June 11,
2003
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Leon
Kass, chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics has written,
“It is our difficult task to find ways to preserve [society] from
the soft dehumanizations of well-meaning but hubristic biotechnical ‘recreationism’—and
to do it without undermining biomedical science or rejecting its genuine
contributions to human welfare.”
This crucial task will require informed and committed public participation
in which people become aware of both the potentials and perils of our
unfolding technological world, and be able to distinguish between the
two.
This is not a matter that we can approach at our leisure. Brave New World
is closing in upon us at mach speed. Consider the mind boggling technological
potentials that have gone, in just the last few years, from science fiction
to very real science potential. The most obvious of these is the prospect
of human cloning. But following just behind that biotechnology is a radical
concept that makes cloning seem about as novel as a transistor radio;
the drive toward a post human world known as “transhumanism.”
Transhumanism is a nascent and explicitly eugenic philosophy that advocates
seizing control of human evolution through bioengineering. Transhumanists
come from the highest levels of academe. For example, the founder of the
movement, Nick Bostrom, is a professor of philosophy at Yale University
who recently received a three-year fellowship at Oxford University.
Transhumanists are biotech-absolutists. They assert that humans should
not merely be allowed to metamorphose themselves through plastic surgery,
cyber-technology, and the like, but should have the right to control the
destiny of their genes via progeny design and fabrication. This could
include replacing natural chromosomes with artificial chromosomes, increasing
or decreasing the number of chromosomes in offspring or clones, and even
in Hughes words, “mixing species boundaries.”
What is behind such ideas? A misanthropic belief that humans should not
be considered special or unique. University of Alabama bioethicist Gregory
E. Pence, another enthusiastic proponent of genetic engineering explains
in his book, Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? “In some ultimate
sense, humans are both nothing more, and as wonderful as, compassionate
monkeys.” By “weakening the ethical boundary between non-human
and human animals,” he asserts, it will be easier to “do to
humans some of the things we think quite sane to do to animals,”
beginning with cloning and moving from there to genetic modification.
Transhumanists may intend to take us on a long march to post humanity.
But we do not have to acquiesce passively to their human-disdaining agenda.
We can, nay, must resist.
Unfortunately, transhumanists have arrived among us at a weak moment when
traditional sanctity-of-human-life cultural norms have been undermined
significantly. But the future won’t wait for us to regain our moral
equilibrium. Genetic science is advancing at an almost reckless pace.
If we are going to maintain the equal dignity of all human life in the
face of the biotechnological threat, society will have to act.
This brings us back to human cloning. Cloning is the one essential technology
that must succeed if transhumanists are to pursue their misguided quest.
Stop human cloning, and you have gone a long way toward preventing the
post human future.
Happily, the House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive
cloning ban. President Bush is eagerly waiting to sign it. That leaves
only the United States Senate, where the Brownback/Landrieu
Bill (S. 245) to outlaw human cloning is bogged down by a
threatened filibuster.
If you agree with me that transhumanist ideology needs to be thwarted
before it gains a foothold, I urge you to write or call
your United States Senators and urge them to support S-245.
Keeping the human future human may, quite literally, depend on it.
"But I like the inconveniences."
"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things
comfortably."
"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real
danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right
to be unhappy."
"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming
the right to be unhappy."
"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the
right to have syphillis and cancer; the right to have too little to
eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension
of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to
be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long
silence.
"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he
said.
--from Brave New World
Wesley
J. Smith's Bio
Smith
is an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia
and Assisted Suicide. His book Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted
Suicide to Legalized Murder (1997), a broad-based criticism of the assisted
suicide/euthanasia movement was published in 1997. His book Culture of Death:
The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, a warning about the dangers of
the modern bioethics movement, was named One of the Ten Outstanding Books
of the Year and Best Health Book of the Year for 2001 (Independent Publisher
Book Awards). Smith is an international lecturer and public speaker, appearing
frequently at political, university, medical, legal, disability rights,
bioethics, and community gatherings across the United States, Great Britain,
Canada, and Australia. |