An Ethical Appraisal of the Biotechnical Augmentation and
Computational Reduction of Human Life

Introduction

• On February 12th 2001 Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the national human genome research institute, announced to the world a working draft of the human genome sequence. In his announcement Collins proclaimed: "But we are also profoundly humbled by the privilege of turning the pages that describe the miracle of human life, written in the mysterious language of all the ages, the language of God."¹
• On May 11th 1997 an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep Blue defeated chess grandmaster and world champion Gary Kasparov 3.5 to 2.5 bringing about a torrent of media attention and people pondering the future capabilities of machine "intelligence".²

At the dawn of the 21st century rapid advances in fields of biotechnology and computational science are bringing new and difficult philosophical and ethical challenges before us. The Judeo-Christian understanding of humans as material beings with immaterial souls has been long challenged by materialistic philosophies newly emboldened by the research and futurist prophecies coming from these fields. This paper will address ethical and philosophical considerations of two separate but merging areas of science - biotechnology and computer technology. First, the augmentation of the human body through engineered materials: proteins manufactured by way of transgenic organisms, xenografting, artificial organs, and computer implants to assist basic human function will be discussed. Second, a critique will be offered for the so-called "improvement" of the human species through human/computer convergence and the creation of spiritual machines.

Basic Ethical Considerations

In evaluating the ethical status of the different uses of the technology that these nascent sciences offer human beings we need first align our moral compasses. Many have argued that our science and technology should not determine our ethics; simply because we can do something, does not mean we ought to do it.³ Before we begin an ethical appraisal of the advances in biotechnology and computational science, a distinctively Christian approach these ethical issues must be established.

A Christian Approach to Biotechnological Ethics
A uniquely Christian ethic must take in to account the following biblical principles. First the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty over life; God is the creator, sustainer, and rightful owner of all of life (Colossians 1:16,17; Psalm 24:1) and it is our duty to not try and control it apart from his revealed purposes. Second, the dignity of human beings must be vigorously defended and human life should be held in high esteem. Third, the sanctity of life must also be taken into account. Not only should there be respect for human life (dignity) it should also receive reverence as something unique and holy. The principles of dignity and sanctity of life flow directly from the biblical teaching that human beings are created in the Imago Dei, in the image of God (Genesis 1:27, 9:6; James 3:9). Fourth, a Christian ethic entails the fact of human mortality; it is not our right or responsibility to "live forever" in this body. Finally, love is central to a Christian ethic so charity must be extended to all human life. In biomedical and technological issues, our best attempts at unconditional love for God and others (our neighbors) must be brought to bear.⁴ Biomedical issues are very difficult to appraise; the Christian must remain faithful to continually look into to the Scriptures in his ethical analysis of any new technology.

Therapy vs. Enhancements
A very important distinction must be made before beginning an ethical appraisal of the research in the fields of biotech and computational science. This distinction is between a therapeutic approach to human life and an enhancement approach to human life. A therapeutic approach is one that seeks to repair the human being, and an enhancement approach attempts to better the human being. Christians at times can be reactionary to advances in science and technology, rejecting much of it without much serious consideration; this need not be the case. The duty of the believer is to reflect on how the new technologies should be used responsibly for the glory of God.⁵ The distinction of therapy from enhancement is a helpful tool in evaluating technologies that seek to augment the human being. Mark Foreman in his book Christianity and Bioethics has this to say when applying the therapy vs. enhancement distinction to the area of genetic intervention:

Therapy has to do with the curing or preventing of a genetic disorder... Enhancement has to do with improving of traits and abilities that are not diseases. Improving one's intelligence, memory, lifespan, and physical capabilities are all examples of enhancement. Rather than curing, we are actually improving the person. ⁶ [emphasis in original]

Be it genetic intervention or biological/technological augmentation of human beings, medical science should seek to cure not recreate. This is the long-standing Christian view of medicine; it should alleviate suffering that is the result of the fall, but never attempt to usurp the role of the Creator. Such would be blasphemous and destructive to humanity. Heading into the reality of a brave new world, it is a moral imperative that Christians have their ethical sense to serve the Creator pinpointed in on these new frontiers in technology.

Biotechnological Therapies and Augmentation

Contemporary advances in our understanding of genetics have brought about several promising new therapeutic possibilities. New medicines can be manufactured in ways not possible before. Advances in organ transplantation techniques and the possibility of cloning human organs promise to end the chronic shortage of organs for those needing them. Along with biotechnical advances there are also new ethical problems. This section of the paper will attempt to offer a Christian interpretation and ethical appraisal of several new frontier biotechnological therapies. Each of the following will be covered along with an ethical evaluation: pharmaceutical manufacturing using transgenic organisms, several areas of organ transplantation (xenografting - the transplanting of animal organs into humans, artificial organs - both organically produced and mechanically produced), and computer implants to restore basic human function.

Transgenic Organisms - The New Pharmaceutical Factory
The advent of genetic engineering, the altering of an organism's genes for human purposes, has brought us to the day when plant and animal species are improved or altered for medicinal purposes. Crops have been engineered to be disease and herbicide resistant, animals have been engineered to have leaner meat, and recently biological organisms are being used to produce pharmaceuticals for human beings. Of interest for this discussion are therapeutic drugs created by growing useful compounds in plant and animal organisms. Scientists have learned which strands of our DNA code for the creation of certain proteins like insulin and human growth hormone. By cutting such sections of human DNA and splicing it into other organisms, the organism then will produce the compound in its own biological system.⁷ As of 1997 animals have been engineered to produce valuable proteins in their milk, bacteria have been used to grow human insulin, and tobacco plants are being engineered to grow human blood clotting proteins.⁸ Such manipulation of the natural world to produce valuable medicines is growing at a rapid pace. As a result new ethical considerations must be taken into account.

