- Email: [email protected]
Mankind after genetic manipulation
TECHNOLOGICAL
FORECASTING
AND SOCIAL CHANGE
36, 223-224
(1989)
Mankind After Genetic Manipulation JOSEPH P. MARTIN0
Frederick Rossini’s paper presents some scenarios for the twenty-first century that may be considered “far out.” However, the reader may find them not just far out but downright disquieting. This disquiet may lead to a call for “constraining technology” in order to prevent the scenarios from being realized. I intend to argue that the reader is justified in finding them disquieting. I also intend to argue, however, that “constraining technology” is not the proper response. Rossini refers to Huxley’s Brave New World as an earlier exploration of a genetically engineered society. However, his scenarios can be looked upon as cautionary tales belonging to a much older tradition, one at least as old as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: The New Prometheus. Today we tend to refer to Mary Shelley’s novel by its main title. However, the subtitle she gave it conveys a meaning that has unfortunately disappeared from our popular culture, leading us to misunderstand both Dr. Frankenstein and Prometheus. We are most familiar with Prometheus as the fire stealer, an act for which he was punished. However, in Greek mythology stealing fire was only one of Prometheus’s actions. He also made people of clay, an action more closely parallel to that of Dr. Frankenstein. Perhaps the biggest barrier to our understanding of the subtitle of Mary Shelley’s novel is that today we think of Prometheus as a hero. He benefited mankind by stealing fire from the gods. To the ancient Greeks, however, he was a criminal and his punishment was just. He incurred punishment by overreaching himself. This, too, is an strange idea to modem man. There are supposedly no limits to what mankind may legitimately do. Modem man rejects the very possibility of overreaching himself. Ultimately, however, this is what Mary Shelley’s novel was all about, as she clearly indicated by her subtitle, and this is what disquiets us about Rossini’s scenarios. Despite the extent to which “modem” ideas have shaped our thinking, we can’t completely rid ourselves of the idea that in doing some things we might be overreaching ourselves and might bring upon ourselves the same deserved ruin that befell Prometheus and Dr. Frankenstein. Rossini points to Huxley as having addressed the issue of a genetically engineered society; he might also have referred to C. S. Lewis’s The Abolition ofMan. When Lewis wrote it in 1947, genetic manipulation was only a remote possibility, not a nascent reality. Nevertheless, Lewis took the possibility seriously and examined its consequences. He JOSEPH P. MARTIN0 is Senior Research Engineer and Mathematician in the Structural Integrity Division at the University of Dayton Research Institute. Address reprint requests to Joseph P. Martino, 905 S. Main Street, Sidney, OH 45365. 0 1989 by Elsevier Science Publishing
Co., Inc.
0040-1625/89/$03.50
224
JOSEPH P. MARTIN0
concluded that the objects of that manipulation were not men but artifacts. Were they brave? Bravery was built into their genes or conditioned into their reflexes. Were they honorable? The same. Were they honest? Loving? Kind? Likewise. In short, they were stripped of every human virtue because they were programmed not to be otherwise. And in being so programmed, they lost all claim to humanity. Perhaps even more important than the consequences for the manipulated were, in Lewis’s view, the consequences for the manipulators. Why should they be brave? They know how bravery can be produced. Why should they be honorable? Honest? Loving? Kind? Likewise. They know how all these things can be produced, and therefore they have transcended them all. As Lewis put it, it is not that they are bad men, but that they are not men at all. The idea of bad no longer applies to them. It is they who define the words bad and good, by what they decide to program into their living artifacts. And in making that decision, having transcended all external standards, they can have no guide but their own whims. Ultimately, Rossini’s scenarios bring about what Lewis called the abolition ofman. We have every right to be disquieted by them. But what to do? Here again, we can use another of Lewis’s ideas. It is wrong to speak of “constraining technology.” “Technology” is an abstraction. We commit the fallacy of reification when we treat it as something outside of and independent of us. Constraining technology really means constraining technologists. It means, as Lewis put it, giving some men power over other men. Who shall be given power? What power shall be given ? What constraints will be placed on the use of that power, and how will they be enforced? These are the questions that are dodged by facile statements about “constraining technology.” Rather than try to ease our disquiet by talking of “constraining technology,” we ought to face the roots of that disquiet. The disquiet we feel comes from the recognition that there still is such a thing as overreaching ourselves. It is overreaching that we must avoid, not the technology itself. If Rossini’s cautionary tales help us to avoid that overreaching, they will have served us well.
FORECASTING
AND SOCIAL CHANGE
36, 223-224
(1989)
Mankind After Genetic Manipulation JOSEPH P. MARTIN0
Frederick Rossini’s paper presents some scenarios for the twenty-first century that may be considered “far out.” However, the reader may find them not just far out but downright disquieting. This disquiet may lead to a call for “constraining technology” in order to prevent the scenarios from being realized. I intend to argue that the reader is justified in finding them disquieting. I also intend to argue, however, that “constraining technology” is not the proper response. Rossini refers to Huxley’s Brave New World as an earlier exploration of a genetically engineered society. However, his scenarios can be looked upon as cautionary tales belonging to a much older tradition, one at least as old as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: The New Prometheus. Today we tend to refer to Mary Shelley’s novel by its main title. However, the subtitle she gave it conveys a meaning that has unfortunately disappeared from our popular culture, leading us to misunderstand both Dr. Frankenstein and Prometheus. We are most familiar with Prometheus as the fire stealer, an act for which he was punished. However, in Greek mythology stealing fire was only one of Prometheus’s actions. He also made people of clay, an action more closely parallel to that of Dr. Frankenstein. Perhaps the biggest barrier to our understanding of the subtitle of Mary Shelley’s novel is that today we think of Prometheus as a hero. He benefited mankind by stealing fire from the gods. To the ancient Greeks, however, he was a criminal and his punishment was just. He incurred punishment by overreaching himself. This, too, is an strange idea to modem man. There are supposedly no limits to what mankind may legitimately do. Modem man rejects the very possibility of overreaching himself. Ultimately, however, this is what Mary Shelley’s novel was all about, as she clearly indicated by her subtitle, and this is what disquiets us about Rossini’s scenarios. Despite the extent to which “modem” ideas have shaped our thinking, we can’t completely rid ourselves of the idea that in doing some things we might be overreaching ourselves and might bring upon ourselves the same deserved ruin that befell Prometheus and Dr. Frankenstein. Rossini points to Huxley as having addressed the issue of a genetically engineered society; he might also have referred to C. S. Lewis’s The Abolition ofMan. When Lewis wrote it in 1947, genetic manipulation was only a remote possibility, not a nascent reality. Nevertheless, Lewis took the possibility seriously and examined its consequences. He JOSEPH P. MARTIN0 is Senior Research Engineer and Mathematician in the Structural Integrity Division at the University of Dayton Research Institute. Address reprint requests to Joseph P. Martino, 905 S. Main Street, Sidney, OH 45365. 0 1989 by Elsevier Science Publishing
Co., Inc.
0040-1625/89/$03.50
224
JOSEPH P. MARTIN0
concluded that the objects of that manipulation were not men but artifacts. Were they brave? Bravery was built into their genes or conditioned into their reflexes. Were they honorable? The same. Were they honest? Loving? Kind? Likewise. In short, they were stripped of every human virtue because they were programmed not to be otherwise. And in being so programmed, they lost all claim to humanity. Perhaps even more important than the consequences for the manipulated were, in Lewis’s view, the consequences for the manipulators. Why should they be brave? They know how bravery can be produced. Why should they be honorable? Honest? Loving? Kind? Likewise. They know how all these things can be produced, and therefore they have transcended them all. As Lewis put it, it is not that they are bad men, but that they are not men at all. The idea of bad no longer applies to them. It is they who define the words bad and good, by what they decide to program into their living artifacts. And in making that decision, having transcended all external standards, they can have no guide but their own whims. Ultimately, Rossini’s scenarios bring about what Lewis called the abolition ofman. We have every right to be disquieted by them. But what to do? Here again, we can use another of Lewis’s ideas. It is wrong to speak of “constraining technology.” “Technology” is an abstraction. We commit the fallacy of reification when we treat it as something outside of and independent of us. Constraining technology really means constraining technologists. It means, as Lewis put it, giving some men power over other men. Who shall be given power? What power shall be given ? What constraints will be placed on the use of that power, and how will they be enforced? These are the questions that are dodged by facile statements about “constraining technology.” Rather than try to ease our disquiet by talking of “constraining technology,” we ought to face the roots of that disquiet. The disquiet we feel comes from the recognition that there still is such a thing as overreaching ourselves. It is overreaching that we must avoid, not the technology itself. If Rossini’s cautionary tales help us to avoid that overreaching, they will have served us well.