Brian Paschke
ENG CMP 0200- Dr. Johns
If we determine what is human by physical properties alone, we run into the danger of becoming obsessed with our property. If we believe that everything that humanity has accomplished in the past years is worth nothing, then we declare progress worthless. We must then accept a compromise position, where increased property is representative of an escape of humans from the physical realities of the world. The more property we have, the less we value it, and thus we can begin to enjoy the complexities of experience, and move on to a world where the physical is totally subordinate to the mental and the philosophical.
The esteemed historian Benedict Anderson has been influential in the study of Nationalism as a way to examine human communities. He defines the Nation as “an imagined political community”- Anderson, 5. This is because in a nation, all members are not able to have relationships with all other members, you will have countrymen with whom you feel a strong bond, and yet will never meet. It is imaginary, because unlike your family or your tribe, the feeling of nation only exists to contrast the feeling of ‘The Other’. One only sees their self as a member of their own nation to consciously conceive themselves as distinct from the members of opposing groups. The same idea can be applied to the definition of humanity- We are only human compared to that which is not human.
If we apply the scientific reductionist ideas to the human being, all parts are broken down into elements and further into protons, neutrons, and electrons. From a strict reductionist point of view, there is no way to differentiate between inanimate matter and the components of the human body. A man is a rock is a cat is a moon. I do not say this in an attempt to imply that there is nothing special about the human, but rather to imply that the basis of humanity does not rest in the physical.
Silver addresses the famous reductionist Renee Descartes in an argument against the mystical aspect of humanity. Humanity does not exist because we were placed here by some divine being. “Instead, Descartes argues, natural processes could be understood through the pure logic of mathematical representation and theoretical problem solving.”- Silver, 21 Processes can be understood, and so I do not accept a religious definition of humanity where I cannot question those in charge. No person has a lock on who is human and who is not, and no one can truly judge all of humanity.
Bill McKibben has a strongly materialistic view of the human experience. He is obsessed with the marathon race. He believes that without physical challenges, something essential to humanity is lost. “But as we move into this new world of genetic engineering, we won’t simply lose races, we’ll lose racing; we’ll lose the possibility of the test, the challenge, the celebration that athletics represents.”- McKibben, 6. I view McKibben as a yuppie. His challenge is one that is pampered- he never truly has to struggle for his life. His struggle is chosen, he makes the choice to run. The pleasure that he experiences is completely real, and I can attest myself to the joys of running, but I would not define my life by this challenge.
To look more closely at the meaning of humanity, we should look closely those who truly have nothing. “In poor west-African societies converted to Christianity, heaven can take on a faux-modern appearance with immortal souls cruising in Rolls-Royces down clean streets (unlike their own) past glass and steel skyscrapers fronted by decorative fountains.” – Silver, 38. The missionaries try to bring hope to people with their religion, but people want to be happy in the life that they are currently living. Can we accuse these people of missing the point and being overly materialistic when they have nothing? Perhaps these people simply see past the twisted logic of these missionaries in order to see the life that they would like to live.
Coming back to Descartes, “Through the process of pure reason- leading to what may be the most famous sentence and follow-up in philosophy- Descartes proved (to himself, at least) that the evidence for the existence of a separate and distinct human soul was even strong than the evidence for the existence of the human body.”- Silver, 38 “I think; therefore I am… I could pretend that I had no body and that there was no world or place that I was in, but I could not pretend that I did not exist.”- Descartes, 54. If the human consciousness existed in any other vessel, it would be just as human. A mannequin is not human, but an ensouled computer designed to improve itself is.
Thought is the essence of what is human. The self exists independently of the physical body, at a different level. Stephen Hawking would be unable to communicate without the aid of a computer to translate text into voice, but no one would consider him to be less human than others not so technologically enhanced. McKibben would no doubt take the position that Hawking has achieved the great things he has done because of the challenges he has overcome due to his disabilities, but I say Hawking represents the future. Hawking has been forced into a position that does not allow him to enjoy all the material realities normal to most humans, and has evolved to a state of being existing only in the theoretical.
The best athletes in our world do not perform because they are challenging themselves; they want to be the best. “In 1995, researchers asked two hundred Olympic hopefuls if they’d take a drug that would guarantee them a five-year winning streak and then kill them. Almost half said yes.”- McKibben, 4. These athletes want to be immortalized in human history; they wish to be remembered forever. I view this as using the physical body as a lunch pad into the realm of the theoretical. They do not care about death, they do not fear the end of their actual existence, because they know that they will continue to exist in the minds of other competitors, and they become more than just the flesh.
McKibben says that he believes pushing the limits of what humans can do, but I would say that rather than pushing the definition of humanity he is only encouraging living within the bounds of the known, and is proposing stagnation and repetition. McKibben is different from the athletes he refers to because he performs only for his own enjoyment, whereas the athletes want to become something more. McKibben already believes he is famous and successful, and so can espouse ideals that those who have to struggle to eat would find offensive.
