Too tired to think of title...

Albert Wu
EngCmp
Final Paper

Genetically my brain to make me a faster writer, please...

In the latter portion of the twentieth century, Rabbi Josef Ekstein lost four of his eleven children to a debilitating hereditary condition known as Tay-Sachs disease. Following his losses, Ekstein began a righteous campaign to expel Tay-Sachs from the Ashkenazim Jewish community. Working with geneticist Michael Kaback and other ultramodern scientists of his day, Ekstein constructed a revolutionary prenatal screening program where members of the community had the option of having their blood drawn and tested for the presence of protein markers unique to Tay-Sachs (Wingerson, 1998). In his community, where arranged marriage was traditional practice, if both members of a newly arranged couple had previously tested positive and were determined to be Tay-Sachs carriers, either matchmakers would reject the newly formed engagement based on the notion of carrier states “blemishing” a family’s background, or genetic counseling was made available where healthcare and social workers, acquainted with the disease process and it’s effect on families, worked with and educated the couple to assist them in making wise, calculated decisions regarding abortion and alternative means of conception (Wingerson, 1998).
Because abortion was considered taboo in Ekstein’s orthodox community except when the mother’s life was in peril, opponents and conservative Rabbi’s screamed “foul!” They rejected Ekstein’s logic that giving birth to several affected children was perilous to a mother, and shot down the notion of rejecting otherwise felicitous marriages principally based on ambiguous criteria (Wingerson, 1998). He famously noted after the initiation of his venture, “I got no cooperation, there was total opposition. The entire mentality was that you couldn’t even talk about screening” (Wingerson, 1998).
Despite the contention, however, Ekstein’s forward thinking and contemporary screening model proliferated not only among constituents of his community, but across the greater portions of North America (Wingerson, 1998). Since 1983, there has been a significant increase in genetic screening and a proportional decline in the occurrence of Tay-Sachs disease (Wingerson, 1998). Furthermore, statistics have shown the results of the higher incidence of prenatal screening, and indicate there have been less than five newly diagnosed cases of Tay-Sachs in the United States and Canada annually since that same year (Wingerson, 1998).
Disease, in the context understood by the healthcare community, is any process that results in the abnormal functioning of any organ, structure, or system (Porth, 2005). Tay-Sachs, for instance, is a disease in which genetic variation results in the malfunction of a single chemical necessary for normal brain metabolism (Porth, 2005). Because these newborns lack the genes responsible for coding beta-hexosaminidase-A molecule: fatty acids accumulate in nerve cells, nerve degeneration ensues, and what were charming, babbling children transform into “drooling, immobile children with blind eyes and overlarge heads” (Wingerson, 1998). In most instances, affected children are dead before the age of six.
Now, fast-forward to the twenty-first century, to an era where breakthroughs in genetics and microscopic imaging technology, in conjunction with a heavy purse and modern wisdom, set the stage for the completion of the Human Genome Project. This project went far enough to establish the mutations and abnormalities responsible for a diverse range of hereditary diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Anemia (Boon, 2002). Nobel Prize laureate Walter Gilbert, and the leader of the National Institute of Health’s role in the enterprise, Francis Collins, predicted by 2010 the project will have determined the genetic profiles of approximately 2000 to 5000 illnesses “giving us an almost complete understanding of the genetic basis of ancient diseases” (Boon, 2002). Furthermore, Bill Clinton exclaimed after the completion of the project that it “promises to lead to a new era of molecular medicine, an era that will bring new ways to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure disease” (Boon, 2002).
We have had the resources and appropriate systems available to offer prenatal screening to couples to estimate their probability of passing on several disease traits, and modern breakthroughs in genetics related to healthcare has extended our scope of medical practice to concretely diagnose fertilized embryos with hereditary or chromosomal disorders.
Despite blood and serum testing being considered revolutionary in Ekstein’s day, it is now principally used as a preliminary adjunct too much more accurate and efficient forms of prenatal screening; that is if a mother or father is determined to be a carrier of a hereditary disease through blood typing, they will be referred to more specialized healthcare providers for more accurate forms of diagnostic testing. Comparative Genomic Hybridization, for example, has superceded blood typing as the principal form of prenatal screening. This procedure goes beyond determining the Punnett risk of passing on a disease trait; rather, it analyzes the chromosomes in an embryo to definitively determine the presence of chromosomal abnormalities or mutations (Moorthie, 2008).
