<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=140311400-09052007>I did an email
interview with the author of this article last year, and he later informed me
that they only went with half of the whole article he submitted. Obviously, this
is going to be approaching Transhumanism from a Catholic perspective, but still,
I think it doesn't come across too badly. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=140311400-09052007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=140311400-09052007></SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2007/pavlat.htm">http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2007/pavlat.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>“By responsible use of
science, technology, and other rational means we shall eventually manage to
become
posthuman.”<BR>
—<I>Nick Bostrom</I></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>“The moral challenge of
transhumanism will transcend those of abortion and euthanasia. For this reason,
the pro-life movement must become the pro-human
movement.”<BR>
—<I>Nigel M. Cameron</I></FONT></P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size=2>
<P>Cryonics. Neural implants. Designer babies. Welcome to the future of
transhumanism. This energetic movement, comprising thousands of adherents,
actively promotes the enhancement of humans via cybernetics, genetics, medicine,
surgery, nanotechnology, and a full panoply of other scientific advancements.
This enhancement would, according to Nick Bostrom’s “Transhumanist Declaration,”
seek to advocate “the moral right for those who wish to do so to extend their
mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their
control over their own lives. [They] seek personal growth beyond [their] current
biological limitations” (see <A
href="http://www.transhumanism.org">www.transhumanism.org</A>).</P>
<P> </P>
<P></FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>This may sound like
science fiction, but the philosophy behind the movement—improving or extending
human life by whatever means possible—has already taken hold in society.
Advances in modern medicine seem to offer us the very Fountain of Youth, and we
seem fully prepared to embrace it. But at what cost? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The question is not an easy
one. Other issues touching on human life—abortion, embryonic stem cell research,
euthanasia—have all been clearly defined by Church teaching. But the questions
become more nuanced when we move from wholesale destruction of the person to
varying degrees of interference with or enhancement of the body. The Church has
not definitively spoken on many areas of the transhumanist agenda, nor have
bioethicists made many public proclamations. “We’re not even asking the right
questions yet,” admits Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, a bioethicist at Providence
College. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Radical Anti-Aging
Technology</FONT></P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>
<DIV><BR>The search for eternal youth is an ancient human impulse, going back to
the world’s earliest recorded epic, <I>Gilgamesh</I>. But with modern medical
technology, we now seem closer to achieving that end than ever before.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The American
Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, claiming more than 11,000 members, “seeks to
disseminate information concerning innovative science and research as well as
treatment modalities designed to prolong the human life span”
(www.worldhealth.net). Among the most common lines of research are gene therapy,
stem cell therapy to grow everything from new nerves to hair, the injection of
human growth hormone, and cryonics, in which technicians would freeze people’s
bodies in the hopes of reviving them after years of suspended animation or even
death.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>But does this go too far?
Theological critics of anti-aging technology have pointed out that aging has
long been considered a consequence of the Fall, and that we are undoing God’s
command when we radically extend life through medical means. Leon Kass, former
chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, sees other, more philosophical
problems with anti-aging research: “The desire to prolong youthfulness is not
only a childish desire to eat one’s life and keep it. . . . It seeks an endless
present, isolated from anything truly eternal, and severed from any true
continuity with past and future. It is in principle hostile to children, because
children, those who come after, are those who will take one’s place; <I>they</I>
are life’s answer to mortality” (<I>First Things</I>, May 2001). Meanwhile, in
apparent agreement with Kass, a 2002 document edited by then–Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger, <I>Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of
God</I>, states, “Disposing of death is in reality the most radical way of
disposing of life.” </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>On the other hand, Father
Austriaco points out, “A careful reading of <I>Communion and Stewardship</I>
does not seem to suggest that anything in Catholic tradition would oppose
longevity research that seeks to delay aging in the human being.” He also says
that while it is true that at the Fall, God withdrew “supernatural gifts we
would have had had we not sinned,” he points out that, despite God’s injunction
that women would suffer in childbirth, the Church allows pain relief for women
in labor per Pope Pius XII’s 1957 “Allocution to Doctors on the Moral Problems
of Analgesia,” which states: “Man keeps, even after the fall, his right to
dominate the forces of nature, to use them in his service, and thus to make
profitable all the resources that it offers him to avoid or remove the physical
pain [of labor and delivery].” By this reasoning, it would seem, anti-aging
technology could be morally acceptable. “We do all kinds of things in
anticipation of the resurrection,” says Father Austriaco, who is currently
conducting research into the aging mechanisms of yeast, in the hopes of one day
applying that research to humans.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Pro-life bioethicist Nigel
M. Cameron, president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future
(www.thehumanfuture.org), agrees: “There’s something very human, and very
properly human, about the desire to keep the human machine going.” However, he
adds a caveat: Supporting life extension is different than supporting efforts to
eliminate death altogether. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>But other parts of
<I>Communion and Stewardship</I> are less clear, such as the Vatican’s apparent
nixing of any strategies that “chang[e] the genetic identity of man as a human
person.” On one hand, the document says that such changes clearly contradict
Catholic bioecthical tradition, as they “imply that man has full right of
disposal over his own biological nature.” On the other hand, the document also
points out that “germ line genetic engineering with a therapeutic goal” might be
acceptable if it is accomplished in a way that does not harm human embryos. Is
extending the human lifespan beyond its current limits a “therapeutic goal”? No
document answers that question fully.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Because the Vatican has
not yet spoken definitively on this issue, several key questions remain
unanswered: What kinds of radical anti-aging technology, if any, would be
morally licit? If it becomes readily available, and the methods being used
respect human dignity, will the use of this technology be obligatory for
Catholics, under our moral requirement to take care of our health (see the
<I>Catechism of the Catholic Church, </I>2288 and 2290)? How long a life is
<I>too</I> long—or is there any such thing? How would married couples express
their openness to new life if radical life extension meant that women were
fertile for 50 to 100 years instead of 30? In terms of the Church’s social
doctrine, how would one address the increased socioeconomic gap between rich and
poor that could follow the advent of anti-aging technology, or the impact that
anti-aging technology would have on Medicare, much less health
insurance?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Although we can give a
cautious “thumbs up” to some anti-aging technologies, we need to be cognizant of
just how many questions currently have no answers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Computer
Interfaces</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Human-machine interfaces
are becoming ever more intimate. Amazing progress has been made in integrating
technology with biology, progress that has helped people tremendously. For
example, former football player Jesse Sullivan, who lost his arms in a utility
line accident, now has two bionic arms that can move in response to his
thoughts. Claudia Mitchell, who lost an arm in a motorcycle accident, now has a
prosthesis so precise that she can peel an orange. Researcher William Craelius,
working on a different track, has developed the Dextra, an artificial hand that
allows users to type and even play the piano. The next generation of limbs will
even allow wearers to sense touch and temperature.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Going a step further,
consider the case of quadriplegic Matthew Nagle, who “can now pick up objects,
open e-mails, change the channel on the television and play computer games”
using only a link between a computer, a robotic arm, and electrodes implanted in
his brain, according to London’s<I> Independent</I>. Scientists are also hard at
work on a wearable exoskeleton that would respond to his thought commands,
allowing him to move his body again.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>But what if technology is
doing more than simply correcting a medical condition? Dr. Steve Mann of the
University of Toronto has been called “the first cyborg” by DK Publishing for
his “WearComp”—wearable hardware that runs personal-applications software. “The
assumption of wearable computing,” reported Mann at a 1998 keynote speech, “is
that the user will be doing something else at the same time as . . . the
computing. Thus the computer should serve to augment the intellect, or augment
the senses.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Award-winning scientist
and author Ray Kurzweil—an avid transhumanist and proponent of radical
life-extending technology—has pointed out that, when it comes to computer
interfaces, “We already have people with computers in their brains—for example,
Parkinson’s patients—and the latest generation of this FDA-approved neural
implant allows you to download new software to your neural implant from outside
the patient. . . . In the future we will have non-invasive ways of extending our
physical capabilities as we merge with nonbiological systems.” </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>So where do we draw the
line? At what point does the interface between human and computer present a
challenge for human personhood? Going back to <I>Communion and Stewardship</I>,
we are told that “the being created in [God’s] image cannot be the object of
arbitrary human action,” and that four guidelines in particular apply: “(1)
there must be a question of an intervention in the part of the body that is
either affected or is the direct cause of the life-threatening situation; (2)
there can be no other alternatives for preserving life; (3) there is a
proportionate chance of success in comparison with drawbacks; and (4) the
patient must give assent to the intervention.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>However, the document also
points out that “the fundamental faculties which essentially belong to human
beings are never sacrificed, except when necessary to save life.” In other
words, the Vatican, via a tradition called the “therapeutic principle,” gives an
enthusiastic green light to prosthetics that aim to restore “the fundamental
faculties” of injured persons, such as the ability to see, hear, and manipulate
objects with one’s hands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>That being said, David
Plotz of Slate.com claims that “the distinction between therapy and enhancement
isn’t as clear as ethicists contend. Doctors practice enhancement all the
time—even frivolous enhancement.” There are certainly those who would argue that
vasectomies and tubal ligations are “therapeutic.” </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Father Austriaco is
interested in applying the traditional Catholic teaching on reproductive
technologies—“you can assist but not replace”—to these newer technologies. Under
this theory, someone who, in the future, was pursuing elective amputation in
favor of an advanced prosthetic device should be rejected on ethical grounds
because that would be intentionally “replacing.” However, the types of
applications pursued by Sullivan and Mitchell seem to fit the “assisting” test
perfectly, and would therefore be perfectly moral, as long as the programs did
not become “idols” to us.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>As to Kurzweil’s ideas,
the Vatican has not yet clearly articulated a position, but Pope Benedict XVI
recently used a visit to Lateran University to warn about the apparent “primacy”
given to “a sort of ‘artificial’ intelligence which becomes more and more
overshadowed by experimental technique.” He likened the “appetite for discovery
without keeping in mind the criteria which derive from a more profound vision”
to the tragic flight of Icarus, who flew too close to the sun. However elegant
the pope’s observation, it remains more philosophical than doctrinally
applicable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>As Father Austriaco points
out, transhumanists like Kurzweil are “raising questions that are unprecedented
in the Catholic moral tradition.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Super-Pills</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Another unprecedented
situation is discussed in Alexandra Robbins’s latest book, <I>The
Overachievers</I>, which describes the hyper-competitive world of high school
academics. Robbins relates how today’s children, either self-driven or pushed by
their parents, go to sometimes radical extremes to achieve their goals. Her book
includes discussions of college-level classes and competitive sports, but it
also focuses on chronic stress, teen suicide rates, and the phenomenon of
Ritalin and Adderall abuse. Apparently, these medications (created to treat
Attention Deficit Disorder), when taken by people without the disorder, produce
a clarity and goal-orientation that can provide a competitive edge. Doctors have
reported students asking for prescriptions who obviously do not suffer from ADD,
and anecdotal reports of the drug’s use on college campuses and in the business
world are common. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=140311400-09052007>A</SPAN>nother
drug in vogue for its off-label uses is Modafinil, a narcolepsy drug more
popularly known as Provigil. The <I>New York Times</I> reports that the
drug—which enables one to skip naps or even entire nights of sleep while staying
alert and non-jittery—is “becoming a fixture among college students, long-haul
truckers, computer programmers and others determined to burn the midnight oil.”
