Should this view be considered a matter of ethics and good judgement? Or just a modern day version of scared (of the unknown future), feeble thought? Should we be allowed to use genetics, and any other science we can, to alter ourselves and our future generations as we see fit? Should there be laws against creating posthumans (as defined on the same site)?
This thread had a different topic (whether or not the posthuman’s existence would disprove the bible) and turned into a debate mostly about the definitions of the word evolution. But there is some stuff in there about possible attributes of a Posthuman which is relevent to this thread.
No responses yet? Guess it’s not a popular subject. I guess I’ll just post the definitive answer to the OP and (barring responses) look elsewhere to discuss this topic.
Biological fundamentalism is simple fear. We should not only allow, but encourage positive and beneficial changes at the genetic level to ourselves and our children. The shape and form of the human body at all levels is not without it’s flaws. This is proven by the existence of death and disease. Any further laws which add to the time it takes to conquer these aspects of life are negative and should not be adopted.
That is not to say that human experimentation is to be taken lightly. We don’t want an “Alien Resurection” type of scenario with a bunch of failed genetic experiments in vats in labs. The tech should be perfected before it is applied to humans, but it definately should be pursued. Obviously, care must be taken, as this technology can be used as a weapon as well. Let’s hope the future is a bright one free from disease and death.
In answer to your question, all risks are relative. If I’m completely unafraid of cars, I’m a bit dumb – cars kill people. If I’m petrified of cars, I’m a bit dumb, there are advantages to cars.
Your site has the most BLATANTLY one-sided definition I’ve heard for 50 years.
“A new conservatism that resists asexual reproduction, genetic engineering, altering the human anatomy, overcoming death. A resistance to the evolution from the human to the posthuman.”
Frankly, I’m officially a Biological Fundamentalist, even though I’m one of the most liberal people known. I think that there are dangers, and there are ethical issues, and there are things that the press doesn’t tell us ( such as the telemerase issue ). So, no, I don’t believe that “any further laws are negative”.
So, frankly, it isn’t that there is a new group that’s out to get you, it’s just that there are dangers, and the common person recognises that.
Oh, and BTW, death proves only the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Learn to deal with it ( see the “immortality” threads)
Without a doubt, I find the topic extremely interesting. That we may be able to alter are physical traits and attributes, expand our lifetimes, create new life, colonize the universe, give future children a better chance than anyone so far has ever had at actually figuring out how we all got here. Unfortunately, I have not found too many people who are able to discuss these possibilities intelligently. Thanks for responding.
Could you offer a multiple-sided definition?
What has the press not told us about the amazing things being learned concerning telemerase?
There are definately dangers. This is not to be taken lightly. It concerns the future of life. That is important to us all. However, as far as I am concerned, the possible good outweighs the possible bad. To make laws that would halt this research (as many want) would be a travesty.
I’ll admit, I am not all that familiar with this “law”. So I looked it up. I found this. Feel free to hook me up with a better link if you have one. I cannot, after having read this, understand how it ensures death. The only way I can see that you could be positive that immortality is impossible, is to know the true nature of the Universe. You must be able to say whether or not there are other universes. And if there are can we escape into them as our universe dies? Is there a way to keep our universe from growing cold and dead? As far as I know these are questions science has yet to answer (not for lack of trying).
Even if true immortality is impoosible I’ll settle for a couple billion years. Hell, even 50,000 years. It would still be a vast improvement to what nature has done on it’s own.
tracer:
These issues are going from science fiction to science fact in a rather quick fashion. They have increased the life spans of fruit flies and mice in labs. The Genome is being broken down and so is the Proteome. We are coming up on some serious tech very soon.
If you tinker with everyone’s genes, how would they become “transhumans” rather than just “humans”? I guess you could play with the genes of a certain population until they couldn’t breed with “normal” humans, but what would be the point?