In conjunction with this contemporary science, in vitro fertilization and the applicability of genetic engineering, which is regarded as the tangible form of molecular medicine prescribed by Clinton to treat and cure illness, becomes obvious: implant an embryo free of disease, or fix the underlying genetic abnormality present in a person affected by a hereditary condition (McKibben, 2003). Despite this, skeptics like Lee Silver object. They accept McKibben’s proffer, but claim that genetic engineering can go one step further and can be used to manipulate and improve the genome of germ cells before fertilization. They advocate the use of germline engineering to create a future where people can be liberated from threats like disease, a future where current methods, such as in vitro fertilization and somatic gene therapy, are eclipsed by more effective and radical methods of genetic engineering. However, opponents to Silver’s objective claim that current methods of genetic engineering are sufficient to treat disease, and they question the ethics of pursuing Silver’s ambitious goals. These proponents contend that current methods should be used, but argue against allowing genetic engineering to evolve into Silver’s ambitions because human cloning, which is necessary to achieve germline engineering, are too unethical to be done. Somatic gene therapy, and in vitro fertilization used in conjunction with prenatal screening, are paramount to treating disease and through proper legislation, which would establish the relevant ethical criteria and parameters for practicing genetic engineering, can control human cloning and thus the speculative evolution of genetic engineering to germline engineering advocated by scientists like Silver.
For those unfamiliar with in vitro fertilization, the basic tools necessary for a successful carriage and pregnancy are as follows: a viable ovum, sperm, and a uterus that can maintain pregnancy. The application for preventing hereditary disease is essentially: the ovum is fertilized by the sperm outside of the womb, the fertilized embryos are assessed for the relevant genetic mutations or abnormalities, and the unaffected embryos are implanted into the mother. After acknowledging the benefit and risk outcomes identified during genetic counseling, a stepwise process that is used for in vitro fertilization could then be initiated.
Tay-Sachs and Ekstein’s model consolidated with modern techniques and science forms a hypothetical paradigm illustrating the use prenatal screening and in vitro fertilization can have to treat disease. Consider, for a moment, a population of one hundred couples trying to conceive where both the male and female test serum positive for carrier states of Tay-Sachs. Punnett square analysis of this autosomal recessive disease shows that if every couple succeeded in conceiving, twenty-five children would be born with the condition. The proposed model would proceed as follows:
First, couples would participate in genetic counseling where they would be educated on the following options: proceed with natural pregnancy and birth, or choose in vitro fertilization. If the parents prefer the latter choice, genetic counselors would educate them on the risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization. For example, the benefits would include a healthy child unaffected by Tay-Sachs, and the risks would include miscarriage. Prior to implantation of embryos in a mother’s womb, comparative genomic hybridization would be used to detect mutations among the HEXA genes on chromosome fourteen, the aforementioned allele responsible for coding the beta-hexosaminidase-A molecule (Human Genome Project, 2008).
For those unfortunate individuals already born with a hereditary condition, other forms of therapy, for instance somatic gene therapy, can be used to treat their disease. Tay-Sachs disease will again be used to show the efficacy of somatic gene therapy:
Transgenic methods of genetic engineering can be used to replace or fix mutated chromosomes responsible for a person’s condition (Wingerson, 1998). Similar to how the HIV virus is able to replicate, integrate, and express its viral RNA in a host cells genetic sequence forming functional viral DNA, exogenous, healthy HEXA genes obtained from genetically matched donors can be introduced to the affected person by a number of vectors, such as non-virulent bacteria or viruses. The use of existing immunosuppressant drugs, in conjunction with a relatively low risk for rejection related to the genetic match, results in a very real, and very high probability that the exogenous HEXA gene will be accepted and integrated by the person genome following initial exposure. Furthermore, using relevant pathophysiologies of similar processes as archetypes, such as the HIV replication and integration cycle in creating it’s own viral DNA, if the transgene is able to assimilate with the host, replication and expression of the gene will naturally occur. If this takes place, the healthy genes will provide for grossly normal brain metabolism and the person will not exhibit the manifestations and premature death associated with Tay-Sachs disease.
Other microcosmic examples that present the potential of in vitro fertilization and somatic gene therapy in treating certain health disparities are Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle Cell Anemia.
According to recent epidemiologic surveys, Cystic Fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disorder among people of European descent (Human Genome Project, 2001). The Human Genome Project (2001) determined the etiology of this disease to be the deletion of three essential base pairs in the CFTR gene. As a result of this mutation, the normal balance between sodium and chloride ion channels is disturbed, and the affected person produces thick mucus that cannot be removed by normal ciliary functions (Porth, 2005). The accumulation of mucus in the patient’s lungs, pancreas, liver, intestines, and other organs results in susceptibility to frequent, recurring infections and debilitating manifestations that inevitably progresses to multisystem failure (Porth, 2005). The course of the disease has a poor prognosis: patients have an average lifespan of less than forty years.
Sickle Cell Anemia is a hereditary disease that is prevalent among millions of people worldwide (Human Genome Project, 2003). Although manageable in most cases, manifestations related to this particular condition include periodic breakthrough pain, stunted growth, and high susceptibility to embolic strokes. The Human Genome Project (2003) has already established several mutations in the beta-hemoglobin gene located on chromosome eleven that is responsible for this illness. The most common of which is the allocation of normal hydrophilic glutamic acid by hydrophobic amino acids at various positions along the polypeptide chain (Human Genome Project, 2003). Because of the hydrophilic nature of the substitutes, the protein structures of hemoglobin chains cannot be maintained, resulting in the clumping of hemoglobin molecules and the classic sickling of circulating red blood cells (Human Genome Project, 2003).
Similar to Tay-Sachs disease, it is common practice for newly pregnant women to seek prenatal screening to assess for potential complications correspondent to their pregnancies. Several of the methods sought after by these women, such as blood screening, are effective in early indication of both Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle Cell Anemia. Despite cognizance of an underlying disease process, however, early diagnosis does not translate to a treatment or cure.
If human in vitro fertilization or somatic gene therapy were to be commonly practiced, the same principles applied to treat the underlying genetic components of Tay-Sachs could be used to treat every other understood chromosomal or hereditary abnormality: choose an embryo devoid of the mutation, or introduce healthy forms of the gene to supplement the mutated genes function. After initial diagnosis, parents or affected people would participate in genetic counseling and, if favored, embryos negative for mutated CFTR genes, mutated beta-hemoglobin genes, etc… would be implanted, or people living with hereditary conditions would undergo somatic gene therapy.
There have already been a few, isolated cases where somatic gene therapy has been successful. In Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Future, Gregory Stock (2002) provides a real example where a young girl, Natalie, was diagnosed with a hereditary disease, Fanconi Anemia. Those unfamiliar with this process should know that it is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder, similar to Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anemia, and Tay-Sachs, and has a very poor prognosis generally causing cancer, complete bone marrow failure, and death well before adulthood (Porth, 2005). The parents, after speaking with genetic counselors regarding their options, chose to conceive another daughter hoping the cells, derived from the child’s umbilical cord, would be a genetic match for cell transplantation (Stock, 2002). In the end, the couples calculated decision, and the genes from the mesenchymal cells harvested from the daughter’s umbilical cord, corrected Natalie’s condition, according her a new lease on life (Stock, 2002).
The aforementioned applications of in vitro fertilization and somatic gene therapy are within our scopes of scientific knowledge and technological capabilities and McKibben, as well as other like-minded scientists, acknowledge their approval and recognize the clinical applications of these methods (McKibben, 2003). Other scientists like Lee Silver, however, advocate another type of genetic engineering referred to as germline engineering where germ cells (i.e. sperm and ovum) are genetically manipulated prior to fertilization; where genes and chromosomes are subtracted and added to a person’s genome as favored (McKibben, 2003).