Ethical Considerations
Scripture clearly lays out some principles to aid us in evaluating the use of plants and animals as "drug factories" for the human race. The two most important principles of a Christian view of the natural world are God's ownership and man's stewardship. ⁹ The Bible teaches that the earth is the Lord's and everything in it (Psalm 24:1); all the plants, animals, and even the elements belong to Him. Human beings are charged by God in the early chapters of Genesis to subdue, rule (Genesis 1:28), as well as to care for (Genesis 2:15) the world. This requires the use of the environment for the good of humanity while concurrently caring for and preserving it. God also reveals that the plant and animal kingdoms exist for the humanity's consumption (Genesis 9:3). These two principles, humanity's careful use of the environment for good and the provision for the consumption of both plants and animals, give us a Biblical framework for evaluating the use of transgenic organisms as drug producers. The production of medicines is an exercise of human therapy for the broken condition, so the attempt to heal the human person with medicine is not trying to enhance or improve God's design of human beings. Animals and plants, as part of the created world, can be used for humanity's good; this certainly would include using them for the production of therapeutic medicines. So abiding by these two principles, the use of transgenic organisms to produce medicines seems to be an ethical use of God's creation in service to humanity.

Common Objections
An objection may be raised at this point dealing with the genetic manipulation of God's creation. This objection could be stated that if the earth and all it contains belong to God, who are we to monkey around with an animal's DNA? DNA is the blueprint or design for an animal; it is not our right to change God's design around for our own purposes. This argument has two problems: 1) It falsely assumes animal DNA is something that should not be altered and 2) It falsely claims that human beings have no right to make use of the animals God created. Although God expects animal life to be treated well and taken care of (Exodus 20:10), human life, not animal life has sanctity due to it bearing the image of God. It is clear that humans do indeed have a right to use creation for good; this is included in the charge to subdue, rule, and care for creation. A final objection can be made in claiming the equality of humans and animals with the only difference being biochemical specification. This objection, however, deals with the distinction between a materialistic/naturalistic view of life and a theistic view of life. Secular ethicists may be concerned with the human right to use of the animal in any way, but a Christian view of bioethics does not see a dilemma as a clear distinction between human life (in the image of God) and animal life (part of the creation of God) is maintained.

Organ Transplantation - Parts for People

In the latter half of the twentieth century the science of organ transplantation has grown and become a successful way to treat human beings with failing or incompetent organs. With the success of organ transplantation has come a host of ethical issues, most of them arising from the problem of scarcity. The supply of organs available from people who consented to have their organs donated is far below the amount for those who are in need of transplant.¹⁰ It is estimated that more than one third of the people who need a liver transplant die waiting for a donor organ to become available. More than 150,000 Americans are kept alive by dialysis when a kidney transplant would be a much better and less expensive alternative treatment. Indeed, as the technology of transplantation and managing organ rejection becomes available in more and more medical facilities across the world, the problem of organ shortage will just increase.¹¹ Many solutions to this problem from the exotic (xenografting) to the pragmatic (paying people for their organs) have been proposed. With the ethics of human organ allotransplantation established, the question that remains to be addressed is this: What are ethical means of obtaining additional organs for transplants? It is clear that the paying of people for their organs is immoral; the human body is sacred and should not be bought and sold on any market either legal or black.¹² The following then is an investigation of some of the horizons in transplantation science with an ethical appraisal of each.

Xenografting - Are We to be Your Uncle's Monkey?

The process of xenografting, the transplanting of animal organs into human beings, is being researched as a possibility to solve the shortage of organs. With the exception of the use of animal valves in hearts surgeries or ligaments in orthopedic applications, Xenografts have been done experimentally with little or no success, and have yet to enter into clinical trials with human beings.¹³ The ethical debate around this possible procedure has centered almost exclusively on a utilitarian fear that the result of such a transplants could possibly introduce xenozoonoses (animal diseases) into human populations.¹⁴ Some ethicists who subscribe to a materialist philosophy have argued against xenografting as a type of "speciesism", which would give higher moral status to humans over animals,¹⁵ but a Christian response does not suffer from this complication. Before looking at the ethics of xenotransplants, a closer look at the procedure is warranted. There are two possible future frontiers for this science: 1) placing human organs, grown in animals, into humans and 2) placing animal organs into human beings. The concerns and hurdles for both areas of this science deal with the acute rejection of organs by the human recipient and fear of introducing unknown pathogens into the human population. First, the human body rejects foreign subjects with a T-cell invasion that must be suppressed in any transplant. Immunosuppressive drugs like cyclosporine can be used to do this with human organ transplants, but with animal organs there is a different and more acute immune response. There are proteins in our body, serving in what is called the complement system, that seek out anything foreign and mark it for demolition. Human tissues have so called "shield proteins" which guard human tissue from this response, but animal organs would face a devastating result.¹⁶ There is currently promising research underway to genetically engineer transgenic animals whose organs would not be susceptible to this acute rejection.¹⁷ Secondly, the public health risk of releasing xenozoonoses into the population is a very serious matter. This risk could be managed through the control of the donor animal populations and through thorough screening tests.¹⁸ If the acute rejection is managed and the possibility of introducing xenozoonoses minimized, then xenografting presents a possible source of organs to solve the current problem of scarcity. The remaining question then for consideration is: "Is it ethical?"

Ethical Considerations
In a Christian ethic, the ends do not justify the means; the means must justify themselves. It is clear that there is a great need for organs for transplants patients, but they should not be acquired by any means necessary. Even if the medical science of xenografting were to achieve some success in the future, the question of whether it should be done must be evaluated. In considering xenografting there are three ethical question to be evaluated: 1) Is it ethical to kill animals to harvest their organs for human beings? 2) Is it ethical to place human parts, grown in animals, into humans? 3) Is it ethical to place animal parts in humans?

First, as noted earlier, the created world, including plant and animal life, are part of God's creation available for people to use for their good. This would mean the practice of raising animals for human use, whether for food or medicinal purposes, is clearly acceptable from Scripture. Secondly, the issue of placing human organs grown in animals into human beings is a just slightly more complex issue than human organ transplants. If animals could be engineered to grow human organs in their bodies, if the immune responses of the person could be managed effectively, and if the process could be done without introducing dangerous non-human pathogens into the human population then the procedure would have little difference with human cadaver allotransplantation which is ethically acceptable.¹⁹ Finally, and perhaps most exotic, is the consideration of transplantation of animal organs into human beings. Human beings and animals share a common make up and material; each is made from dust (Genesis 2:7), or in modern scientific terms, organized matter encoded with specified DNA. One thing that differentiates human beings from animals is that he has an immaterial mind/soul that plays out in his body; this combination of body and soul bears the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Human beings incorporate animals into our bodies all the time through medicines, meats, and other food products. People already use other parts of nature in their bodies through the use of rubber, plastics, and surgical metals. If the procedure could be done safely, it would show Christian beneficence to humanity by saving and prolonging lives. The arguments in support of human cadaver allotransplantation should also apply to xenotransplantation. It should always involve the informed consent of the patient without direct or indirect coercion from the medical research community and it should not attempt to violate the mortality principle in being applied to the very old and dying. If these principles were observed then xenografting could be an excellent way to prolong the life of human persons.

Common Objections
A few common objections might be made from a Christian perspective. Some of them are as follows: 1) God has clearly stated than man and beast are different and has even given man a certain type of body that is different from animals (1 Corinthians 15:39,40); 2) The body is to be regarded as holy - rejecting a Gnostic view of the flesh,²⁰ it should be honored as sacred and not "monkied" around with; 3) Human reduction to mere animals is usually associated with this research so it should be avoided.

First of all, God did say that we have different bodies than animals, but the passage in 1 Corinthians just says that there is a difference between men and animals. It does not say their parts should not be interchanged; this is a conclusion that does not follow from this passage. Second, in response to us "monkeying" around with the body, Mark Foreman professor of Bioethics at Liberty University had this response to the objection:

The problem here is how far do you want to pursue this. Doctors and researchers "monkey" around with the body all the time. That is how medical advances occur. Remember that every medical procedure and treatment at one time was experimental. At one time aspirin was new and considered "monkeying" around with the body. People have always been accusing doctors and researchers of playing God - but if they had not pursued experimental procedures, then medicine would never have advanced. The question is what is legitimate and ethical and what is "monkeying" around. This objection begs this question and doesn't address it.²¹

Finally, although a reduction of human beings to mere animals is common with such research, this has more to do with a researcher's materialistic worldview than the research itself. A reduction is happening at times, but it does not necessarily follow. In fact one can argue the opposite - that by using animals in this manner to benefit humans we are recognizing that there is a clear difference, with human beings having more value. We would be troubled if we killed humans to harvest organs for animals, so we are thus affirming human dignity above a mere animal in researching xenotransplantation.²²

Artificial Organs - New and Not so New Frontiers

Grow Your Own Organs

Some new research in biotechnology is showing promise for the future possibility of growing new organs from the patient's own cells in the laboratory. Such engineered tissues, known as neo-organs, are being researched and applications of tissue growth for human use is already being done by way of the fabrication of skin, cartilage, bone, ligament and tendon.²³ It seems growing simple tissues like the above will continue to show promising results, as there is an FDA approved living skin product that is aiding skin grafting for cancer patients and burn victims.²⁴ Researcher Anthony Atala, of the Children's Hospital in Boston, has successfully placed lab grown bladders in dogs, showing promise for the growing of larger and more complex organs in the future. The process of fashioning these dog bladders involved deriving cells from the dogs' own bladders, and using them to coat a plastic bladder-shaped biodegradable shell. The organs were then transplanted to the dogs and within three months the shell had completely degraded, blood vessels grew into the bladders, and nerves even reconnected allowing the dogs to regain bladder control.²⁵

Ethical Evaluation
It seems if the science to grow major organs becomes available it would serve humanity well. It values the dignity and does not violate the sanctity of human life. It seeks to heal and certainly is consistent with the Christian principle of beneficence. As with any transplantation science it should seek to prolong life and not extend it indefinately by applying it to the very old and dying. May God grant to these researchers wisdom, as they endeavor to design and perfect these new procedures to heal human life.

Mechanical Organs

In 1964, the United States Congress budgeted over half a million dollars to establish a program at the National Institutes of Health to create the first total artificial heart (TAH).²⁶ The pursuit of a total artificial heart has been pursued with vigor using both public and private funds for the research.²⁷ The first total artificial heart was implanted in a retired dentist named Barney B. Clark on December 1st, 1982 at the University of Utah Medical Center. Clark lived for 112 days after the device was implanted, most of which was very unstable. He had to undergo three additional surgeries, asked for the heart to be turned off on several occasions (the requests were denied), and he lived in an unconscious state for many days. Interest in developing artificial human organs has been high in the 20th century and an ongoing ethical discussion is needed.

Ethical Considerations
The ethical status of organ transplantation has been established, so perhaps the best way to examine the case of artificial organs is to look at the case of Barney Clark. Much of what went on in this case led to a soul-searching look at the ethics involved with human experimentation. First, as in any case of experimental procedure, there must be informed consent. The patient must understand fully the procedure and all other options; he must not be rushed to accept it due to the zeal of the doctor doing the research. To ensure some sort of real informed consent for those in desperate, imminent death situations, the dual role of researcher and clinician/doctor must be checked and balanced. Information by persons who have no direct professional or financial interest in the procedures success or failure should be offered to the patient.²⁸ Arthur Caplan offers some final commentary about the ethics of artificial organs, the question of cost:

Does it make more sense to pursue other options for the treatment of heart disease or even the prevention of heart disease? Many experts note that the a fully TAH would be likely to cost this nation billions of dollars...There are obvious problems of equity and justice in asking all Americans to bear the cost of research for a device that would only be available to some. Questions of fairness also shape any decision to build a machine which may add years of life to those at the end of the life span when there are tens of millions of persons around the globe who die before reaching adolescence from preventable causes of disease and injury. Health policy discussions have not defined and continue to avoid any explicit discussion of how best to allocate resources to perfect new therapies. Dollars still flow toward those diseases for whom advocates and surrogates can clamor the loudest. As the sad legacy of the artificial heart shows, it would be prudent to make considerations of fairness a more central part of this crucial policy debate.²⁹

The use of artificial organs, as the case with other transplant technologies, seems to be quite ethical; the ethics of the means some are willing to use to create them is an entirely different issue.

Therapeutic Computer Implants - Drawing Closer to the Line

Many technologies exist today that actually are implanted in human beings in order to restore certain functionality to the body. Cochlear implants are used to help the deaf and the hearing impaired. These implants work together with electronic speech processors that simulate the function of the inner ear in analyzing sound waves. About 10 percent of actual deaf patients who have received these devices are now able to hear and understand voices well enough to use a normal telephone.³⁰ Techniques know as deep brain stimulation is being used to help patients that have shaking conditions such as cerebral palsy and Parkinson's disease. Research is also underway to develop devices to restore sight to those with impaired or loss of vision.³¹ Such advances in computational devices to assist human function deserve substantial ethical attention.

Ethical Considerations
In the human desire to heal many engineers will desire to cross the line of therapy into the realm of enhancing the human being. Ethically, devices to restore human function to within normal ranges (sight and vision have easily measured standards) appear to be acceptable, but they tip toe towards the edge of an enhancement cliff. For instance, if sight and sound enhancers were developed to give a person the ability to hear through brick walls, or to have infrared night vision "built in"; this would clearly entail the creation of a sort of superman; this has all kinds of ethical problems. Many proponents of the therapeutic implants of today believe that it is just a matter of time before human beings go about "improving themselves".³² In future arguments for enhancing human beings, these early therapeutic examples will be used to bolster the case. Such enhancement will be discussed in the final section of this paper.

The Computational Augmentation of Human Beings Crossing the Line Into Enhancement

On June 29th 2001 Dreamworks Pictures released a film entitled A.I., featuring a robot boy, who according to the film's marketing materials, has real feelings and emotions even though he himself is not real. This is but a popular expression of the ideas of groups of researchers, philosophers, and futurists who long to see the day of intelligent, even spiritual machines that will fulfill evolution and eclipse us as a species. Listen to the words of robotic researcher Hans Moravec:

Today, our machines are still simple creations, requiring the paternal care and hovering attention of any newborn, hardly worthy of the word 'intelligent.' But within the next century they will mature into entities as complex as ourselves and eventually into something transcending everything we know-in whom we can take pride when they refer to themselves as our descendants. Unleashed from the plodding pace of biological evolution, the children of our minds will be free to grow to confront immense and fundamental challenges in the larger universe. We humans will benefit for a time from their labors, but sooner or later, like natural children, they will seek their own fortunes while we, their aged parents, silently fade away. Very little need be lost in this passing of the torch-it will be in our artificial offspring's power, and to their benefit, to remember almost everything about us, even, perhaps, the detailed workings of individual human minds.³³

The ultimate augmentation of man will end up in the actual extinction of man; this we are told is a wonderful thing coming in our future. This revolution is laid out well by technologist and futurist Ray Kurzweil in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines - When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. Serving as his prediction for the next 100 years, Kurzweil maps out this revolution in successive phases.