Besides, if we did engage in all this genetic tampering, what’s to say that the new genetically altered people wouldn’t become dictators, then defeated and sent off to space in sleeper ships only to be awakened 200 years later and dumped on a planet after they unsuccessfully tried to take over the ship that rescued them and then be forced to amuse themselves by putting mind controlling slugs in people’s brains? I tell you, people don’t think these things through…
Well, a Transhuman is an unaltered person hoping these things someday occur. Posthuman is the proper term for a person the changes have already happened too.
Funny. But it does bring up a good point. We evolved past the capabilities of other primates, and we don’t treat monkees all that good these days. Is it wrong the way we put monkees in cages and use them for experiments? No IMO. Because it helps us get rid of disease. How can we advance without looking down on/abusing the ones who don’t advance with us? Hopefully, the Posthumans will be motivated by kindness and enlightenment once some of the pressures of living are removed. We could give 2 shits about a monkey if it means the possibility of saving the life of one of our own. Let’s hope whatever evolves next doesn’t feel the same way towards those who have not.
Ok, so then change “transhumans” to “posthumans”…my question is, why do you want to make part of the human population unable to breed with the rest of it?
First of all, the definition said “that resists … overcoming death”. This almost by definition makes it a straw man – how many people do you know who don’t resist overcoming death? How many people really go arms open saying “okay, I want to die?”
But, worse than that, the definition is so broad that I don’t know what people you are talking about, unless you are talking about “everyone who doesn’t agree with me”.
So, maybe a better definition would be:
“Human as fillable” biological fundamentalism:
A group of people whose beliefs say that Humans are fallible, and as such believe that genetic engineering is not acceptable for humans to experiment with.
That would likely cover a fair number of people – from some religious fundamentalists to some gaean tree huggers who believe that Nature got it right the first time.
That satisfies two big problems with the first definition, it isn’t a straw man, and it doesn’t presuppose things that they don’t believe.
Now, I’m not saying that all drugs are bad – clearly this isn’t the case. However, we set up the FDA specifically because we did not want companies trading on the fantasies of others to make money by hurting people. We need regulation to ensure consistancy, accuracy, and validity of our medication. And, frankly medication is THOUSANDS of times more approachable than gene therapy.
I’m not trying to splash water on your parade – feel free to evolve – but for goodness sakes, we NEED some laws.
Which, BTW, is one of the worries of those who oppose genetic engineering, cloning, etc. – though that is not so much from biological fundamentalism as it is out of either religious or philosophical belief in the essential sinfulness/corruptibility of Man (or of Intelligent Life in general) (BTW I don’t know if that question was ever answered in your other thread, but the religious faction would NOT recognize the posthuman as anything but still subject to judgenment of sin – “original sin” affects Man AND his descendancy.)
The transhumanists do not do themselves any favor by applying the term “fundamentalism” in such a broad straw-man sense. I could see it applied to those who would object altogether to any manipulation of the human even for the sake of eradication of disease, acceleration of healing or enhancement of longevity; but the definition posed just tars with the same brush everyone who doesn’t see the need to create OverMan.
But many do not object to genetic research or cloning (indeed feel the fear-of-cloning is just so much hysterics), nor to the application of the fruits of that research to improve our physical and mental condition and even to give us capabilities beyond natural selection provided; and also accept that the time of H. sapiens may one day pass; but at the same time believe there is a serious ethical question in a deliberate effort to DIRECT evolution towards the creation of OverMan – one we’d rather be cautious about since the “direction” would likely be defined by those holding political or financial power over the researchers. (plus, there is the strictly biological argument that deliberately-designed OverMen would suffer from less-diverse trait distribution, with the consequent extra vulnerability to any unforeseen biological/environmental catastrophe) If the environment, includign technological adaptations, favors the evolution of OverMan, maybe it will, and if so, we should not impede it. But maybe it won’t, and if so, so what? We’ll just keep on going using technology to enhance good ol’ H. sapiens. No harm, no foul.
That said, though, I must thank you for providing a reference to a more complete glossary of the terminology of your side of the discussions.
This kind of misses the point of it. The goal is not to make part of the population unable to breed with the rest. If this is a side effect, however, then so be it. The goal is to not die, to vastly increase intelligence, to vastly increase mobility, and to vastly increase the amount of options (perception-wise) available for experiencing.