It is also used by soldiers on patrol in Iraq, according to the<I> Ottawa
Citizen</I>. When it comes to Ritalin and Adderall use, the World Transhumanist
Association’s (WTA) Joseph Bloch says, “Assuming—and it is a huge
assumption—that there are no longer-term side effects, I see nothing wrong with
providing my children with any competitive advantage. The fact that it is
pharmaceutical in nature is irrelevant.” </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>When is a drug that
enhances human abilities unacceptable for use? Steroid use for athletic
enhancement has been nearly universally deemed unethical, and the
<I>Catechism</I> expressly states that “the use of drugs inflicts very grave
damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic
grounds, is a grave offense” (2291). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>However, there may be some
“wiggle room” in the <I>Catechism</I>’s language that would allow people, for
example, to enhance their own thinking abilities. Ampakines, which may in the
next decade be available for Alzheimer’s patients, aid in the formation of new
memories. Apparently they could also help a 40-year-old who simply wanted to
regain the mental quickness of youth. Father Austriaco says that the use of
ampakines for this reason may be licit, as it involves restoring “the
preternatural abilities of Adam and Eve before the Fall.” Pointing out that the
account of the Fall in Genesis 3 includes the punishment that women would be
dominated by men, he says it would be absurd to insist that the repression of
women is in allegiance with Scripture. Therefore, he says, we can use science,
including medicine, to mitigate the effects of the Fall.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Cameron stakes out a
middle ground, stating that steroids “manipulate” human nature, while diet,
nutrition, and exercise respect “human integrity” and “perfect the givenness of
human nature.” When it comes to giving Ritalin to healthy children, Cameron
allows that the trend is “inevitable and understandable, but still
bad.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Of course, even regular
“healthy living” can be taken to excess; the <I>Catechism</I> refers to this
“cult of the body,” which “idoliz[es] physical perfection,” as a “neo-pagan
notion” (2289). Matthew Eppinette, assistant director of the Center for
Bioethics & Human Dignity (www.cbhd.org), develops the idea further by
saying, “Society rightly recognizes conditions like anorexia and the Adonis
complex as unhealthy, not just physically unhealthy, but also emotionally,
mentally, and spiritually unhealthy.” In this light, one could accuse some
purveyors of these trends of an unhealthy focus on what they wish bodies
<I>could</I> do, rather than what is natural or healthy for them to
do.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Surgery</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dennis Avner is the Stalking Cat. No, not a
comic book character, but a part-Huron, part-Lakota Native American who has gone
through tattooing and multiple surgeries—including subdermal and transdermal
implants, upper lip bifurcation, and the pointing of his ears—in order to
increase his physical resemblance to a tiger, his totem animal (see photos at
www.stalkingcat.net). “I’m just taking a very old tradition, that to my
knowledge is not practiced anymore,” he told the <I>Seattle Times</I>. However,
the same article quotes bioethicist Glenn McGee of Albany Medical College in New
York as saying, “It is possible to have a coherent view that is nonetheless
detrimental to one’s well-being. This is a patient who’s being harmed by
medicine in the interest of his tradition.”</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Of all possible types of
body modification, none perhaps makes us as uncomfortable as surgery. It seems
so radical, so risky, to go “under the knife,” that we normally think of surgery
as a last resort.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>That may well change. Dr.
Stephen Genuis reports in <I>Family Foundations</I> that “in 2005, there were
more than 10 million cosmetic procedures undertaken in the United States,
representing a 38 [percent] increase compared with 2000.” As of 2002, almost 24
percent of all married women in the United States had been made surgically
infertile (the vast majority through elective tubal ligation), while about 15
percent of their male partners had had vasectomies (“Contraceptive
Sterilization,” <I>EnGenderHealth</I>). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Other elective medical
procedures on the immediate horizon involve the use of stem cells. The theory,
according to the <I>Centre Daily Times</I>, is that “injecting stem cells into
healthy muscles might increase [muscles’] size and even restore them to their
youthful capacity. ‘You could potentially find a 40-year-old man with
20-year-old legs,’ [Paul] Griffiths [of CryoGenesis International] said.” The
article focuses mostly on applications in the world of sporting, which is
regularly rocked by steroid scandals. But bioethicist John Harris contends that
“enhancement in sports is only problematic because there are rules against it.”