Techno Eugenics and the Improvement of Man

The first stage of these developments is already upon us with the proliferation of computing devices all around us. To move from our situation of creating technologies to serve mankind to one where technology eclipses mankind, some intermediate steps are necessary. The next phase, according to Kurzweil and his ilk, is to begin to make improvements to people by the implantation of technology within human beings. Kurzweil describes his prediction that by 2019 the following will be taking place:

Permanent or removable implants (similar to contact lenses) for the eyes as well as cochlear implants are now used to provide input and output between the human user and the worldwide computing network. Direct neural pathways have been perfected for a high-bandwidth connection to the human brain. A range of neural implants is becoming available to enhance visual and auditory perception and interpretation, memory and reasoning. ³⁴ [emphasis mine]

There is already some experimentation today with placing electronic devices into the body with this type of futuristic hope. In the current summer edition of Popular Science entitled Flash Forward, Life in the Future (Technology Changes Everything) there is an article about Kevin Warwick, professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading in England, who hopes that by himself becoming part man, part machine he will help usher in the next era: the one of human-computer communication and convergence.³⁵ Warwick has already implanted one chip in his arm for nine days, which computers in his office could use to track his location. With this electronic marker he was able to walk through a computerized environment and open doors and turn off lights just by his presence (or more accurately, the presence of his chip transmitter). This experiment is no different than carrying around an electronic ID badge, but his next experiment is much more ambitious. This summer, he plans to implant himself and his wife, in order to see if they can transmit various pieces of information back and forth.³⁶ His future vision, much like Kurzweil's, involves bodies and brains wirelessly connected to the worldwide information network. His ideas for our enhancement are proudly proclaimed: "We will simply be able to think to each other, we will have memories of events that we have not witnessed, and mathematical abilities that far surpass anything today."³⁷ [emphasis mine] This vision involves a sort-of "techno-eugenics", improving man not through breeding, but through technological enhancements. Kurzweil indicates this in his book by stating, "Humans who do not utilize such implants are unable to meaningfully participate in dialogues with those who do;"³⁸ it is clear that a master race is intended.

Compuhumans to Commander Data: Say Goodbye to Useless Carbon Based Humanity

While humans will supposedly be taking on more and more computer implants, computers themselves will be growing more and more intelligent. Beginning with intelligent computer agents in the virtual world (imagine a very sophisticated version of Microsoft's Office Assistant) and moving toward seemingly conscious machines, our creations will eventually outpace us and encourage us to join them, because we will certainly no longer be able to beat them. Kurzweil predicts that by 2019 "people will begin to have relationships with automated personalities and use them as companions, teachers, caretakers, and lovers." This will be followed by a time in 2029 when automated computer agents will learn on their own, create knowledge by themselves, and will have read all available literature that exists. Finally, by 2099 the distinction between humans and computers will be gone, machine intelligence will claim to be human, most conscious beings will not have a permanent physical body, and life expectancy will no longer be a viable term for intelligent beings. So there we have it, eternal life for intelligent beings and the elimination of the human race. Robotics researcher Hans Moravec was asked the following question in an interview with the Internet site robotbooks.com:

You seem quite comfortable with your prediction that robots will displace humans from essential roles, and eventually they could displace us from existence. Aren't we talking about the end of the world here? If the world goes on and nobody is here to see it, won't we have failed as a race?

His answer is equally insightful:

"Failed as a race" implies some external criterion for success. Who knew there was going to be a test!? Actually, I don't even consider the majority of organisms that became extinct without leaving any offspring to have "failed as a race." They also serve only who live and die, and thus map out the unviable portions of the evolutionary landscape, and provide a background for the evolution of others. I think the evolution of life is the most interesting thing around, and want to see it continue with utmost vigor. Producing artificial offspring that transcend us to the max is the most exalted role I can imagine the human race playing, and would be the grandest success possible. On the other hand, if we chose to stagnate, indefinitely circumscribed by our present limitations, then by my standards we would be tragic failures, having turned our back on our potential.³⁹ [emphasis mine]

So our grandest success will be to eclipse ourselves; the abolition of man is upon us. These predictions are bold and far-reaching, but is should be noted that it is not a view held by all technologists.⁴⁰,^{41, 42} What follows is an examination of the philosophies at work in this new utopian scheme; what is examined is found wanting and if followed could reap havoc on all of humanity.

An Ethical and Philosophical Exploration of a Technological Utopian Future

Mind or Machine?

When one reads these ideas of the future of humanity, it is quickly noted that this is not simply the work of scientists, but that of philosophers as well. Several presuppositions are at work, namely that human beings are no more than machines and that the mind is simply the brain. The question of other minds and consciousness has been a long studied topic in philosophy with human beings long thought of as having an immaterial mind/soul along with his body. However with advances in neurophysiology and computer technology many have been emboldened in their view that the mind is simply the brain. This reductionist view boldly claims, you are not in there; there is no place in the brain where the self lies. But this merely begs the question; if human beings have a non-material component, one will not find it in the brain. One cannot find the immaterial in the material, so to claim that there is not an immaterial you in there is simply assuming the materialist position. There is no denial that there is some mind/brain correlation, but correlation should not be confused with identity. Christian apologist Gregory Koukl offers a great analogy to illustrate mind/brain correlation, but not correspondence:

...That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light. Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation.⁴³

Koukl's analogy is very useful in that it exhibits that the mind does play out through the brain; but it is too simplistic to say that the mind is the brain. Ray Kurzweil's idea in Spiritual Machines, often referred to as strong AI,⁴⁴ is just such a simplistic reduction of human minds. Secular thinkers, like Oxford mathematician and theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, go to great lengths to show the fallacy of strong AI.⁴⁵ So when Kurzweil argues that super intelligent machines would be conscious he is begging the strong AI question, a question that is simply not settled among philosophers and scientists of even a materialist worldview. Even if a computer arrives at the point of simulating human awareness, it would still be just simulation, a mere manipulation of symbols while actually knowing nothing of its tasks.⁴⁶ The best results that could be offered by the futurist are to be a successful copycat, far short of any true claims to consciousness.

Utopia or Dystopia: Human Depravity and the New Technologies

Whether or not we can make the type of intelligent machines in question is one thing; the ethics of such technology is another. Human enhancement is playing God instead of serving God; it seeks to create a new humanity instead of healing the one God made in his image. This enhancement is replete with many serious problems.

First, the issue of being able to decide what a good or better human being would be. What is to be the model? Hitler? Mother Teresa? Or the scientist who is designing such beings? I believe it was the late British Journalist Malcolm Muggeridge who said, "If man is the measure of all things, then we must ask which man." Hans Moravec's answer above about the failure of the human race is filled with this dilemma. The quote will be repeated for emphasis:

"Failed as a race" implies some external criterion for success. Who knew there was going to be a test!? Actually, I don't even consider the majority of organisms that became extinct without leaving any offspring to have "failed as a race." They also serve only who live and die, and thus map out the unviable portions of the evolutionary landscape, and provide a background for the evolution of others. I think the evolution of life is the most interesting thing around, and want to see it continue with utmost vigor. Producing artificial offspring that transcend us to the max is the most exalted role I can imagine the human race playing, and would be the grandest success possible. On the other hand, if we chose to stagnate, indefinitely circumscribed by our present limitations, then by my standards we would be tragic failures, having turned our back on our potential.⁴⁷ [emphasis mine]

He begins by saying that to be a failure implies some external criterion for success; here his assertion is correct. However, he continues in the same answer to contradict himself by boldly claiming that to creating offspring that surpass us would be the grandest success possible. Somehow he has suddenly acquired a criterion for success. He finally reveals to us the source of his criterion in the last segment of his answer. He says if human beings choose to stagnate, then by his standards we would be tragic failures. It seems Moravec must feel that he has access to the standard of good and bad, right and wrong, success and failure for the human race. He seems to have access to something he claims does not exist. To this we must ask him: Who are you to judge in regard to improving humanity? In fact, he might just mess us all up.

The second problem with enhancement theories deals with justice and the creation of a techno cast system. Will this not simply create a world much like the one Huxley presents in Brave New World? Who will determine who will be improved; will it just be those with the most financial means? If that were the case, what are we to say of equality and justice? Human beings have already demonstrated a deficiency in distributing quality education between socioeconomic classes, how much more will expensive human enhancements be unequally distributed. As stated before it is clear that Kurzweil acknowledges the creation of just such a world; he even claims that ordinary humans will be called "Moshes" by the newly "evolved" intelligences⁴⁸ reducing carbon based humans to the status of a pet or zoo animal.

Third, there is good reason not to trust humanity with such powers; man is sinful and capable of great evil (Jeremiah 17:9). Bill Joy, chief scientist as Sun Microsystems, offers this insight about some of the coming technologies in robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology:⁴⁹

Thus we have the possibility of not just weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge -enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication. I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.⁵⁰ [emphasis mine]

Why would we want to create technologies that have the capability to destroy ourselves? This is the ultimate in pride and original sin; we want to be as gods and we have no claim to that throne. As with past utopian visions throughout the history of man, this too, if attempted, will result in carnage not bliss.

Fulfilling Evolution?

Finally, all these futuristic visions are intimately tied to the idea of someone "fulfilling evolution", that we somehow have the duty to seize our own evolutionary process and fulfill our destiny. One question glares in the face of all this evolutionary pontificating; What if macro-evolutionary theory is mistaken? Indeed, today the intelligent design movement, together with a growing number of Darwin doubters, seeks a metaphysical principle to replace the Darwinistic dogma of our day. A principle that matches the beauty and intelligence we are discovering with the modern sciences. Perhaps Darwin's dangerous idea will soon perish and a revival of design theory will lead us away from this idea of "fulfilling evolution".

Conclusion

As the road to the creation of new technologies to augment human beings is unfolded, let us remain watchmen on the walls without ethical slumber. Technology for the glory of God to heal and serve humanity can result in a great amount of good for our world. But technology to glorify man will result in man ultimately continuing down a path of self-destruction. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man, warns of the dangers of humanity's abuse of technology:

From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be power exercised by some men over men with Nature as its instrument....There neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on Man's side. Each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. In every victory, besides being the general who triumphs, he is also the prisoner who follows the triumphal car.⁵¹ [emphasis in original]

Will humanity oppress itself with its newfound knowledge of the biological and technological sciences? Or will we heed the words of Jesus to love our neighbor as ourselves, even with our technology. May His benevolent grace travel with us on these roads ahead.

Sources Consulted
Anderson, Kerby. The Technological Challenges of the 21st Century Probe Ministries 2000. [online article] available from Probe Ministries at: http://www.probe.org/docs/tech.html. Internet; accessed June 8, 2001.

Anderson, Walter Truett. Evolution isn't what it used to be: The Augmented Animal and the Whole Wired World (New York: NY, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1996)

Caplan, Arthur L. Am I My Brother's Keeper? The Ethical Frontiers of Biomedicine (Bloomington: IN, Indiana University Press, 1997)

Colson, Chuck. Cracking the Genetic Moral Code - Commentary 5: Amazing Grace - An Udder Kind of Drug Factory (Prison Fellowship, 1996)

FDA Fact Sheet on Xenotransplantation, September 20th, 1996. [FDA Backgrounder] available from http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/xeno.html; Internet; accessed June 18th, 2001.

