Reason.com
New at Reason
Nick Gillespie moderates a debate on biotechnology and human enhancement, with Ronald Bailey, New Atlantis editor Eric Cohen, and author and Washington Post reporter Joel Garreau.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|1.9.06 @ 1:04AM|#
Isn't the debate something like "we don't know what individual tampering with biotechnology will do, it could be bad it could be good and all evidence shows that every other technological advance and has improved our lives but this time could be different so we should regulate it into the ground."
I heard this one recently here:
http://www.env-econ.net/
(In the comments not in an article.)
I have rarely seen the same person who insists for more study on climate change before the tiniest action be taken call for more study on GMOs before 1 more acre is sown. In these instances, economics trumps every time, and ecosystems are off suit.
As if a biased unexaminied shallow similarity is the only answer.
Like gee I don't know perhaps, choosing the rights of an individual to grow sell and buy GMO without the states approval and perhaps being against broad government expansion of regulations and powers on a shakey consensious of "experts", could originate from the same reasoning.
You know how some people here hate IDers and get all quilled up about them...you know who you are (and you should stop hating chistians)...well I feel that way about the anti-biotechnology crowd.
IDIOTS
|1.9.06 @ 1:54AM|#
joshua-
I agree. I don't see why biotech is so feared.
|1.9.06 @ 3:15AM|#
What if biotech CEOs can read our genes? What if they can read our MINDS? What if they decide to, like, clone Hitler? I'm just asking hard questions. We need to ask these hard quesions. As a society.
|1.9.06 @ 6:14AM|#
Now, if the biotech CEOs cloned Hitler, and he went into politics, and he started behaving like - well, like Hitler - would it be a violation of Godwin's Law to assert that he's behaving like Hitler? I say we ban reproductive cloning until a consensus answer emerges to this question!
Sandy|1.9.06 @ 7:52AM|#
My favorite thing about this article in the print edition was the wheel on the modified human labeled "ZOOM!"
It made me giggle several times.
|1.9.06 @ 8:31AM|#
I agree. I don't see why biotech is so feared.
Because people use sci-fi movies to inform their thinking on biotech the same way they use 24 to inform their thinking on terror and torture.
|1.9.06 @ 9:16AM|#
Genetic and computer enhancements have done me a world of good. Check out this laser light that shoots out of my head. The babes dig it, let me tell you.
|1.9.06 @ 9:46AM|#
I have to wonder if Bailey's book is worth reading if these arguments are representative of the quality of his thinking on these matters:
"In any case, with regard to treasuring every embryo, nature certainly doesn?t do that; 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos, as far as we know, are not implanted and never become people or babies or anything else."
Nature does not treasure every human life either. Nature has marked every human being there ever was for death, and undoubtably will continue to do so. That does not mean living humans at any age can or should be used as mere objects by their fellow humans.
"I want to remind everybody in the audience that you did not give consent to be born. In fact, you did not give consent to be born with any of the genes that you have. So any embryos that parents decide to modify stand in exactly the same relation that all previous embryos have stood in."
In line with this train of thought, you also did not give consent to what color your skin was. Does that mean that parents should tattoo their chldren as they see fit? Parents are supposed to be their children's caretakers and guardians, not their owners. Correcting congenital illnesses or defects is one thing, "improving" an otherwise healthy child is another. As cosmetic surgery to corect a cleft palate is a good, cheek implants to create another little JonBonet is another. Children should not be subject's of experimentation on their parent's whims.
"I think you can presume consent for most of the things that parents are going to do for their children because they?re not going to try to make them worse. They?re going to try to make them better."
Probably, but not in all cases. Also, Bailey presumes things about biotech that I am rather sceptical about. One is that there would be a treatment that would guarantee 40 IQ points (or any similar trait), without any undesirable side effects. If such a thing existed, Bailey's arguments would be applicable. I think it more likely that such treatments will be of questionable value and a good likelihood of harm. "Make them better" is not a good argument in such a case.
All in all, I'm not sure that Bailey's been lazy in his reasoning, or just overly flippant. It's clear that he does not take the any opposing viewpoints very seriously or he would have come up with better responses, unless he cannot.
Jeff P.|1.9.06 @ 10:01AM|#
Transportation-conservatives were against the steam engine, claiming that velocities of 40 MPH would rip the human body apart.
Warren|1.9.06 @ 10:17AM|#
MJ,
I think he's being flippant for the sake of expediency. He isn't saying that there are no undesirable consequences.
The hypothetical perils of future technology are always overstated. The fear over biotech is not different than previous fears over organ transplant or in vitro fertilization. Indeed, the history of civilization can be seen as one long unfulfilled Luddite dystopia. Whatever actual perils come to pass, they will best be dealt with by the market, and only by regulation when necessary. It is inappropriate and fundamentally wrong headed, to pass regulation in response to phantom plagues.
|1.9.06 @ 10:18AM|#
Okay, THIS TIME I'm going to pursue my art career..
Ed|1.9.06 @ 10:27AM|#
Hiya Hitler!
MP|1.9.06 @ 10:56AM|#
As cosmetic surgery to corect a cleft palate is a good, cheek implants to create another little JonBonet is another. Children should not be subject's of experimentation on their parent's whims.
Why is that cosmetic surgery good?
