With dark coming so early these days, I was forced to stop the outdoor work and sit in front of the tube waiting for the Packer's game at 7:00, half an hour before the (eventually disastrous) game, and fell into 60 Minutes - which surprised me by being unusually good. It started with Ebola, naturally, but then led to genetic engineering, a science that is breaking wide open since the mapping of the human genetic code, with very little public fanfare. The doctors interviewed showed us how genetic diseases - from breast cancer to certain types of Alzheimer's - can be nipped in the bud by selecting the right sperm and egg for re-implantation in the womb. Thus, generations of people will no longer have to suffer from these maladies, a good thing.
The caveats, however, are enormous. One doctor plainly said, "In the future, all fertilization will (or should) occur in the lab; natural fertilization is just too risky." That, needless to say, does not sound very romantic, and yet most of us know people who have had children with genetic deformities. To alleviate the immense suffering involved might seem well worth it. However, the interviewer raised the obvious question: might this not lead to further genetic engineering? She led with the (to-her) horrors of children being bred to have - gasp! - blue eyes! For those of a certain ideology, such cosmetic differences seem to mean a lot, which I believe do not. This is not Nazi Germany. Children's hair and skin and eye color, in fact, would follow certain fads that would come and go, as all fads do. Far more troublesome, as all science fiction readers know, would be secret government intervention to create, say, a docile race with strong backs and simple, willing minds, or super-soldiers with great ability to kill and little ethical attributes to stop them. This,however, might also not be the problem some believe, for humans have created men and armies with great ability and little pity for eons though cultural means.
The most important negative aspect of this as I see it, though, rests on exactly what makes us human. Certainly, we would select for health and strength. And just as certainly, we would select for intelligence, and there I believe lies the real problem. For one, the competition among some well-healed parents would be endless, as each battled the other for IQ supremacy. Most worrisome in this is what the cost of high IQ might be. For example, most contemporary models for IQ measure not only task-oriented levels, but those for social IQ, creativity, empathy and so on. Could the doctors balance math ability with social competence and compassion? More to the point, what are the current models missing? Would focus on certain aspects of being detract from other very important, even fundamental ones that are little understood?
Would, in the final analysis, the soul of humans be distorted? Would or could science ever encourage the somewhat bizarre personality of St John of the Cross, or even a major prophet? Wouldn't we only encourage deep personality traits valued for our particular culture at a particular time? Wouldn't it be possible, then, that we could engineer the "human" out of humans?
We do not know, and that is where the problem lies even with well-meaning people - we don't know how or what makes the fully human human. We also do not know how a balance of humanity works, where each set of traits might work with others to form an ecology of the human race. Would we select a world of Einsteins or Michael Jordans and dispense with the Thomas Mertons or Mother Theresas? And who would choose a mentally disturbed Van Goph if he could make a go-getter quarterback and math wiz? From the individual level to the collective, we do not understand ourselves fully, and in so doing would almost certainly mess up, big-time, just as the state of our natural world under the hand of humans shows. To play God we must be like gods ourselves. Perhaps the lab could whip up a version of what some scientist or some political committee considers to be god, but it would be incomplete and wrong, and nothing could be more nightmarish than a god-like being without the full attributes of God.
There the problem lies, and we will, no doubt, learn someday of the consequences. Certainly, some megalomaniac will dominate a country some day and seek to build a real super-race, not on blue eyes and blond hair, but on traits of domination. We will see what kind of humans and human society they will make, and it will probably be with huge relief when this race and nation fall.