Foreman, Mark. Christianity and Bioethics (Joplin: MS, College Press Publishing, 1999)

Foreman, Mark. Personal E-mail Correspondence, June 21st, 2001.

Geisler, Norman. Christian Ethics - Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 1989)

Hagedorn, Charles. "Status Report on Transgenic Organisms" Crop and Soil Environmental News, (December 1997) [journal online]; available from http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/cses/1997-12/1997-12-01.html; Internet; accessed June 18th, 2001. Part of the Virginia Cooperative Extension.

Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us" Wired Magazine 8.04 April 2000.

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue "The Rematch" IBM web site http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/home/html/b.html. Accessed June 8, 2001.

Koukl, Gregory. All Brain, No Mind - Stand to Reason Commentary [online commentary] available from http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/philosophy/nomind.htm; Internet; accessed June 23rd, 2001.

Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machines (New York: NY, Viking, 1999)

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man (New York: NY, Macmillan, 1947)

Lorenz, C and Schaefer, B.M. "Reconstructing a urinary bladder" Nature Biotechnology 17 (February 1999)

Maney, Kevin. "Artificial Intelligence isn't just a movie: Machines, software that can 'think' no longer folly of science fiction" USA Today 20 June 2001.

Michler, Robert E. "Xenotransplantation: Risks, Clinical Potential, and Future Prospects"
Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2, no 1 (January-March 1996)

Mooney, David J. and Mikos, Antonios G. "Growing New Organs - Researchers have taken the first steps toward creating semisynthetic, living organs that can be used as human replacement parts" Scientific American Online [feature article] available from http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499mooney.html; Internet; accessed June 22nd, 2001.

Moravec, Hans. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1988)

Moravec, Hans. Online interview with robotbooks.com. Interview available online at http://www.robotbooks.com/Moravec.htm; Internet; accessed June 25th, 2001.

National Human Genome Institute web site http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/NEWS/genomeA_FCstatement.html. Accessed June 8, 2001.

Penrose, Roger The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (Cambridge: UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997)

PPL THERAPEUTICS PLC Press Release PPL Produces World's First Transgenic Cloned Pigs April 11th 2001. [press release] available from http://www.ppl-therapeutics.com/html/cfml/index_fullstory.cfm?StoryID=37; Internet; accessed June 20th, 2001.

Quain, John R. "I am Cyborg" Popular Science Summer 2001.

Searle, John. "Minds, Brains and Programs," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 1980.

Singer, Peter. "Against X Engrafting" Transplantation Proceedings 24, Issue 2.

Notes:

---

¹ Statement issued by Dr. Francis Collins on Feb 12th 2001 - full text available on the National Human Genome Institute web site at - http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/NEWS/genomeA_FCstatement.html. Accessed June 8, 2001.

² A chronicle and commentary of Kasparov vs. Deep Blue "The Rematch" is available online at IBM's web site http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/home/html/b.html. Accessed June 8, 2001. Kasparov actually defeated a less powerful Deep Blue computer in their first match up in 1996. Deep Blue was improved and won the rematch in 1997.

³ Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics - Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 1989), 180.

⁴ Ibid., 181,182. These principles are abridged from the layout in Geisler's Christian Ethics - in the chapter on Bioethics.

⁵ Kerby Anderson, The Technological Challenges of the 21st Century Probe Ministries 2000. [online article] available from Probe Ministries at: http://www.probe.org/docs/tech.html. Internet; accessed June 8, 2001.

⁶ Mark Foreman, Christianity and Bioethics (Joplin: MS, College Press Publishing, 1999), 260.

⁷ Chuck Colson, Cracking the Genetic Moral Code - Commentary 5: Amazing Grace - An Udder Kind of Drug Factory (Prison Fellowship, 1996), 12.

⁸ Charles Hagedorn, "Status Report on Transgenic Organisms" Crop and Soil Environmental News, (December 1997) [journal online]; available from http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/cses/1997-12/1997-12-01.html; Internet; accessed June 18th, 2001. Part of the Virginia Cooperative Extension.

⁹ Geisler, 302.

¹⁰ FDA Fact Sheet on Xenotransplantation, September 20th, 1996. [FDA Backgrounder] available from http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/xeno.html; Internet; accessed June 18th, 2001. Between 1990- 1995 an average of 4,835 people donated organs after death. However, about 48,000 people are now on the waiting list for organs. Approximately 3,000 people die every year because donor organs are not available to them.

¹¹ Arthur L. Caplan, Am I My Brother's Keeper? The Ethical Frontiers of Biomedicine (Bloomington: IN, Indiana University Press, 1997), 102,103.

¹² Ibid., 95 - It is noted that the calls for financial incentives to solve the problem of organ scarcity have been abundant in the late 1990s. Even Dr. Jack Kevorkian put forth the repugnant proposal of auctioning off body parts to solve organ shortages. These proposals are clearly immoral from a Christian perspective where the body is sacred and the property of God.

¹³ Robert E. Michler, "Xenotransplantation: Risks, Clinical Potential, and Future Prospects" Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2, no 1 (January-March 1996), 67.

¹⁴ Caplan, 101.

¹⁵ Peter Singer, "Against X Engrafting" Transplantation Proceedings 24, Issue 2: 718-22.

