Openings for discussions about modern technology
Can people enthralled by science and technology be moved at least to discuss that perhaps we should not do everything we can, such as human cloning? What can we say to transhumanists who want absolute freedom to use technology to build the "betterhumans" they think would far surpass today's humanity?
One basis for dialogue about limits on science and technology is proposed by Kenneth Schmitz, a Toronto philosopher awarded an honorary Doctor of Sacred Letters degree by the University of St. Michael's College this fall. In a paper read at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, he points to important differences between the 1933 and 1973 versions of the Humanist Manifesto. Both texts scoff at belief in God as unproved and outmoded. However, the second manifesto admits that events after 1933 made the earlier statement "seem far too optimistic." Humanists admitted in 1973 that science has "sometimes brought evil as well as good," that "technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability," and that the future "is filled with dangers." Therefore, Schmitz says, careful reading of the two Manifestos reveals a certain distance between them. This opens up the possibility of dialogue, for "the optimistic and uncritical role assigned to science in the earlier document is significantly qualified in the latter version." And, it must be added, there is even more reason in 2004 than in 1973 for concern about evil results from modern technology.
The humanist admission that science can bring evil is related to the concerns of People Against Eugenics (PAE) - a small group of disabled persons and their allies. They recently won an important concession from The Royal Society (RS) in London. The RS legally distanced itself from a scientific conference taking place in its facilities. It did so after PAE protested that the 30 September-1 October conference on assisted human reproduction included such topics as "Preventing the Existence of People with Disabilities" and "Why We are Morally Obliged to Genetically Enhance Our Children." The conference went ahead without full RS blessing. The opening talk was given by a man who thinks that "soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease." Many of these speakers, PAE said in a media release, "clearly share the early 20th century eugenics movement's aim of preventing disabled people being born." For PAE, today's eugenics differs from the Holocaust by "favouring persuasion and what we would call market forces. The advocacy of 'reproductive liberty' is a key part of advancing the agenda of free-market eugenics." Gregor Wolbring, a thalidomider who is a research biochemist at the University of Calgary, is one Canadian who shares such concerns (see http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/). The reticence on the part of the Royal Society shows that the fears of disabled people can prompt some second thoughts about letting modern technology run totally free.
Another reason for not just plunging ahead with genetic technology is seen in a recent BBC news item (see, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3760766.stm. It reported that "human genome researchers have said we have about 10,000 or 20,000 fewer genes than they originally estimated" when the draft genome was published in 2000. This radical revision shows how much is still unknown about our genetic makeup. Thus, in any discussions about future technical ventures, our imperfect knowledge about our genes must be taken fully into account, along with the fears of disabled persons and the admission by humanists themselves that "technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability," because science has sometimes brought about evil.--B.M.D. 30/10/04