Don't forget, Bailey was responding to the issue of Consent. Children don't consent to anything their parents do. They can't. So society collectively sets the standards for what parents can and can't do to their children. Contrary to your statement, there is no clear guideline to what is good and what isn't. "Good" is a moral decision, which thus means that the definition of "Good" should be kept out of the hands of the state as much as possible.
|1.9.06 @ 12:14PM|#
thoreau: I don't see why biotech is so feared.
Because, in this context at least, it goes to the heart of what it means to be human.
|1.9.06 @ 12:25PM|#
I've always thought that the question, "what does it mean to be human?" in this kind of context was oddly amusing, and often misses the point.
Humans have, for their entire history, always worked to modify their environment, their relationship to it, and so forth.
Our ability and desire to make these kinds of changes is exactly what differentiates us from all other life that we know, and it is distinctly that desire and ability that 'makes us human'.
Warren|1.9.06 @ 3:32PM|#
Because, in this context at least, it goes to the heart of what it means to be human
What an utter crock. Again, this is the same bugaboo we heard about organ transplants, in vitro, etc. Besides, if being dim-witted, clumsy, and disease ridden are "what it means to be human", then the quicker be evolve into superhumans, the better.
|1.9.06 @ 4:28PM|#
Let's talk about what it means to be human. Ever since I had my appendix removed I've felt somehow less human, less welcomed by the whole humans, shunned. I just wanted to be part of the group. I tried to fit in by wearing clothing to cover up my scar, but in my heart I know I'm not really a human anymore. I'm a monster. My secret shame is that I should have died long ago from appendicitis but I am too cowardly to take my own life now. To add insult to injury, I have been known to cut the hair from my head, shave the whiskers from my face, and clip the nails on my fingers and toes. I can only admit it to you now because of the anonymity of the internet. The shame is unbearable. Only when I am finally dead will be human again.
|1.9.06 @ 5:15PM|#
Has anyone read Kerzweil's Fantastic Voyage? Or Singularity? I'm wondering how much of it is nonsense.
|1.9.06 @ 6:07PM|#
Five generations at a family reunion? Been there, done that. Down South we don't need no fancy technologies, either.
|1.9.06 @ 9:54PM|#
I'm trying to listen to the audio, but it's horrible... I mean, sounds like yall're stuck in a well.
|1.9.06 @ 11:12PM|#
There are exactly *two* things that make us human:
Our brains and our hands. Everything else is essentially connective tissue. Our humanity can be fully distilled into the ability to think about how to change things to suit us, and our ability to manipulate things to suit us. That's it. Everything else is essentially secondary.
You might want to argue about our social structures, but they differ from chimpanzees and bees only in degree of introspection.
All the mental gymnastics we go through to justify our actions (or to put the patina of meaning on our manipulations) exist primarily for the purpose of furthering our manipulation of the world around us (and ourselves, where possible).
Whether you believe we were evolved or designed, it is fundamentally clear that we are adapted to alter things, manipulate and act upon them (including ourselves).
To argue that our efforts at improving the vessel that contains our brain somehow diminishes our humanity is simply stupid. The act of manipulating our environment (and the ability to do so) is the quintessential characteristic of what it means to be human. Absent those abilities, we have no advantage over any other life on this planet. Even if we can modify the brain in such a way that it is more capable or more intelligent, we do not alter, in the least, the fundamental humanness of ourselves. Our humanity is not defined, or given weight by, our mortality or our physical construction. It is defined by our ability to do what we do.
The only acts that can legitimately be considered to be immoral are those acts that directly and demonstrably cause harm to another human. Apart from that, improvement of self (through any means) is emminently moral, and definitively human.
|1.10.06 @ 2:15AM|#
Regardless of the large, philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of humanity, the types of technologies which may be soon forthcoming raise some very practical issues as well. I worked for a prominent biotech journal for a few years and as such was privy to more bioethicist drivel than most, yet I'm still impressed with the need to keep certain questions in mind about the possible ramifications of biotech.
Questions of population dynamics alone should be enough to make one think very hard about indefinitely expanding the human life span. Human cloning seems to be a sticky area for even some of the most ardent supporters of biotech, and it's no wonder when you consider even simple questions about legal status and guardianship. When it comes to determining genetic traits of unborn children, is it possible that we could be disadvantaging them?
Of course, it's impossible to fully answer these types of questions beforehand, let alone questions about what it "means to be human". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep them well in mind even as we proceed with research. Now, I'm all for moving forward, including real experimentation on human cloning. But the attitude that there are no reasonable objections or valid concerns seems as myopic as the desire to halt any research that might possibly have negative consequences.
It's a shame that the only people who voice any concerns, or at least the only ones heard, are so often off-base and fearful that they cast a pallor on an otherwise respected activity: thinking about the consequences of our actions. Now, can someone please let me know when I can get a second set of organs so I can finally take it to those damn Klingons. Plus, I have a feeling those lungs might come in handy.
Credit Where Credit Is Due|1.10.06 @ 10:12AM|#
Joe persuaded me that I have done enuf crit of R. Bailey in the past. But, have a compliment now: Ron Bailey is enjoyable to read when he engages serious ppl who disagree as he does in this good-natured debate format article. Good work.
|1.10.06 @ 11:53AM|#
foobie - that was excellent.