¹⁶ Walter Truett Anderson, Evolution isn't what it used to be: The Augmented Animal and the Whole Wired World (New York: NY, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1996), 84.

¹⁷ PPL THERAPEUTICS PLC Press Release PPL Produces World's First Transgenic Cloned Pigs April 11th 2001. [press release] available from http://www.ppl-therapeutics.com/html/cfml/index_fullstory.cfm?StoryID=37; Internet; accessed June 20th, 2001. PPL Therapeutics is the company that cloned Dolly the sheep. It is one of the world's leading companies in the application of transgenic technology to the production of therapeutic and nutraceutical proteins. Ironically, most of PPL's research into xenografting using transgenic pigs is being conducted in the author's hometown of Blacksburg VA.

¹⁸ Michler, 65.

¹⁹ Geisler, 184,185

²⁰ The Gnostic held to a radical form of body/spirit dualism in which all flesh was deemed to be evil and all that was good reflected the spiritual dimension of life.

²¹ Personal Correspondence June 21st, 2001.

²² This is precisely Peter Singer's objection to the procedure. A radical view of animal/human equality will object to the research and the practice of xenografting.

²³ David J. Mooney and Antonios G. Mikos "Growing New Organs - Researchers have taken the first steps toward creating semisynthetic, living organs that can be used as human replacement parts" Scientific American Online [feature article] available from http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499mooney.html; Internet; accessed June 22nd, 2001.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ C Lorenz and B.M. Schaefer, "Reconstructing a urinary bladder" Nature Biotechnology (February 1999), 133.

²⁶ Caplan, 30. Chapter 3 "Have a Heart? The Ethical Lessons of the Development of the Total Artificial Heart contains an excellent history and ethical evaluation of the TAH program.

²⁷ Ibid., Caplan chronicles both the public and private funding of the TAH research in this chapter. It is also noted that research has continued in the private sector with Abiomed (http://www.abiomed.com) readying a new device, called the AbioCor, for clinical trials.

²⁸ Ibid.,38.

²⁹ Ibid., 39.

³⁰ Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines (New York: NY, Viking, 1999) 127.

³¹ Ibid., 127,128.

³² Ibid., 128.

³³ Hans Moravec. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1988)

³⁴ Kurzweil, 279 - There is a extensive timeline in the appendix of this book. It traces time from the big bang until the distant future that Kurzweil predicts. The outline is informative, as it not only contains his predictions but his philosophy and worldview as well.

³⁵ John R.Quain "I am Cyborg" Popular Science (Summer 2001) 42.

³⁶ Ibid., 45.

³⁷ Ibid., 45.

³⁸ Kurzweil, 280.

³⁹ Ibid., 280.

⁴⁰ Online Interview with Hans Moravec author of Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence. Interview available online at http://www.robotbooks.com/Moravec.htm; Internet; accessed June 25th, 2001.

⁴¹ Kevin Maney, "Artificial Intelligence isn't just a movie: Machines, software that can 'think' no longer folly of science fiction" USA Today 20 June 2001. Eric Horvitz, technology researcher at Microsoft believes humans are always getting better at guiding and managing computers, so he believes that we will stay in control.

⁴² Bill Joy "Why the future doesn't need us" Wired Magazine 8.04 (April 2000) - Bill Joy the creator of the Java Programming language and chief scientist for Sun Microsystems has come out against the pursuit of these types of technologies. He has openly discussed his concerns with Ray Kurzweil and traces his deep concern to their first meeting in 1998. Bill Joy does not seem to be a theist, but his concerns flow out of his recognition of depravity. He may call it irrationality, or ignorance, or irresponsibility, but his fears of some of the new technologies flow from an acknowledgement that we are not to be trusted with our own creations...we are not 'good' enough for such a trust.

⁴³ Gregory Koukl, All Brain, No Mind - Stand to Reason Commentary [online commentary] available from http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/philosophy/nomind.htm; Internet; accessed June 23rd, 2001.

⁴⁴ Strong AI is similar to an idea known as computational functionalism the idea that all thinking is reduced to some computational function. This view reduces consciousness to the appropriate computation of the brain.

⁴⁵ Roger Penrose, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (Cambridge: UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997), 99-113.

⁴⁶ John Searle's now infamous Chinese Room Argument illustrates this point well. The Chinese Room Argument shows that just carrying out the steps in a computer program is not by itself sufficient to guarantee thinking. Imagine a person, who does not know Chinese, is locked in a room with a computer program for answering written questions, put to him in Chinese, by providing Chinese symbols as answers. If properly programmed the person will provide answers that look just like those from those of native Chinese speakers, but he still does do not understand Chinese. And if the person doesn't, neither does a computer solely on the basis of carrying out the program. See John Searle's "Minds, Brains and Programs," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (1980) for the first statement of this argument.

⁴⁷ Online Interview with Hans Moravec author of Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence. Interview available online at http://www.robotbooks.com/Moravec.htm; Internet; accessed June 25th, 2001.

⁴⁸ Kurzweil page 240.

⁴⁹ Nanotechnology deals with developing machines and technology on the nanometer scale. A nanometer is 10-9 meter (1/1,000,000,000 of a meter) and is roughly on the scale of mere atoms.

⁵⁰ Bill Joy, "Why the future doesn't need us" Wired Magazine 8.04 (April 2000)

⁵¹ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: NY, Macmillan, 1947), 68-69, 71.