McKibben is in a place that he is totally comfortable. He can supply his family with everything he needs, and I would say that he does not respect those people who do not have what he has. He says of genetic engineering “It will break us free from the bounds of our past and present and send us winging off into parts unknown. That’s precisely what appeals to some.”- McKibben 11. If you believe that the world is perfect as McKibben does, then this is ok. I believe our world has many problems, and this is exactly what needs to be done. Despite our supposedly liberal governmental system, there are still millions of people who do not have basic water sanitization, people who must fight with their neighbors in order to obtain the basic necessities to survive.
Arguing for the purity of the human to prevent improvements is comparable to those who believe that “organic” foods are somehow more pure, when in reality these practices represent an outdated method of production that is too inefficient to be allowed to continue if the world wants to meet the full nutritional needs of the entire population. People like McKibben spoke against the Green Revolution in the 1960’s, and from the perspective of rich white America, the Green Revolution was a nightmare. What about the other people in our world, people from places like India where a third of a billion people live in conditions we see as utter poverty?
Acccording to Silver, these people were not out to mutate our vegetables for profit, but to improve lives. It is not just additional food that is being produced, “When the costs of producing and consuming food are reduced, more money is available for people to spend elsewhere, allowing them to improve the quality of their lives.”- Silver, 267
The impact of genetic engineering on our plants is undeniable, and the human lives that have been saved as a result of reducing famine cannot be ignored. “The impact of introducing the high-yielding variety seeds was felt in the production of the major cereals. Between 1950-51 and 1969 total food grain production approximately doubled, from fifty million tons to a hundred million tons.”- Chakravarti, 320.
Deniers say that this is for the upper class, that this revolution is simply a way for big industry to gain ever more control over this world’s production. “The feat was accomplished in the face of a pessimistic attitude which declared uneducated farmers unable to adapt quickly to the new ways… Yields in Indian and Pakistan have shot up from 11 bushels per acre to an average of 50, with reports of yields up to 150 bushels in some areas.”- Peace and the Green revolution, 347
Is this an unnecessary increase in production? I compare this to enhancements in humanity, where we might say that no enhancement is needed until it is too late. Are we mutating these plants into devils, or are we saving lives? “The 1968-69 crop year on the Gangatic and Indus plains in India and West Pakistan ordinarily would have produced a famine… But there was no famine. Instead, the Pakistani wheat crop was about 14 percent higher than in the preceding year and the Indian crop eight percent. With or without drought and bad growing weather, wheat yields have been increasing.” – Peace and the Green Revolution, 347. This is a serious improvement, humans taking control back from the unnecessary chaos of the universe. The universe wants to descend further and further into chaos, and humanity wants to bring order and understanding.
I do not appreciate McKibben lowering the level of discourse as he does when quoting Silver, saying that genetic engineering is impossible without cloning, then subsequently speaking of the Raelian UFO cultists’ fraudulent research. A cult and a scientist are two different things, and Silver is no joke. I believe that my arguments result in an improvement of the human condition, and escape from misery. A denial of my argument is a position against progress. It is arrogant to say that we have reached the pinnacle of human existence, that nothing more can be improved.
While some people still deny the reality of our worlds, everyone who believes in reason, science, and truth have come to accept the fact that humans have evolved from apes, which evolved from smaller mammals, and so on in an unbroken chain leading down to forms of life undetectable to modern man. There are some things that humans are biologically designed to do- convert oxygen into carbon dioxide, breed, and die. There are two options available to us- change or stagnation.
We humans have turned earth into a different planet than it once was. Those who would say that the environment of the planet must be taken care of are correct, but it must not be taken to the point that the welfare of human beings is put after the welfare of animals.
Unfortunately for me, my whole argument falls apart when I am asked “So Brian, what are you doing tonight?” My response to this question will probably be some self-fulfilling activity- drowning myself in my own humanity. McKibbens arguments ring strong to me. I ran cross country, and still enjoy an exhausting run. To me, the most eloquent argument he makes is the simplest. “Sure, these questions are important, especially the last one. But they’re not all-important. The techno-utopians ignore all the equally urgent queries, such as “What shall we have for dinner?” and “How are your feeling?” and “Can I give you a hand with that?” and “Do you think you could ever love me, too?” “-McKibben, 226
I can only say that we will one day evolve beyond these questions, we will one day live in a different world. I can only pray that we do not eliminate all that is valuable and interesting in the process. I believe that the risk is worth it, in order to lessen the human suffering that covers the majority of our earth.
Works Cited
McKibben, Bill. Enough : Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: Owl Books, 2004.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature : The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperPerennial, 2007.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso, 1991, pp. 5-7.
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and the Mediations (New York: Penguin, 1968), 54.
Peace and the green revolution.(1970). Science News, 98(18), 347-348. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3955518
Chakravarti, A. K. (1973). Green revolution in india. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 63(3), 319-330. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2561997
No comments:
Post a Comment