(The article, while implying that adult stem cells were being discussed instead
of embryonic, did not specify.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Another way to keep in
shape without exercising is through regular injections of such compounds as
insulin-like growth factor (IGF), artificial hemoglobin, and EPO, “a natural
compound whose function is stimulating the bone marrow to produce more red blood
cells,” according to Plotz. Striking at the philosophical underpinnings of such
practices, Eppinette asks, “What is the ultimate goal one is striving for? Is it
to be healthy? Is it to live a very long life? Is it to maximize the
competitiveness of one’s offspring? Is this the ultimate attainment? For people
of faith, none of these seem to me to be ultimate.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>This observation lies at
the center of the argument surrounding surgical alterations: How would elective
surgery bring us closer to God? Restorative surgery such as LASIK is remarkable,
and the successes of plastic surgery have brought relief to many survivors of
disfiguring accidents. However, some elective surgeries, such as sterilization,
are plainly immoral, while plastic surgery techniques such as breast
enhancement, while perhaps not “grave matter,” seem to serve vanity and promote
the valuing of women for their bodies instead of their full personhood. It is
vital that the moral implications of future elective surgical techniques are
examined now, before they come upon us.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Genetics and
Eugenics</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>When it comes to
beginning-of-life questions, Church teaching is clear. Still, the current state
of affairs is bleak: England now permits “preimplantation genetic diagnosis,” a
technique where IVF-created embryos are diagnosed not only for birth defects,
but for the potential of adult-onset diseases, even treatable ones. Prenatal
testing has become common in Western nations, with the tacit assumption that a
poor test result will prompt an abortion. Researchers estimate that 90 percent
of all prenatal diagnoses of Down Syndrome result in abortion. On the flip side,
those with sufficient wealth can “shop” for sperm, eggs, and even embryos based
on specific characteristics of the donors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=140311400-09052007>D</SPAN>ebate
over some of these developments has already begun. For example, at a recent
dinner in Washington, D.C., bioethicist Adrienne Ashe said that when people try
to artificially create children with specific genetic traits, they are “letting
one trait stand in for a whole person,” which depersonalizes the child. “The
whole child-to-be is not imagined, just one or two characteristics,” she adds.
Eppinette further contends that “‘designer babies’ are quite a change from how
children have been traditionally viewed, namely as gifts to be received and
nurtured.”</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Furthermore, genetic
engineering and artificial chromosomes open the door to “not just designer
babies but designer baby boomers, something I am personally more interested in,”
says Kurzweil. One question, of course, is what should happen to those who do
not get “treated.” Princeton professor and futurist Lee Silver opines, “The
economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry [will
be] controlled by members of the GenRich class. . . . Naturals [will] work as
low-paid service providers or as laborers.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Cameron sees genetic
manipulation as leading to a “new feudalism,” wherein a “very small number of
people, basically a global elite,” will take advantage of a “law of
compounding,” using their genetic advantages to create a society with “far
greater disparities” in wealth and power than currently exist. Once a certain
proportion of the population has had fundamental genetic or mechanical
enhancements, these societal changes will become, he says, “absolutely
inevitable.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Some foresee an Earth in
which natural reproduction is viewed as irresponsible, with IVF being the
responsible choice for both society (since you’re selecting only the best genes)
and your children (since you’re choosing what is best for them). Others, such as
author John Glad, view eugenics as “an integral component of an environmentalist
policy” (<I>Future Human Evolution</I>, 2006). He continues, “Abortion should be
actively promoted, since it often serves as the last and even only resort for
many low-IQ mothers.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Vatican has been emphatic in its stance against
nearly all eugenic plans and techniques. Even as far back as 1987, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Instruction on Respect for Human
Life” stated, “Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance
are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according
to sex or other predetermined qualities. These manipulations are contrary to the
personal dignity of the human being and his or her integrity and identity.”
<I>Communion and Stewardship</I> repeats the stance: “Changing the genetic
identity of man through the production of an infrahuman [i.e., inferior] being
is radically immoral. The use of genetic modification to yield a superhuman or
be<SPAN class=140311400-09052007>i</SPAN>ng with essentially new spiritual
faculties is unthinkable.” More recently, this teaching was rearticulated by
Castrillón Cardinal Hoyos late in 2006, when he said, “Genetic manipulation,
when it is not therapeutic, that is, when it does not tend to the treatment of
pathology of the genetic patrimony, must be radically condemned. . . . It
pursues modifications in an arbitrary way, inducing to the formation of human
individuals with different genetic patrimonies established according to one’s
discretion. Eugenics, the creation of a superior human race, is an aberrant
application.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Still, there are some gray
areas—for instance, in the definitions of “therapeutic,” “reparative,” and
“augmentative” gene therapy. Kurzweil, when asked if there was a difference
between genetic therapy for a person with Down Syndrome and for a person who
wanted an IQ of 135 instead of 100, responded, “In my opinion, no. We are the
species that goes beyond our limitations.” One could take a similar approach
along theological lines, but with a view toward licitly undoing the effects of
the Fall through technology.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Eppinette zeroes in on this exact
distinction: “We are in need of serious ethical, philosophical, and theological
contemplation of where we draw the line between therapy and enhancement. The
work of the late John Paul II on embodiment is both a foundation to build on as
well as an example of the kind of reflection needed on just this
point.”</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>They Think We’re the
Enemy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>So far, except for the
issue of genetics and eugenics, surprisingly many of the advancements in modern
medicine and technology are compatible with Catholicism. Unfortunately, many of
their more radical proponents don’t feel the same way. In fact, several notable
and opinion-leading transhumanists are strongly anti-Christian.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>For example, prominent
transhumanist William Sims Bainbridge, the author of more than 15 books and
numerous magazine and journal articles, opens an article with the following
abstract: “Cognitive science immediately threatens religious faith in two ways,
by explaining away religion as an error resulting from accidents in the
evolutionary history of the human nervous system, and by failing to find
evidence that humans possess souls. Over the coming decades, information
technology may undercut people’s need for religion by offering practical forms
of <I>cyberimmortality </I>(CI). The plausibility of religion may also be eroded
by the coming unification of science and the associated convergence of [new]
technologies.” </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Even more troubling is
language on the Web site for the Future Technologies Advisory Group
(www.futuretag.net), a transhumanist organization specializing in consulting and
media: “While one of the objectives of the firm will be facilitating the
penetration of transhumanist ideas in mainstream business and policy, we will
not use the T word or insist on the transhumanist worldview too explicitly.
Rather, we will focus on delivering practical advice appropriate to the intended
audience.” The willingness expressed here to dissemble their true intentions is
disconcerting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>And yet there must be open
and honest dialogue on these issues. “We are moving way beyond these old
challenges to human life,” argues Cameron, who says we need to change our focus
of attention. We need to “ask the right questions” and work toward finding
ethical answers—answers consistent with the Catholic moral
tradition—<I>before</I> the future arrives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Lines of communication
need to be opened between Christian bioethicists and transhumanists. Cameron,
for example, calls Kurzweil “a man of genius” and “no mere academic theorist,”
while Kurzweil makes the surprising statement that through human-driven
evolution, people can “grow exponentially in intelligence, knowledge,
creativity, beauty, and love, all of the qualities people ascribe to God without
limit,” implying that “we can view evolution as a spiritual process, moving ever
closer to this ideal.” Men of this intellectual stature need forums in which
they can communicate with each other. (To be fair, Cameron is already in contact
with WTA president Nick Bostrom and others, but he’s one of the only pro-life
leaders doing so.) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Bloch writes that when
transhumanist goals have been achieved, “Many of humanity’s ills will be
eliminated. I find that sufficient comfort in the continuing march from lives
which are nasty, brutal, and short to those which are not quite as nasty, not as
brutal, and hopefully longer.” Statements like this illustrate that many in this
movement simply want a better future—an excellent starting point for
dialogue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=140311400-09052007>C</SPAN>atholic journalists need to be aware of the
underlying agendas in some of these scientific movements (www.bioethics.com,
co-edited by Eppinette, is an excellent source for keeping up-to-date). Pro-life
politicians and lobbying groups need to stay attuned to scientific progress to
know which technologies to support, which to oppose, and which to treat with a
<I>laissez-faire</I> attitude of benign neglect. (A good starting point is the
2003 government report “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of
Happiness,” available at bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/.) And bioethicists
need to start asking the right questions.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Eppinette advises us that,
“for people of faith, and Christians in particular, we know that technology is
not to be our God, and technology is most definitely not our Savior. Each of us
has to examine the role of technology in our own lives, and how it squares with
what we consider to be most important in life. This does not mean that we become
luddites, rejecting new forms of technology. What it means is that we carefully
consider how technology fits into our lives, whether it helps or hinders the
goals we’ve set for ourselves”—which, he adds, may involve taking a closer look
at those very goals.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>New technologies always
bring new ethical dilemmas. We can’t afford to be unaware of the challenges
facing us today. The future is almost here.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>