MeCorva:
I think once you look death in the face, very few people welcome it. But that isn’t the point. The “resists overcoming death” part refers to people who may have the attitude that increasing humans lifespans by a few thousand years would be a bad thing due to population issues and/or religious issues.
One of the main concerns of the active Transhuman is to try and prevent legislation that would outlaw this type of treatment should it be developed. Believe me, there are people who would stop this if they could. These are the people to which the definition refers. Not only should it not be outlawed, there should be laws made that guarantee the treatments to any who choose to recieve it. This aint gonna be easy.
I agree. We do need some laws. But the laws, as much as is possible, should be designed to encourage the research and development, not hinder it. Ethics do need to come into play, however, as I personally don’t want humans to suffer in the process. Obviously we could advance much quicker if we experimented on humans right off the bat, but this would be unacceptable due to all the genetic freaks we could end up with trying to accomplish the improvements. Like I said before, no “Alien:Resurection” type scenarios should be allowed. The tech should be perfected first.
Unfortunately, my guess is black op government weapons labs have probably done some pretty unethical experiments and research to stay on top of the biological weapons game. This is pure conjecture on my part based on the governments desire to have the biggest, baddest, weapon first.
JRDelirious:
There is a difference between not seeing the need, and actively trying to make it illegal. The Transhuman term is in reference to any who would stand in the way of those of us who DO wish to participate in these opportunities as they arise. People who are just uninterested do not qualify as Biological Fundamentalists in the Transhuman sense of the term. You must actively resist my desire to partake in the technology to qualify.
Exactly. There should be no opposition to the creation of superior beings from what is now called homosapiens.
Then it’s that long dark night for all of us.
Glad to. I am not just making up these terms/ideas, as you can see. They are commonly used by a large group of (often very intelligent) people who are trying to shape the future into something better for humans. Alot of people have spent alot of time, money, and effort to put intelligent thought into these issues which will soon face us. Along the way they’ve coined a few phrases to make communication on the subject easier. I don’t see any problem with this as long as they clearly define the words that they use.
I’m going to side with whomever favors genetic manipulation as a means to advance humans. I feel that the ability to manipulate our own genetic code is no small mistake in adaptability via natural selection.
Should we successfully impliment advanced DNA manipulation, we are talking about being able (probably) to adapt to incredible changes of environment within one generation (as I am unaware of how changing DNA would affect a person already alive). Such a tool would be invaluable to the survival of the species, as such we should proceed at almost any means necessary-------
Using animals and plants first, for caution’s sake. But I agree with the “fundamentalist” moniker, FWIW. Don’t want to use this technology to our advantage because humans are fallible? Both you and the dodo can reminisce about those days, then, because I don’t see that humans have much of a choice if we are to continue to grow technologically.
As I’ve mentioned in the AI thread (terminator scenario) it is imperative for us to actively pursue development; if we don’t, we are simply left with inactive development (ie- regular old natural selection) which may have served us thus far but will eventually leave us being reactive instead of proactive. That is, natural selection is always at work; mutations happen by chance but passing a law isn’t going to change anything. If we wait around with this sort of technology, it will only be used in reaction to mutations that are unfavorable, leaving us very little in the way of progress.
Instead, I propose (seemingly with dj) we be very proactive towards this technology and get cracking. It isn’t about being better than other people. It isn’t about living forever (to me). It is about one simple fact that Fight Club states very elegantly: on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. I would like to extend this to include: on a long enough time line, the survival rate for all species drops to zero.
What sort of fates are we talking about here? Geological records show drastic climatic changes. They show impacts of appreciable size from space-borne objects which, in themselves, can cause climatic changes. The evolutionary fossil record details the fight to live based on one thing: playing the odds (being alive) and winning (surviving to procreate).
Normal evolution gives us pretty shitty odds; I am unaware of the chances involved for any arbitrary mutation resulting in a lethal effect. I am definitely not aware of the chances involved for what we would consider a beneficial effect. I am aware, however, that its house rules and we’re just players.