Referring back to the accomplishments of the Human Genome Project, our genetic sequence has already been established, and according to geneticists and molecular biologists Gregory Stock and Lee Silver, advances in genetics, technology, and genetic engineering will allow us the capability of writing our physiological and anatomical codes like a word document (McKibben, 2003). Along the lines of this metaphor, allowing germline engineering to evolve into fruition will allow us to effectively ‘delete’ those chromosomes in our body responsible for hereditary diseases, and ‘delete’ those genes responsible for undesirable traits like obesity and poor intelligence. We will be able to ‘write’ instructions for more muscle mass and perfect physiques, we will ‘write instructions’ for higher intelligence, parents will be able to ‘write’ the instructions for a child in their image (McKibben, 2003). What Silver and Stock are advocating is using germline engineering as a form or eugenic engineering, where designer babies can be manufactured in which undesirable traits are substituted for desirable ones (McKibben, 2003).
A medical related example of how germline engineering can be used related to immune function is HIV, and the body’s natural immune response. The HIV virus is coated in a viral envelope that mimics human cell membranes making it nearly indistinguishable from other bodily cells; however, it has unique viral glycoprotein surface complexes necessary to attach to host cells (Porth, 2005). As of now, the bodies natural immune function cannot distinguish between the viral cells and host cells, but through germline engineering, it might be possible to make the host’s natural immune system more sensitive to these surface proteins. If the body can recognize the foreign virus from the onset of primary exposure, it is quite possible to prevent the possibility of HIV being able to infect humans.
Although this form of genetic engineering advocated by Silver may seem desirable to some, to cure HIV for example, there is one fundamental step that is a foundation of the argument against it. In order for science to accomplish germline engineering, a radical piece of technology has to exist: the ability to clone people (McKibben, 2003). Lee Silver admits, “Without cloning, genetic [germline] engineering is simply science fiction. But with cloning, genetic engineering moves into the realm of reality” (McKibben, 2003).
The notion of human cloning, from an ethical perspective, has been argued among scientists and geneticists ever since the prospect of cloning was taken out of science fiction and introduced into reality with the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep. The prospect of human cloning, however, and the inherent risks to subjects involved, is contradictory to the ethical codes regarding the use of humans for research.
The Nuremburg Code, created following recognizing Hitler’s abhorrent eugenic experiments on humans, stresses the fundamental principle that “Voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (Shanks, 2005). In addition, the subject’s consent has to be obtained without any form of “force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” (Shanks, 2005). Next, The Declaration of Helsinki, an adjunct purposed to elaborate on the Nuremburg Code, established the principal that any minute risk a human subject might experience during research must be in proportion to the objective of the study (Shanks, 2005). To be clearer, it states that, “In research on man, the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject” (Shanks, 2005). Last, The Belmont Report maintained three basic principals for human subjects for research:
1. Respect for persons – the rights of the research subjects, especially those with diminished autonomy and capacity
2. Beneficence – research must not only avoid harming those involved but must also be intended to help
3. Justice – just distribution of potential benefits and harms and fair selection of research subjects (Shanks, 2005)
The President’s Council on Bioethics summarized these three principles applied in conjunction with one another, stating:
When applied, these general principles lead to both a requirement for informed consent of human research subjects and a requirement for a careful assessment of risks and benefits before proceeding with research. Safety, consent, and the rights of the research subjects are thus given highest priority (Shanks, 2005).
Because human clones are, as the name implies, human, these codes creating foundations for ethical research are applicable to them. Taking a closer look at the ethical guidelines to allow human cloning research, the impossibility of human cloning experimentation, and thus germline engineering, becomes apparent:
First, the consent required to involve a person in a study cannot be obtained from a non-existing, non-tangible person (the clone). Unlike certain medical related studies where parents are able to give consent for their child for an experimental intervention to treat a disease or condition that would otherwise disable or debilitate the child, there is no medical problem, no patient, and thus no one to obtain consent from (World Health Organization, 2005). This consideration would contradict the requirement for informed consent.
Second, animal cloning trials have established precedent indicating the inherent harms and risks posed to clones. The Word Health Organization (2008) stated in an article regarding the ethics of cloning,
