The end of the human race?
By Rabbi Hillel Goldberg
THE END of the human race as we know it might be
upon us. I refer not to some very distant, natural evolution of the human
species — perhaps possible, perhaps not; in any event, unknowable to us.
Rather, I refer to three prospective human interventions in the nature of
humanity that, if let to proceed unfettered, will have far reaching
consequences, namely, an end of the human race as we know it.
These three interventions are a radical tethering of humans to
computers, a radical change in genetics, and a redefinition of gender. What
each of these interventions have in common is speed. It takes far less time to
effectuate radical change than at any time in history.
What these interventions have in common in a much narrower
sense — the sense in which they are presented here — is that each is more complex
than a column can allow for. But if we do not begin to face these issues,
history may overtake us in ways we do not expect. So, for the sake of
stimulating discussion, investigation and, possibly, action, here goes.
ROBOTIC, computerized humans. If you think that human
beings, with their ceaselessly moving thumbs, with trillions of electronic
messages sent or received daily, with the exponential jump in commerce and
research online, is revolutionary, consider this: Human beings not separated
from their computers, but unified with them. Unified — not metaphorically, not behaviorally, not visually, but
literally.
Imagine a day in which the computer is plugged into the
brain or attached to other parts of the body. Imagine a day in which
preprogrammed instructions drive not just a computerized robot, but the human
being attached to it.
Imagine a day in which human behavior cannot proceed absent
the input of a computerized robot directly into the biochemistry of the human
being.
A dissolving line between the human and the robotic is not science
fiction, but just around the corner.
Unfettered extension of the use of computerized robots from
measuring to intervening in bodily functions will, no doubt, be presented as a
boon to health. Perhaps it will indeed be a boon to the health of individual
organs or cellular or intracellular processes. But along with these health
advantages will loom a new shape to humanity — human beings no longer blessed
with the free choice to take medicines, or not to take them, or to undergo
procedures or surgeries, or not to; but human beings ruled by decisions that
will be made by a computer, based on initial instructions programmed into it.
Look forward to intimations of this radical change in
humanity as the range and sophistication of robots gain speed. The
time to begin thinking about the ethics of the combination of robotic
instruments and human beings is now.
GENETICS. David Baltimore and Paula Berg, both Nobel
laureates, inform us in the Wall Street Journal (April 8) that the old-line racist nonsense
of eugenics is now a technological possibility.
Hitler and Mengele thought they could breed a superior race.
They did not know how; they only knew how to torture and murder. Today,
however, it is now possible to alter not just somatic cells, the effects of
which are not transmitted to the next generation, but germ-line cells. Changes
to these cells unalterably affect all future generations.
In what surely earns an award for understatement, Baltimore
and Berg write: " . . . the decisions to alter a germ-line cell may be
valuable to offspring, but as norms change and the altered inheritance is
carried into new genetic combinations, uncertain and possibly undesirable
consequences may ensue." Indeed.
But still more. " . . . germ-line modification would
involve attempts to modify inheritance for the purpose of enhancing an
offspring's physical characteristics or intellectual capability. . . . choosing
to transmit voluntary changes to future generations involves a value judgment
on the part of parents, a judgment that future generations might view
differently." Indeed.
The authors ask for
voluntary genome alteration to be outlawed at the present state of knowledge
due to the unexpected consequences of a given gene alteration, which, if I understand
this arcane expertise, is irreversible.
The counterargument is that germ-line alteration could
prevent the transmission of a disease to offspring. However, the authors argue,
there are different ways to achieve the same result without the risks entailed by germ-line
genetic alteration.
The authors related that at a critical conference on
genetics back in 1975, germ-line alteration seemed so far into the future that
it was not seriously discussed. Now, human beings must choose whether to
allow technology to march on unfettered by human values.
GENDER. Genesis 1:26 states, "And G0D created
Man in His image, in the image of G0D He created him; male and female He
created them."
Accept or reject the biblical account as you like, but it has hardly
been surprising for millennia that human beings come in two distinct genders.
Later, in the second chapter of Genesis, it says that G0D
formed man from the dust of the earth (2:7), that it was not good for the man
to be alone (2:18), that G0D built woman from a rib of man (2:21-22), that G0D
then said, "let a man leave his father and his mother and cling to his
wife and they shall become one flesh" (2:24). Again, take the biblical story as
you like, but starting here and continuing down through the religious and
secular literature of humanity, the presupposition has always been two ineradicably
distinct genders.
Perhaps no more. If a person can legally and socially define
his or her gender by how he or she feels, then gender becomes a meaningless
marker: feeling, not biology. This alters humanity as we have known it.
Some think this is wonderful — an expansion of human rights.
Others observe that in both its legal and narrative segments, and not just in a
verse here or there, the Hebrew Bible posits the reality and value of two
distinct genders. Is Genesis, in specifying these two genders, and thus in saying that
the human being is created "in the image of G0D," still relevant?
The prospect of a
genderless, or a gender-fluid, humanity is not overwrought. A quarter of a
century, short as it might be in the span of human history, has proven to be
more than an adequate time span for a major evolution of human attitudes toward
sexual orientation. Gender could be next. Genetics could be next. Robotic,
computerized human beings could be next.
I DO NOT think it is too late for society to ask
whether this is the future it wants. One thing is clear. This is a future that,
if won, will be won in small, seemingly harmless steps. If this is the future
you want, welcome these steps. Advance them. If this is not the future you
want, do not be fooled, for example, that a school kid winning the
right to use the bathroom of the sex that is opposite to his biological gender
is an oddity. Not responded to, small steps like these will determine the social,
genetic and medical future of humanity.
People speak of the great changes in civilization coming due
to alterations in racial composition, or indistinct national borders, or
nuclear proliferation. Large as these changes loom, they are not
the major issues on the horizon of humanity.
Race to me is a purely neutral category; the
racial composition of society is of no concern to me, one way or the
other. Nationalism to me is still an important determinant of freedom,
but admittedly not an inherent value; while nuclear proliferation is a critical
risk to the human condition. But even if nationalism and nuclear proliferation
go in the wrong direction — even then, short of the actual use of a
nuclear weapon, these changes would be nothing compared to the possibilities of
human variation due to radical new approaches to robotics, genetics and gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment