New Republic article advocates a ban on human cloning
from the gene-blues dept.
In an extensive article in The New Republic ("Preventing a Brave New World", May 2001), Leon R. Kass considers some of the moral, ethical, philosophical and legal issues surrounding the possibility of human cloning, and argues that it should be banned. "Human nature itself lies on the operating table," Kass asserts, ìready for alteration, for eugenic and psychic 'enhancement,' for wholesale re-design . . . evangelists are zealously prophesying a post-human future."
Kass, a professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of a book on the ethics of cloning, appears to assume that a "post-human future" implies a future without humans (or at least, human values — as he defines them) when he writes, "No friend of humanity cheers for a post-human future." A ban on human cloning, Kass concludes, is necessary because "Now may be as good a chance as we will ever have to get our hands on the wheel of the runaway train now headed for a post-human world and to steer it toward a more dignified human future."
While focused on human cloning and biological procreation, the article provides a possible insight into how some segments of society may react to the development of non-biological enhancements to human beings, as well as entities with artificial intelligence.
May 22nd, 2001 at 12:49 PM
Kass
Perhaps the single most telling feature of the article is that Kass cites a love of freedom as an obstacle to his program.
Perhaps a better question is not whether cloning should be banned, but whether bioethics merits banning. Has anyone shown a clear benefit from having these guys systematically looking for biomedical advances to block? Is the practice of bioethics justified in any way? If not, should they be removed from their trade?
Is there any truly compelling need for people like Kass?
May 22nd, 2001 at 2:19 PM
Something to think over…
Cloning poses a threat to human 'values'? I don't know about you people, but I personally think that our human values now, at present, stink.
Just because every human being has the facilities to reproduce does not mean that they have the right to use them. At present, our world is falling into chaos because of this…and if this is what Mr. Kass' "dignified human future" includes, then it is not at all welcome in my book.
Cloning, just like technology, can be a good and bad thing; it all depends on what it's used for and who's using it.
May 22nd, 2001 at 2:23 PM
Re:Something to think over…
I agree Kadamose, and I think regardless of what this pinhead tries to push on us as his 'saving the world' plan that there WILL be cloning, banned or not.
No, let me rephrase that. Not 'there will be cloning', but 'cloning WILL continue.'
I believe it has already happened. Probably years ago.
May 22nd, 2001 at 2:35 PM
Re:Something to think over…
I agree – cloning has probably been going on for 40 years or so. Biotechnology has been light years ahead of most of the technology we possess for about a century. The AIDS virus was also manmade about 50 years ago…and if the potential to create something like that existed back then, you can almost be sure that cloning was being done, as well.
People who watch, and believe, the mass media news that is printed in the newspapers and aired everynight are idiots simply because of the fact most of the news is censored, and never contains any valuable, up to date, information.
May 22nd, 2001 at 6:08 PM
Re:Something to think over…
What more conspiracy theories?
I'd moderate you down but then I wouldn't have the opportunity to post a scathing response. If you make a claim as outrageous as "The AIDS virus was also manmade about 50 years ago" you better back it up with some serious evidence or you should expect people to respond loudly and clearly that you don't know what you are talking about.
As discussed in Nature Medicine 6(10):1067 (October 2000) (here but you need a subscription to access it) reporting on a meeting on 12 Sept. at London's Royal Society, "most scientists accept that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 came from simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) carried in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes from west central Africa". Several scientists presented evidence refuting the claims made by Ed Hooper in The River. The earliest confirmed cases of HIV date from 1959 and the phylogenetic work by Betty Korber at Los Alamos traces the last common ancestor of the HIV strains back to sometime between 1915 and 1941. A medical researcher in Belgium claims the virus can be traced back to 1675!
Your arithmetic doesn't seem to hold up either — 50 years ago was 1951 — the structure of DNA wasn't discovered until 1953! The modern methods of molecular biology based on recombinant DNA didn't begin until the early 1970s, so your "cloning … for 40 years" statement makes no sense as well.
I'd say people who believe any Tom, Dick or Harry with some outrageous theory rather than the sometimes slow, but gradual march of Science towards the best approximation of the physical laws of the Universe we can all agree on are the people we have to be afraid of.
May 22nd, 2001 at 6:43 PM
Re:Something to think over…
Actually, SIV in humans (and chimps) is harmless – HIV is a mutated strain of SIV (which was engineered by humans) – since accurate data doesn't exist for anything before 1880, your claim of 1675 is defunct.
Good reference material to read is:
http://www.rense.com/ufo4/manmade2.htm
Is this a conspiracy theory? No, it's not. The evidence is there, it's just people refuse to believe that other people are capable of creating such things.
May 22nd, 2001 at 7:12 PM
Excellent article
This is a very thoughtful and well-expressed essay on the reasons for condemning, and the practical issues of outlawing, human cloning. To all those who rage against the call to restrain technological ambitions, lest they overcome humanity, I urge a calm and open-minded reading.
May 22nd, 2001 at 7:37 PM
Re:Excellent article
Well, Mark, some might share your view, but that all depends on their morals and ethics. Most peole refuse anything that even looks like objective morals, prefering some made up ones that aid in their survival. While my own survival is important, I want to live longer than 80 years or so; I want to live for as long as I like (which could mean forever or until next Tuesday). Most of what this guy writes looks like complete bunk and he fails to make good aruments (in some cases none, as if he assumes his philosophy is that shared by the world) to back up what he claims. Maybe you identify with and find what he's written worth an open-minded reading, but how can one be open minded when the author has already closed his to anything other than evolved, pro-human philosophies?
May 22nd, 2001 at 7:40 PM
Kass is self-contradictory as well
Kass is not only an opponent of freedom, he is self-contradictory as well. Just recently I found a rant by him in a Catholic periodical where he was saying that people should not seek physical immortality (i.e. a cure for aging) but, rather, people should seek "immortality" and "living out thier dreams" by having kids. Now that sounds like the best argument I have ever heard IN FAVOR of genetically designing your kids (if you choose to have them) so that you really can seek "futurality" through your kids. On the other hand, in this rant, Kass condemns parents who "seek to live thier dreams" through thier kids, and that kids should come naturally and be lelf to live thier own lives.
So, my question for Kass is: which way does he want it? People having kids so that they can "live out thier dreams" with thier kids, OR people being able to live forever young so that they can live thier own dreams themselves and leave the kids alone? Come on Kass! How do you really want it?
Maybe because the rant against immortality was directed at Catholics, whereas the rant against cloning (and designer kids) is directed at the rest of us; one should assume that Catholics should not seek physical immortality, but can have any kind of kids that they want. The rest of us can seek immortality, but should "not live out our dreams" through our kids. Any comments?
May 22nd, 2001 at 7:42 PM
Re:Excellent article
I forgot to add that, in wanting to live as long as I like, I'm willing to take a risk that would accelerate my life beyond merely a wheel in a society that might one day be great. I don't want to be part (or, more accurately, have been part) of a great society; I want to be great. I'm willing to take the risk that society gets destroyed, since at the moment our lives don't result in very much (we don't live long, we try to make the best of it, and when we die, we're gone forever) other than being useful cogs for the propulsion of society. Now, we have a chance to move individuals from being cogs to making up the whome machine, so I'm willing to take the risk, and if you're not, what are you worried about: after all, you'd die sooner or later anyway, and it's not like you'd know you were dead or anything; you just wouldn't be. If we don't develop post human technology, we're going nowhere fast, so we might as well risk getting there faster at the chance of getting someplace great.
May 22nd, 2001 at 8:16 PM
Kass is illiberal
Some of his points are valid. I also share is concerns about prospective parents designing thier kids, then putting enormous pressure on the resulting kids to "conform" to whatever "dreams" the parents intend for them. I don't think that such a child will grow up to be a very healthy, happy adult. However, parents already pressure thier kids to conform in ways (such as a religion, for example) which are not neccessarly in the childs's rational self-interest. If Kass had confined his argument to this specific issue, I would agree with him totally. However, his assault on our freedom to alter our own bodies (i.e. enhancement of cognitive ability, immortality) as well as individual liberty, in general, is completely reprehensible.
There ARE real bio-ethics issues when it comes to reproduction. I think that kids need a nurturing environment and to be respected as they grow-up. Kids are people, too. Their possible wants and desires need to be considered before anyone has them. The bioethics debates need to focus exclusively on these points. In otherwords, I do not consider reproductive freedom to be absolute.
On the otherhand, concerns about reproductive issues IN NO WAY should ever be used as an argument to limit how we may alter our lives and bodies, which affect only ourselves, not our offspring. The fact that Kass uses the reproductive issue as an argument to limit our freedoms in other ways simply underlines that fact that he is illiberal. This fact needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating the validity of his ideas. Believe me, this man (Kass) is truly illiberal.
May 23rd, 2001 at 3:44 AM
There are uses for bioethics discussions
I think there are a number of uses for discussions involving bioethics.
I think the system does have some benefits as was shown with the recent review of candidate selection and informed consent procedures regarding gene therapy trials. Many people may not be qualified to evaluate the risks technologies pose. They will tend to follow the advice of more educated individuals in positions of authority. However those individuals may be overly aggressive, or they may be financially involved, or they may make simple mistakes when providing advice. As time goes on we seem to develop more robust standards (e.g. we don't infect people with syphilus and we don't sterilize "crazy" people anymore). So summaries of the arguments along with critical review and debate would seem to, in the long run, increase the rights and freedoms that individuals have.
May 23rd, 2001 at 3:58 AM
Re:Excellent article
The interesting thing to me is that whenever we take positions here we end up in a swamp. For example, it seems to me that human individuals (in their current form) have a fundamental right to reproduce. I'm aware of a couple who has spent a great deal of time, money and emotional investment trying to have children unsuccessfully. A ban on human cloning could deny them that fundamental right of reproducing. (Yes, you can argue that it isn't reproduction, but from the subjective view they might have it could be considered that). Now, where is the justification for taking away someone's right to reproduce? What kind of color does doing that paint the "central core of our humanity"?
It seems to me that we are on a path to expanding our fundamental rights (our breadth as humans) to include things such as a right to reproduce and a right to not reproduce, a right to live and a right to die, a right to "enhance" your children and a right to not "enhance" your children. I think the core of humanity is our ability to adapt ourselves to varying conditions and that may need to be what we need to focus on.
May 23rd, 2001 at 5:24 AM
Re:There are uses for bioethics discussions
Your points are all valid in that they are based on whether this technology increases or decreases the wellbeing of children, born unenhanced or enhanced. Some of these points were mentioned in Kass's rant about cloning. However, the main difference between you and Kass is that you discuss bioethics on the basis of what is best for maximizing the freedom and quality of life for the person in question. Kass, on the other hand, feels that there is a "higher" moral consideration, independent of the freedom and quality of life for the person in question. He also uses the bioethics concerns of reproduction as a means to attack the right for people to modify thier own bodies as they please.
The difference between you and Kass is that you are fundamentally liberal (historical definition) whereas Kass is fundamentally illiberal. The Economist recently ran an article about all of the bioethics issues on genetic science. They concluded by saying that genetic science applied to reproduction (i.e. designing one's children) does raise serious ethical concerns and that it is not illiberal to suggest that complete freedom to design one's kids may not be desirable. However, when it concerns using genetic technology to enhance one's own body, that it is completely illiberal to suggest that one should not be allowed to alter one's own body.
Your body is your private property. You should have complete freedom to alter yourself as you wish. However, your kids are not your private property, they are separate people, and deserve to be themselves. this is the most ethical approach to the emerging genetic technologies.
May 23rd, 2001 at 5:30 AM
Re:Excellent article
The point is that there are real arguments against allowing people to design thier children, that are defensible on the basis of liberalism. The problem is that people like Kass choose not to do that. Instead, he frames his opposition to these genetic technologies on nebulus concepts such as the "central core of humanity" (whatever the hell that means), then uses it as an attack on individual liberty in general.
May 23rd, 2001 at 8:17 AM
Re:Something to think over…
Actually, I meant more like a couple years, not 40. nt
May 23rd, 2001 at 8:30 AM
Re:Excellent article
Well it's interesting to me — that people think we have any choice in how fast we evolve. It intrigues me. I honestly believe evolution has no 'speed'. And if were to have speed, we would evolve as fast as we can, always.
I see evolution not as a choice, but as a natural force. It certainly is an extension of the natural force(s) present arround us. To me evolution has infinite inertia, but does not necessarily 'move'. And does not necessarily stop. It's a short cry from determinism, really.
After reading the book The Elegenat Universe, by superstring theoroist Brian Greene, I asked him: "And when you do model the universe, and it's forces and laws, what then? Do you then understand motion, time, and the future? What happens to mystery and awe?"
He wrote me back, saying that he believes that no matter what we discover mystery and awe will always be present, and that we as a race will never answer all questions. I believe this, but I'm still not sure how, if we uncover the secrets of motion, the universe is not a determined one?
I lost the main thought of this response, but the point here is this: every time I think about evolution and determinism they seem identical. I guess I'm hoping someone can show me a difference. TLF
May 23rd, 2001 at 7:23 PM
Kass was in a big movie
Taken from the bottom of nanodot:
He is a true fugitive who flies from reason.
– Marcus Aurelius
Don't worry, Kass, reason won't hurt you, though it might kill your aruments. ;^)
May 24th, 2001 at 10:41 AM
Closed to anti-humanism?
I will admit to being biased against any "philsophy" which is not, at a minimum, "pro-human."
Which is not the same as being closed-minded; I am not averse to reading or listening to — and understanding, trying to see the motivations and justifications for, and responding to — erroneous or malignant ideas.
But still, if you are a human being, I say to you, how can you be in favor of anything that is not "pro-human"? To think and to profess that you are in favor of such a thing is, I submit, a symptom of some disorder.
May 24th, 2001 at 10:44 AM
attack on individual liberty?
Kass cites libertarian ideas as one factor biasing against a cloning ban, but I didn't see any broader "attack on individual liberty." The article is about cloning.
May 24th, 2001 at 10:49 AM
Re:Kass is illiberal
This article is about cloning. It has little to do with any other issues, although he puts the cloning issue in the context of a larger battle against "a post-human future." I don't know what you mean by
Do you have a quote from the article to support this "fact"?
May 24th, 2001 at 12:39 PM
Re:Kass is illiberal
Here are your facts:
Kass writes, disapprovingly of
Kass is a repulsive enemy of many freedoms, not solely reproductive freedoms. Look at that list again: He attacks the freedom to not reproduce, the freedom to be healed, the freedom to regain one's sexuality or to free one's mind from depression.
He is using cloning as the edge of a wedge, as an opportunity to use a badly informed public's queasiness to block any technological innovations that promise "fundamental changes in human nature" (Kass's own words), no matter how beneficial the change may be. Do you wonder that many of us view Kass with revulsion?
May 24th, 2001 at 2:20 PM
Re:Kass is illiberal
I did not read this paragraph as a call to suppress all of the things listed, but as an invocation of the rapid and transformative changes brought on by new technology; the implication being that at some point all of this can and will cross boundaries that we should rather not cross. Kass does not, in this article at least, call for banning anything but cloning. I don't know about his larger views; I suppose if he is writing in TNR he is probably fairly conservative, but I agree with him on this one.
May 24th, 2001 at 3:50 PM
Re:Closed to anti-humanism?
Hmm, I think I feel a bit like Kadamose at the moment; how did this get to be insightful? Mark, all you've done is call me a name. The fact is, pro human thinking is closed minded because it fails to realize potentials that could help humanity. Pro human thinking is observer based, but AIs, for example, don't think this way, so pro human thinking about AIs thus leads to misunderstanding them and a failure to develop them to their full potential. Secondly, you have said I have a disorder because I'm not interested in humanity? What is this. I have an interest in myself, not what happens to this species. I'm not going to do anything to hurt humanity, but I'm certainly not busy trying to help make it better, either, just trying to make me better. If that's a mental disorder, then we had better lock up billions of people.
May 26th, 2001 at 8:59 AM
Re:Kass is illiberal
In the article, he explicitly says that cloning is a "golden opportunity" to start banning transforming technologies. The implication that I read is that Kass has a long list of technologies he wants to ban, and cloning is just a starting point. I read his list of technologies that I quoted as ones that he would have wanted to erect Berlin Walls against; to forcibly stop other people from using, but which he recognizes he is mostly too late to stop.
Everyone is free to speak in this country, but when a klansman or Kass speaks, they defile the freedom they use because they use their freedom to deny it to others.
May 26th, 2001 at 3:43 PM
Re:Excellent article
Excellent point. Kass expects everyone to agree with his gut reactions from square one. Well, I for one do not. I have no revulsion towards clones – but a great deal towards Kass.
Kass frets that oh-my-god-social-relationships-might-change if reproduction were less of a lottery: the horror, the horror!
To put my cards a bit more visibly on the table: Reproductive cloning, in and of itself, is a nit. It is fundamentally a conservative option, adding a copy of an existing genome to the next generation, minutely slowing down genetic change.
Genetic engineering, on the other hand, has the potential to be a big win. Natural reproduction juggles genes at random. It is a crapshoot, and frankly, a lousy one. Around 30% of fetuses are defective enough to spontaneously abort. And then there are the defective ones that make it to term… There are damn good reasons for looking at nature and saying: This part of the human condition should be changed.
With obvious screening techniques (gene sequencing, looking for known bad alleles, plus additional techniques that we cannot yet forsee) we can clearly do better than that. With techniques to insert known-good genes, doctors will be able to offer parents yet better options.
Over the long haul, engineering can always do better than fixed human biology, because engineering can use every trick our bodies use, then apply human ingenuity to add more.
Engineering is better than rolling dice – except to someone like Kass who would rather see everyone else as powerless serfs, bowing down to his choice of gods. Human will is better than being enslaved to chance.
May 26th, 2001 at 4:37 PM
Re:attack on individual liberty?
The article is about using a ban on cloning as a tactic. Kass says in the article that his broader aim is to block technologies that transform the human condition, and that he sees a cloning ban as the opening gambit most likely to succeed. He aims to use State force to deprive other people of the right to use their own bodies as they see fit. Yes, Kass does attack individual liberty. Reread Kass's list of technologies that he dislikes again. Viagra? Prozac? Mechanical prostheses? Organ transplants? I hope Kass finds himself in need of every technology he disparages.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:46 AM
Let it be, let it be… What a strange place here.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:26 AM
Strange things happens too many times to be just an occasion