining
the
guidelines
for
public
policy
that
the
rest
of
us
will
live
with.
They
question
what
is
morally
wrong
with
"playing
God"
and
refuse
to
be
mired
in
"theological"
limitations,
even
if
such
is
important
to
"theists."
Note
this
in
the
excerpt
from
the
new
US
National
Science
Foundation
Report
“Ethics
of
Human
Enhancement:
25
Questions
&
Answers”
"It
is
not
just
the
world
around
us
that
we
desire
to
change.
Since
the
beginning
of
history,
we
also
have
wanted
to
become
more
than
human,
to
become
Homo
superior.
From
the
godlike
command
of
Gilgamesh,
to
the
lofty
ambitions
of
Icarus,
to
the
preternatural
strength
of
Beowulf,
to
the
mythical
skills
of
Shaolin
monks,
and
to
various
shamans
and
shapeshifters
throughout
the
world’s
cultural
history,
we
have
dreamt—and
still
dream—of
transforming
ourselves
to
overcome
our
all-too-human
limitations.
"With
ongoing
work
to
unravel
the
mysteries
of
our
minds
and
bodies,
coupled
with
the
art
and
science
of
emerging
technologies,
we
are
near
the
start
of
the
Human
Enhancement
Revolution.
"As
examples
of
emerging
technologies
in
the
last
year
or
so,
a
couple
imaginative
inventions
in
particular,
among
many,
are
closing
the
gap
even
more
between
science
fiction
and
the
real
world.
Scientists
have
conceptualized...
a
touch
display
designed
to
be
implanted
just
under
the
skin
that
would
activate
special
tattoo
ink
on
one’s
arm
to
form
images,
such
as
telephone-number
keys
to
punch
or
even
a
video
to
watch
(Mielke,
2008).
Together
with
ever-shrinking
computing
devices,
we
appear
to
be
moving
closer
to
cybernetic
organisms
(or
"cyborgs"),
that
is,
where
machines
are
integrated
with
our
bodies...
"...we
can
[also]
envision
the
possibility
that
prosthetic
flippers,
designed
today
for
dolphins,
along
with
artificial
gills,
etc.,
might
be
requested
by
humans
who
want
to
transform
into
an
aquatic
animal...
"Finally,
we
will
mention
here
the
related,
persistent
concern
that
we
are
playing
God
with
world-changing
technologies,
which
is
presumably
bad
(Peters,
2007).
But
what
exactly
counts
as
'playing
God',
and
why
is
that
morally
wrong;
i.e.,
where
exactly
is
the
proscription
in
religious
scripture?
"We
do
not
wish
to
be
mired
in
such
theological
issues,
as
important
as
they
are
to
theists..."
Resources used in this letter:
-
Rod Dreher, “Vatican Bioethics Document and Competing Moral Visions,” BeliefNet (12/12/08)
-
C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
-
“Ethics of Human Enhancement,” Human Enhancement Ethics Group
-
American Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 28, nos. 2 and 3 (2002), 162.
-
As quoted by Margaret McLean, phd., “Redesigning Humans: The Final Frontier”
-
“The Coming Technological Singularity,” presented at the Vision-21 Symposium sponsored by Nasa Lewis Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute (3/30–31/93).
-
Noah Shachtman, “Top Pentagon Scientists Fear Brain-Modified Foes,” Wired (6/9/08)
-
Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Human Dignity in the Biotech Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 75.
-
Mihail Roco, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, 2002) 6.
-
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/warring_futures_a_future_tense_event
-
Chris Floyd, “Monsters, Inc.: The Pentagon Plan to Create Mutant ‘Super-Soldiers,’” CounterPunch (1/13/03).
-
Garreau, Radical Evolution: 269–270.
-
Katie Drummond, “Holy Acronym, Darpa! ‘Batman & Robin’ to Master Biology, Outdo Evolution,” Wired (7/6/10)
-
Katie Drummond, “Darpa’s News Plans: Crowdsource Intel, Edit DNA,” Wired (2/2/10)
-
Katie Drummond, “Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms,’ Molecular Kill-Switch Included,” Wired (2/5/10)
-
Institute for Responsible Technology
-
Waclaw Szybalski, In Vivo and in Vitro Initiation of Transcription, 405. In A. Kohn and A. Shatkay (eds.), Control of Gene Expression, 23–24, and Discussion 404–405 (Szybalski’s concept of Synthetic Biology), 411–412, 415–417 (New York: Plenum, 1974).
-
“First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell,” J. Craig Venter Institute
-
Peter E. Nielsen, “Triple Helix: Designing a New Molecule of Life,” Scientific American (12/08)
-
Charles W. Colson, Human Dignity in the Biotech Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 8.
-
C. Christopher Hook, Human Dignity in the Biotech Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 80–81.
-
Garreau, Radical Evolution, 116.
-
Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (New York: Picador, 2002) 6.
-
Garreau, 106.
-
Garreau, Radical Evolution, 113–114.
-
“Carried Away with Convergence,” New Atlantis (Summer 2003) 102–105
-
Bill Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired (April 2000) )
-
Mark Walker, “Ship of Fools: Why Transhumanism is the Best Bet to Prevent the Extinction of Civilization,” Metanexus Institute (2/5/09)
-
Leon R. Kass, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (New York: Encounter, 10/25/02).
-
Rick Weiss, “Of Mice, Men, and In-Between,” MSNBC (11/20/04)
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090315/pl_cq_politics/politics3075228
-
American Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 28, nos. 2 and 3 (2002), 162.
-
As quoted by Margaret McLean, phd., “Redesigning Humans: The Final Frontier”
-
“The Coming Technological Singularity,” presented at the Vision-21 Symposium sponsored by Nasa Lewis Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute (3/30–31/93).
-
Noah Shachtman, “Top Pentagon Scientists Fear Brain-Modified Foes,” Wired (6/9/08)
-
Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Human Dignity in the Biotech Century (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004) 75.
-
Mihail Roco, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, 2002) 6.
-
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/warring_futures_a_future_tense_event