I say we set up our own fucking casino! No joke here even if the analogy is amusing. We need to set hard lines fast, and move on. The longer this shit sits in congressional gridlock the longer our species plays by rules we didn’t set when we damn well have the opportunity to change that. It seems like a huge mistake to dawdle on such an important issue. We pass a law banning certain types of research with an automatic death in it of 5 years or so. Every five years, the ban comes up for reevaluation. Oh, so we’ve learned to operate well on single celled organisms? Ok, move on to multicellular ones. Good there? Head over to simple plant life. Ok? Smartly carry on to animals. Food of the future? Great, lets head over to the first human tests.
You know, every time I hear people bandy about phrases such as “more highly evolved humans” a chill runs up my spine. First off, it brings to mind Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World, but let’s forget about the obvious moral conundrums and focus on the science of so-called “post humans”. I believe the implications are much scarier anyway.
Whether we like it or not, we are in a kind of balance with nature. If we start screwing with this, we will go extinct, plain and simple. By using genetic engineering to breed out certain diseases and select for “desirable” traits (intelligence, longevity, strength, etc.) we will create a much shallower gene pool. Asexual reproduction (cloning) and immortality will exacerbate this effect by reducing sexually derived birth rate.
Case in point: sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease that causes malformations in red blood cells causing them to lose much of their ability to transport Oxygen. People with this disease suffer quite a bit. The gene in question is usually classifed as recessive as it takes two copies for the malformations to be expressed. However, when the individual has only one copy, the person is resistant to malaria. Breed out sickle cell anemia and you breed out malarial resistance.
Our drive to develop the “post-human” will undoubtedly produce a population with considerably less genetic diversity. We will rely on certain interchangeable parts that have been proven “safe”. The gene pool will shrink. Some unforeseen natural event will more easily be able to take out the whole lot of us. I don’t want Homo sapiens sapiens to suffer the same fate as the Dutch Elm.
Aditionally, overspecialization will breed in weakness. It happens to all of our technologies. Ever wonder why the “highly evolved” cars of today are such a bitch to fix compared to their 60’s counterparts?
Yes, we should continue to do research, just stay the hell away from trying to create a master race or a super human. Abandoning sexual reproduction and mortality will be the death of the species, any bioloigist can tell you that. What we need to do to ensure our survival for millenia is spread. Colonize, colonize, colonize. It’s the only way to reduce the risks.
-Beeblebrox
“Magrathea’s been dead for five million years,” said Zaphod, “of course it’s safe. Even the ghosts will have settled down and raised families by now.”
I don’t think this is such a clear cut case as you make it out to be. One thing that is for certain, species that have not tried “screwing” with genetics HAVE gone extinct. It could go wrong, but I think the liklihood much higher that we will be much better off with the technology. Not worse off. I don’t see how the arrival of genetic manipulation ensures extinction.
I disagree. If we can control gentic info, we can make the gene pool as complex as we desire.
I don’t see how a child born in an artificial womb, genetically tailored, would make a shallower gene pool any more than a child made the old fashioned way. The new attributes will make a WIDER gene pool.
Again, I think it will have MORE genetic diversity. We can figure out which genes should be tweaked in a certain way for desired traits, and which ones should be left to chance to maintain diversity. I don’t understand why you think genetic engineering has to lead to less gentic diversity.
The Post-Human may have more complex genes than his/her ancestors and may also need a higher level of understanding to administer care to, but so what? Advanced technology is complex. Complexity is not neccesarily bad. Just means more classes.
Why does sex have to occur? If we can mix donor dna and eggs in the lab, and bring the resulting embryo to term in an artificial womb, what’s the difference? Why does this ensure the death of the species? How does eliminating death ensure the death of the species?
Correction: It is ONE way to reduce the risks. One that I hope we seriously invest in soon. I want a moon/mars vacation. But there are other ways to reduce the risk including creating more resilliant humans.
I disagree. The primary reason there is a balance is because of the simultaneous role natural selection plays. If ew start aiding natural selection, that isn’t going to make it disappear.