Experience with animal cloning has shown substantial risks of debilitating and even lethal conditions occurring in the fetuses produced using these techniques; moreover, these problems cannot be individually predicted and avoided at this time. Some of these conditions also present a considerable risk for the gestational mother carrying the cloned animals to term.
Past animal cloning trials have produced data providing evidence for physical harm a clone might endure. For example, cloned animals have had compromised immune functions making them more vulnerable to infection and disease, susceptibility to tumors, and even death (Human Genome Project, 2008). The physical harm the human clone could sustain, as an outcome of the research is contrary to the ethical principles established by the Helsinki Code and Belmont Report giving the human subject’s safety priority.
Already, countries and other governing councils have taken the initiative to create legislation banning human cloning. They rationalize their laws and governing regulations based on the above-mentioned criteria, most notably acknowledging that the harm human clones may experience is paramount compared to the efficacy of cloning (Shanks, 2005). The most poignant example of a law banning human cloning is the Additional Protocol, formed by the Council of Europe in the 1990’s as a reaction to the cloning of Dolly. The protocol states:
An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendents. The use of techniques of medically assisted procreation shall not be allowed for the purpose of choosing a future child’s sex, except where serious hereditary sex-related disease is to be avoided. The creation of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited (Shanks, 2005).
Additionally, the World Health Organization’s governing body issued a declaration, Genomics and World Health, stating, “Reproductive cloning would be unethical under any circumstances and that there is no ethical or medical basis for pursuing work on it” (Shanks, 2005). The United Nations issued a similar statement reflecting their view on human cloning in the Universal Declaration on The Human Genome and Human Rights, and made clear their condemnation of “Commercialization of the human genome, genetic discrimination, research without consent, and other abuses” (Shanks, 2005). These regulations, indicative of international sentiment regarding the ethics of human cloning, makes human cloning, and thus germline engineering impossible.
The clear, unambiguous language used by the Council of Europe is an example of the parameters outlining the scope of genetic engineering. Stating certain interventions are tolerable to treat disease allows, for instance the use of somatic gene therapy. Also, somatic gene therapy is tolerable according to this criteria because the genes delivered to individuals affected by certain conditions are not passed on to their offspring, similar to how HIV is not passed from infected mother to child (except through pregnancy, if the virus is able to cross the placenta or is introduced during gestation by other routes; during delivery, when the baby is exposed to the mother’s blood; or through breast feeding, the virus can get into breast milk) (Porth, 2005). Additionally, the protocol creates precedence for the allowance of genetic engineering when a hereditary disease is known to be present. Using the Additional Protocol as an archetype for future laws, legislation will be able to establish parameters for the practice of genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization. That is, somatic gene therapy can be used to treat disease, and in vitro fertilization to prevent it. Similar to The Council of Europe’s legislation, however, this archetype is forthright with its sanction of germline engineering.
The clinical applications of germline engineering are promising, for example the possibility of curing HIV, but the ethical boundaries fencing it within the realms of science fiction are too great. International demeanor and laws regarding human cloning, the essential tool to actualize the prospect of germline engineering, corresponds to a reality where the speculative evolution of germline engineering will never occur. Today, in vitro fertilization and somatic gene therapy are quintessential to current scientific knowledge and technological wisdom. Humanity already possesses the knowledge to test a fertilized embryo for disease. In vitro fertilization, in conjunction with prenatal screening, is a valuable tool for the prevention of hereditary diseases in children. For those unfortunate individuals living and dealing with the manifestations of debilitating conditions such as Tay-Sachs and Cystic Fibrosis, somatic gene therapy is parallel to a promising future. The Human Genome Project has given us the knowledge necessary to treat their disease, and existing technology has given us the capability to use viruses and bacteria to introduce normal functioning genes into their DNA, according them a new lease for a healthy life. These tools are sufficient and in vitro fertilization and somatic gene therapy paramount to treating health related disparities. Although proponents of germline engineering promise a definitive cure and promising future, opponents are too skeptical and dissented towards the idea of human cloning.