I believe I have mentioned a certain "Star Trek: the Next Generation" episode where the "Q", a superhuman continuum, waxes poetic jealousy for the future of human kind. But why when they can literally change the laws of physics? How could they be jealous of us? It is fiction, I know, but it is a deep thought, and one that has long been answered by the contemplatives: the future of human kind is to share in god-stuff - not just the power, but the whole shebang, the whole reason for being. That, beyond all the genetic engineering, is the real story. That potential, which lies beyond monkey-like dexterity and mental acumen, is where our true story lies and we must be careful to not breed it out in the labs, ever. Take away the disease, even give your children blue or iridescent red eyes if you must, but we must use the greatest possible caution to stay away from those parts of the human that touch its essential self and its soul. FK
The caveats, however, are enormous. One doctor plainly said, "In the future, all fertilization will (or should) occur in the lab; natural fertilization is just too risky." That, needless to say, does not sound very romantic, and yet most of us know people who have had children with genetic deformities. To alleviate the immense suffering involved might seem well worth it. However, the interviewer raised the obvious question: might this not lead to further genetic engineering? She led with the (to-her) horrors of children being bred to have - gasp! - blue eyes! For those of a certain ideology, such cosmetic differences seem to mean a lot, which I believe do not. This is not Nazi Germany. Children's hair and skin and eye color, in fact, would follow certain fads that would come and go, as all fads do. Far more troublesome, as all science fiction readers know, would be secret government intervention to create, say, a docile race with strong backs and simple, willing minds, or super-soldiers with great ability to kill and little ethical attributes to stop them. This,however, might also not be the problem some believe, for humans have created men and armies with great ability and little pity for eons though cultural means.
The most important negative aspect of this as I see it, though, rests on exactly what makes us human. Certainly, we would select for health and strength. And just as certainly, we would select for intelligence, and there I believe lies the real problem. For one, the competition among some well-healed parents would be endless, as each battled the other for IQ supremacy. Most worrisome in this is what the cost of high IQ might be. For example, most contemporary models for IQ measure not only task-oriented levels, but those for social IQ, creativity, empathy and so on. Could the doctors balance math ability with social competence and compassion? More to the point, what are the current models missing? Would focus on certain aspects of being detract from other very important, even fundamental ones that are little understood?
Would, in the final analysis, the soul of humans be distorted? Would or could science ever encourage the somewhat bizarre personality of St John of the Cross, or even a major prophet? Wouldn't we only encourage deep personality traits valued for our particular culture at a particular time? Wouldn't it be possible, then, that we could engineer the "human" out of humans?
We do not know, and that is where the problem lies even with well-meaning people - we don't know how or what makes the fully human human. We also do not know how a balance of humanity works, where each set of traits might work with others to form an ecology of the human race. Would we select a world of Einsteins or Michael Jordans and dispense with the Thomas Mertons or Mother Theresas? And who would choose a mentally disturbed Van Goph if he could make a go-getter quarterback and math wiz? From the individual level to the collective, we do not understand ourselves fully, and in so doing would almost certainly mess up, big-time, just as the state of our natural world under the hand of humans shows. To play God we must be like gods ourselves. Perhaps the lab could whip up a version of what some scientist or some political committee considers to be god, but it would be incomplete and wrong, and nothing could be more nightmarish than a god-like being without the full attributes of God.
There the problem lies, and we will, no doubt, learn someday of the consequences. Certainly, some megalomaniac will dominate a country some day and seek to build a real super-race, not on blue eyes and blond hair, but on traits of domination. We will see what kind of humans and human society they will make, and it will probably be with huge relief when this race and nation fall.
I believe I have mentioned a certain "Star Trek: the Next Generation" episode where the "Q", a superhuman continuum, waxes poetic jealousy for the future of human kind. But why when they can literally change the laws of physics? How could they be jealous of us? It is fiction, I know, but it is a deep thought, and one that has long been answered by the contemplatives: the future of human kind is to share in god-stuff - not just the power, but the whole shebang, the whole reason for being. That, beyond all the genetic engineering, is the real story. That potential, which lies beyond monkey-like dexterity and mental acumen, is where our true story lies and we must be careful to not breed it out in the labs, ever. Take away the disease, even give your children blue or iridescent red eyes if you must, but we must use the greatest possible caution to stay away from those parts of the human that touch its essential self and its soul. FK
RSS Feed