Nick Lubic Final Project

Nick Lubic
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
6 December 2008

Progression through the Past

A few obvious questions arise when the word “progress” is mentioned in today’s society. What direction is it leading us in? Is progress actually occurring, or are we actually fading with time? Of course, these are not the easiest inquiries to answer, as there are many opinions out there, all of which are useful, however some more than others. The best thing one can do is stick to what he or she believes in and go with it. Others should not hesitate to use these views on humanity to their advantage and even attempt to base their existence around them in order to give life meaning. It is this diversity in opinion that makes this such a controversial issue according to these authors. I believe that Bill McKibben, in his book Enough, summarizes this direction best. By this I mean that I think humans should continue to look towards the future and progress, as long as the progression does not threaten the morals instilled in humans from birth. His views, along with mine, on progress, although incredibly in depth, can be simplified by applying a visual representation. In doing so, one can truly grasp what is being described when approaching this outlook. Bill McKibben’s view on human progress is the single best way to look at the future of our species, because of it involves progress along with regression back to what makes us the most dominant species in the world.

McKibben would agree that the upward spiral approach to human progression is the safest and most effective way of doing so. In this direction, humanity progresses in a socially acceptable way and bases the decisions it makes off of the past. Bill McKibben argues that an upward spiral direction of progress is superior to linear progress. When I say linear, I mean a progression in which there is no remorse for the past and all attention is focused on bettering the species and looking towards the future. McKibben’s outlook on progression involves advancements much like a linear thinkers would; however he does not stray far away from morals such as religion, which can be more comfortable for readers. In his book, Enough, he stresses advancements in medicine and the like, but does not agree with permanent changes to the human species. For instance, he uses a quote from Francis Fukuyama to describe the way he feels. Fukuyama says, “What we need to do is not ban [genetic engineering] but regulate it, drawing lines to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate uses” (McKibben 136). From this, one can conclude that this scheme of progress wants humans to grow and develop, and believes in the technologies of the future bettering mankind, so long as it does not cross the line. By a line, I mean that it does not break the moral standards of human culture but instead “spirals” back to what makes us human while still progressing.

I can further apply this view to my own life and connect my morals into a broader sense of progression that directly concurs with McKibben. McKibben’s view is more comfortable for me, perhaps because it satisfies the morals that society has instilled in me. For instance, being raised a Catholic has given me a strong faith in God, and, because of this faith, there are certain aspects of life that I feel are the sole responsibility of God and God alone. I solemnly believe God alone has the right to create and alter life. I realize that it is very possible for human technology to create and alter our species through things like genetic engineering, but I do not feel that we have the right to do so. There is a certain line that I feel need not be crossed when we are already the most dominant species on the planet. I am sure this opinion can come with quite a lot of resistance with questions like, “Why not make us better?” Living for three hundred years and being six foot five with blue eyes would be great, but would we really be accomplishing anything or merely altering our species in a selfish and materialistic way? McKibben puts it best when he describes the process of genetically altering our species, saying, “Some of these improvements might sound ‘medical’- increasing resistance to disease, say. But they ‘treat’ illness the patient doesn’t have, and, as again we shall see later, there’s no way to prevent willy-nilly ‘enhancement’ once you’ve started down this path” (McKibben 11). Progress such as this not only defies the morals I have learned throughout society, but also fails to look at progress as a slow and steady attempt to survive as a species. It instead wanders off blindly towards a future that no one can be certain will be better for the human race, or will lead to a complete catastrophe. Either way, we need to be more rigid in our attempt to progress, and McKibben solemnly believes this to be true.

This does not mean that those with a faith in God are the only ones who can benefit from this upward spiral model. In fact, there is a limitless amount of ways in which one can spiral back to their core morals in order to progress. It simply depends on how one has chosen to live his or her life. That is why this is such a beneficial progress. There is complete control over how you progress and external progress does not need to occur to reach a sense of accomplishment. Also, since most people within their respective community share similar morals, there will be less stress on their progress because they are not impeding on anyone else’s morals. Upward spiral progression is effective because it comes without a sense of resistance, while linear progress is controversial.

The biggest challenge to these morals are linear visionaries like Lee Silver, who are focused solely on the future. Human beings will continue to advance and seek new technologies until the end of our existence. People who view humanity in this way tend to be looking towards the future in every way and seeing every technology as human progress and something that should not be challenged, but embraced. An example of a visionary write who believes human nature is based around these principles is Lee Silver. In his book, Challenging Nature, Silver sees controversial advancements such as germline therapy, or “designer babies”, as the next step in human advancement. McKibben and I see this radical technology as a way of breaking the very code of what it is to be human and becoming a godlike figure. To visionaries like Silver, he does not see it like that at all. Silver states in his book, “Throughout history, people have responded to powerful technology with a mixture of hope and fear. Equally passionate technophiles have urged science on, full speed ahead” (Silver x). This statement shows the direction that Silver sees human progress going in, or at least the way he wants to see human progress. However, McKibben takes a direct shot at Silver and people who think like him in Enough. He takes a shot at the fact that linear visionaries like Silver have a desire for progress, but they don’t really have great reasoning as to why they feel this way. Gregory Stock says, “Because it will allow us a deeper understanding of what we truly are” and J. Hughes says, “Because reengineering minds will permit us to think more profound and intense thoughts”. McKibben responds to this, saying, “These sound like things that people say to each other in the parking lot at a Phish concert, before they drop acid” (McKibben 225). This may sound harsh of McKibben, but he has a point. Why take such a huge risk and jeopardize the very existence of the human species to satisfy some inner feeling to which there is no real reasoning. I think the extreme risk factor, along with a lack of assurance that this is truly the best way to progress, is the deciding factor in my disagreement with this view. It is quite clear that Silver believes even the most extreme cases of technical mischief are progress and part of the evolution of man, a bold and incorrect view from my standpoint.

One such futurist named Martin Rees points out several key flaws in Silver’s view on the future. He describes in his book, Our Final Hour, that the developments in technology within the next few decades could lead to our eventual extinction from the planet. This may seem outlandish to many, simply because people mostly view technologies as good. However, he points out several ways in which this train of thought could be more harmful than helpful to the progress of our species. Some intriguing scenarios he includes are things such as, “lethal engineered airborne viruses… we may even one day be threatened by rogue nanomachines that replicate catastrophically, or by superintelligent computers” (Rees 1). He mentions Silver on several occasions, saying, “Indeed, Lee Silver, in his book Remaking Eden, conjectures that it could take only a few generations for humanity to divide into two species” (Rees 12). In this case, however, Rees sees this as a source for the destruction of mankind, where Silver sees it as linear progress that should be embraced. The information provided by Rees shows how viewing progress in the way Silver views it is dangerous to mankind and the progress of mankind.

When Rees speaks of danger, many would argue that technological disasters like the ones he describes would never happen in our day and age and are incredibly unlikely. However, there are several instances in history that can serve as warnings as to how truly dangerous and foolish these linear advancements are. Take for instance a biological incident that occurred in 1989 in Japan. During this time, biological engineering of proteins and the like was a fairly new technology. Scientists attempted to biologically engineer a large amino acid that is considered to be an essential part of human metabolism, L-tryptophan. There was a mistake in the production of the amino acid in a Japanese factory but was put on the market anyway. The mutated amino acid led to over 60,000 individuals becoming infected with what is now known as eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (“L-Tryptophan; Monograph”). This is a perfect example of how dangerous and costly it can be to blindly progress towards an uncertain future. If people like this would only realize that the technologies they are creating have the potential to jeopardize the well being of our species, perhaps they would slow down and learn from the past like McKibben suggests. Again, the question I feel I need to continually ask is why not just stick to what has worked in the past in order to progress instead of continually manipulating ourselves against our morals just for the sake of it? It seems more like digressing than progressing to sacrifice so much on advancing when we should be looking at what has gotten us to this point. An analogy can be drawn from this thought. We as humans know that if you put your hand in fire, you will get burned. We were taught this from birth because those that came before us have experienced it. If we see a diamond in the core of the fire, we know that regardless of whether we get the diamond, we will still get burned. Linear thinkers jump right in a try to grab it. They are making the same mistake that we have learned is wrong. Why should you do this? This is why it is so important to spiral back to what you know in order to progress.

Getting back to McKibben’s view on progress, there are instances in which this upward spiral approach can truly be beneficial in a far superior way to the linear approach. A perfect example lies within McKibben’s book. In the beginning, McKibben describes his participation in a marathon. In the race, he depicts personal goals that he accomplishes in order to give his like meaning and makes him content. Although he is not necessarily winning the race, he is remaining close to what he familiar with and is progressing in the way that he sees fit (McKibben 1-4). Linear thinkers would rather resort to modifying the body in order to win the race instead of satisfying internal goals. In this case, McKibben and those like him progress in their own way and then “loop back” to what has worked for them in the past. Using this marathon representation, you can apply this same idea to modern society. I would choose to run the race with personal goals in mind, progressing in a way that is both successful and morally acceptable. Humanity that progresses like Silver suggests would use technologies such as germline therapy and human enhancement drugs to “win the race” in any way possible. However, these method are considered unacceptable in today’s society and are shunned, rightfully so. This, of course, defeats the true purpose of the race and therefore, is not the better of the two views.

I am sure one would wonder at this point, “Why should I care that McKibben has superior views on the future of human progress?” and “What does any of this have to do with me?” The answer to these questions can be answered with a question of my own. How can one live their life without taking into account their future and the future of their children? We all need to base our existence off of something, otherwise our life would have no purpose and we would have an equivalent existence to that of a rock. The fact is that human existence is based on progress. It is what has gotten us to this point in history and is the driving force from this point on. Take, for instance, the life of a young college student. Their life up to that point has been solely based on progression and preparation for the future. They have worked hard all throughout school to reach the collegiate level and now are looking forward towards a career and a life away from home. Progression is built into the frameworks of all our lives whether we know it or not, and using the right method of progression can prevent mistakes from occurring. This is why I urge the use of upward spiral progression, because it safely enables our species to grow and mature the way humans were meant to. It is not a theory or a random view created out of thin air by some poor and desperate author. It is a way of life.

In conclusion, I sincerely believe that the upward spiral progress presented by Bill McKibben is the single most effective way for the human species to move forward. It combines all the advancements and technologies that linear thinkers are focused on, and brings them into a more acceptable and useful form. Morals and beliefs do not need to be shattered in a desperate attempt to move towards the future. Progression like this should come natural to most because it is directly entwined into our lives. Knowing what I have summarized, the only thing left to do now is go out and do it.







Works Cited

“L-tryptophan; Monograph.” Alternative Medicine Review. Mar. 2006. 52. Academic Universe.
Lexis-Nexis. Hillman Library, Pittsburgh PA. 4 Dec. 2008. http://lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic.

McKibben, Bill. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York:Henry Holt and Company, 2003.

Rees, Martin. Our Final Hour. New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature. New York: Ecco. 2006.