References
Boon, A.K. (2002). The human genome project: What does decoding DNA mean for us.
Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers, Inc.

Human Genome Project (2001). Cystic fibrosis. Genetic disease profile, 95(3650). Retrieved
April 17, 2009, from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/cf.shtml

Human Genome Project (2003). HBB: The gene associated with sickle cell anemia. Retrieved
April 17, 2009, from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/hbb.shtml

McKibben, B. (2003). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.

Moorthie, S. & Brice P. (2008). CGH screening technique for embryo screening in IVF.
Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/4402/

Shanks, P. (2005). Human genetic engineering: A guide for activists, skeptics, and the very
perplexed. New York: Nation Books.

Stock, G. (2002). Redesigning humans: Our inevitable genetic future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Wingerson, L. (1998). Unnatural selection: The promise and the power of human gene research.
New York: Bantam Books.

Only time will tell

Hamid A. Campbell
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
04.19.2009
Only time will tell



Since the beginning of time, religion has been sought to fill in the gaps that science could not fill in. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquakes and tidal waves were once thought to be the wrath of Poseidon. Science has now provided answers to almost every question that man can ask, thereby proving these gods to be false idols. It can be argued that science will soon prove all Gods to be false idols. In a world in which scientific knowledge is abundant, I find it difficult to place my total faith into a greater power. With the miraculous capabilities that science possesses expanding as rapidly as they are currently expanding, the very need for faith will come to an end. Every supernatural mystery that could possibly occur will be explained with a simple mathematical equation, and the modern-day miracles that we identify as acts of God will be easily modeled in physical chemistry laboratories. With no more inexplicable mysteries left to solve, the very need for belief in a higher power will soon cease to exist.

I think it is fitting to begin by providing some background on the experience that I have had with religion in my family life and in my personal life. My mother grew up in a devout Christian household in northeast Washington, D.C. She grew up in a modest family in which very few things were taken for granted. My grandmother, who was a hospital nurse, and my grandfather, an automobile mechanic, struggled to raise their five children. My mother used to tell me stories about how she, my two uncles, and my two aunts were often forced to eat syrup sandwiches, simply because there were times when all that was in the cupboard was bread and syrup. Whenever I wasted food as a child, I was told the stories of how only one of my mother’s four siblings was allowed to use fresh milk in the morning for their cereal. Every other child had to pour their cereal over the same milk that the previous person had used, reducing the amount of milk that was used each morning and preventing my grandparents from having to spend an extra 69 cents at the corner store. My aunts and uncles used to aim to be the first child awake in the mornings simply because they wanted to be the first to eat.

Not only did my mother’s family face financial hardships, but being African American in the 1950s and 1960s also posed challenges. Growing up in a poverty-, drug-, and crime-infested urban center such as northeast Washington, D.C., and being constantly deprived of basic rights as a result of one’s racial background, leaves one with very little hope. In order to overcome these challenges and stay positive in the face of the chronic stress induced by these challenges, my family turned to religion.

Spirituality and belief in a higher power kept my family grounded and enabled them to believe that they could one day escape from the despair of the reality surrounding them. Despite the struggles that she faced being raised in such a time and environment, my mother was able to become a successful accountant at the World Bank and provide for her three sons an upper-middle class upbringing. Fortunately, my brothers and I never wanted for anything. We always had food in our bellies, a roof over our heads and clothes on our backs. My mother, probably due to her own upbringing, stressed religion and respect for Christ in our household. My brothers and I were dragged off to church at least four days each week. We attended Tuesday night prayer, Wednesday night choir rehearsal, Thursday night Bible study, Friday night youth nights, Sunday school, and regular Sunday services. We got involved in the church at a very young age, just as my mother had. Surprisingly, we all chose to enter science-related fields and, maybe consequently, later strayed from Christianity.