Yes, but it will be filled with stuff we want. apart from that, what makes you think we would decide upon what was “desirable” to such an extent that individuality would be lost?
Who cares? The point of life that we’re talking about here is survival. Isn’t it?
Ah, but you go to far. If having this trait is optimal, then we could ensure that we don’t have btoh of the recessive genes, only the one necessary to wipe out malaria.
In what way? Unless we shift to both genetic manipulation and cloning from clones from clones of clones of clones (ie, no new base DNA is used) genetic diversity will always be there. What we can eliminate is diseases that we know about. And even if we could create a human almost exactly as we want, what then?
Are you fearing Gataca?
Ugh, no more than it is already by natural selection killing of fetuses before maturity. Mutations can occur at several points in a life to my knowledge; seemingly most aren’t harmful or helpful. These will get passed along with all the rest until it is found to be beneficial or detrimental.
So I ask you: why would we want to keep detrimental things in our gene pool? For the novelty value?
So you would draw the line at any manipulation at all? Remember, we can also create diversity; as I understand it, we’ve been doing it for our entire history. This is why we see the depth and richness of different cultures, tastes, and opinions. Don’t worry about everyone thinking the same; I don’t think we will.
But even still, if the gene pool shrinks to such an extent we could have a major biodisaster. And yet within one generation we’d have a new type of human which was resistant to it. How many lives does that sort of technology save when we consider polio, aids, or severe flu?
Because they do more things better?
I’d like one to, actually.
I disagree here even more strongly. Without the ability to quickly change ourselves we will not be able to meet new tasks effectively, and one severe climactic change will sap all our resources and leave us for dead.
Then again, it also matters with how much our DNA actually does for people, and how far we can stretch it. Could we ever use some hybrid form of photosynthesis? Then greens and normals could live together very happily, in better balance than we do now.
I agree there are dangers out there; there are also dangers out there that can kill us just as surely as we’d kill ourselves. Between genetic technology and computer interfaces (for hearing, sight, general organ replacement) we can really create a species that will outlast its greatest expectations.
I guess in the end I’m not a “some things are better left alone” kinda guy. The greatest accomplishments we’ve had thus far are a result of tossing that kind of thinking. I see no indication that we should ever stop using it.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do possess a Bachelors in Molecular Biology and a couple of years as a tech, so I think I might be smarter than the average bear when it comes to gene manipulation and population mechanics.
The gene pool will grow shallower because the genes needed have to come from somewhere. When we start manipulating on a large scale, we won’t be cooking up completely new genes - we will be using old ones that we have selected for. In a couple of generations everyone will possess the new genes (whether they come from humans or algae) because the genes will be among a set of interchangeable parts previously tested for safety in vivo. What is deemed “useless” will be discarded. There will be some variation, but not as much as we have now.
I am not afraid of GATTACA as much as I am of a type of inbreeding. The human genome should not be standardized from a list of previously tested genes. Nature ensures diversity, and survival, through mortality and sexual reproduction (not to mention mutation). Trying to force order on this chaos is a BAD idea. We will become over engineered.
The best way for any population to ensure the survival of its diversity is to colonize new territory - not start sleeping with their siblings.
But the more I think about it, the less I am worried of this nightmarish scenario. You go right ahead and engineer your kids. I am sure that there are many, many people who view the genome as I do. When your superbabies succumb to the the next Swine Flu, our red-blooded mutts will inherit the Earth and all her interstellar colonies.
The cheetah is the fastest land animal on the planet and a marvelous piece of engineering beauty, but it has grown inbred and should fall extinct in the next couple of centuries.
There doesn’t seem to be much chance of that happening to the rat.
-Beeblebrox
“Pages one and two had been salvaged by a Damogran Frond Crested Eagle and had already become incorporated into an extraordinary new form of nest which the eagle had invented. It was constructed largely of papier mache and it was virtually impossible for a newly hatched baby eagle to break out of it. The Damogran Frond Crested Eagle had heard of the notion of survival of the species but wanted no truck with it.”