My life has been somewhat of a battleground for science and religion. It wasn’t until I reached the age of fourteen and took my first course in biology that I began to question the role of God and science in the existence of the universe and the life that inhabits it. The lesson that posed the greatest threat to my system of beliefs, of course, was the theory of universal common descendant, which serves as the basis of the Darwinian Theory of continuous biological evolution. In Challenging Nature: the Clash between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Lee M. Silver, a professor of microbiology at Princeton University, discusses the Darwinian Theory that asserts that “no species originated at a single moment in time.” Furthermore, Silver states that human beings are “no different from any other species” in that they, too, evolved from simpler living things that could be traced back to the “single common ancestor of life on earth” (Silver). Let’s assume that this claim is true. This would then mean that every organism that exists must be connected to each other through membership in the same genetic family. That is, you and I are both related to our dogs, which are related to the fish in the sea, which are related to the birds in the sky, and so on.

The Christian faith entails absolute belief in creationism, the doctrine that holds that at the beginning of time, God created everything that exists from absolute nothingness. The Holy Bible strictly dictates the events that began time. Christians (who comprise approximately thirty-six percent of the world’s population) believe that at the beginning of time, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator created man “from the dust of the ground” and breathed into him “the breath of life” (World Almanac Books). Upon noticing the man’s loneliness, the Creator induced a deep sleep on the man, removed from his body one of his entire ribs, and “made a woman from [the man’s] rib.” Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first two inhabitants of the Earth that God created, and that they are the sole ancestors of the entire human species.

After fourteen years of being taught that God had created everything that exists the way that it is in its current state, I was quite offended by the Darwinian Theory. However, the deeper into evolutionary biology we delved, the more interested I became. I began to ask questions that I had never asked before. It became less logical that man and woman had been instantaneously created from the dust of the earth. Being a person who looks for logical and rational answers, it became difficult for me to believe that a single Creator composed everything that exists in a single week and watches me every day from no specific point in space, as I had always been told that He exists equally everywhere. And even if this Creator did create the beautiful blue oceans and “placed the stars up in space to decorate the sky,” who exactly created the Creator? And who exactly created the guy who created the Creator? If the universe is infinitely large, then where exactly do the realms of Heaven and Hell exist among this limitless expanse? As I get older, the concept of a greater power becomes more illogical and irrational to me. The Darwinian Theory that I am complexly related to my pet dog seems more convincing.

The battle between science and religion has been ongoing since the Scientific Revolution when revolutionary scientists challenged the power of the church with their findings. Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) was the first to hypothesize heliocentrism, the scientific theory that the sun is at the center of the universe and that the planets of our solar system rotate about the sun. The Book of Psalms (104:5), however, directly contradicts this theory, stating that “the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Furthermore, the Bible states that “the sun rises and sets and returns to its place (Ecclesiastes 1:5).” Interestingly enough, Galileo was a devout Christian and attempted to soften the church’s position on science by proclaiming that science did not undermine the existence of God, but rather reinforced it. Galileo once wrote that when he looked through his telescope at the spinning planets, he could hear God’s voice “in the music of the spheres.” He held that science and religion were not enemies, but rather allies—“two different languages telling the same story” (Brown). This presents another question: is it possible to believe in both God and science? While it is perfectly possible that God created a single speck in a limitless empty space that over billions of years evolved into a universe, our solar system, our planet, and eventually you and I, this is not what the Holy Bible tells us.

I often wonder why my mother chose to remain devoted to religion as an adult. For instance, could it be possible that her strict devotion to religion as a child caused her to ignore the logic of science and accept the Bible’s teachings? Even after being educated at Harvard University, did her faith really remain unchallenged? Did she ever even consider the possibility of a scientific explanation of our role in the universe and the origin of humankind? Why was she tempted to accept the unbelievable in spite of insufficient and contrary evidence? Several explanations have been provided to explain what is known as the “religious experience,” one of which is the theory that faith is hard-wired into our genes (much like hair color, eye color, and blood type). The protein that American geneticist Dean Hamer identified as VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter 2) has been postulated to predispose individuals with the gene to spirituality. I personally feel that there is a simpler explanation. I feel that people, like my mother’s family in the 1950s and 1960s, cling to religion for hope. People simply want to believe that there is something more to life than the pain, boredom, and emptiness that we experience on a daily basis. They would like to believe that they were placed on this planet for a special purpose, that they were “called” by someone or something greater than themselves to change the world in some way. Furthermore, they find comfort in believing that they will ultimately be rewarded for the good that they did. It is equally possible that people simply fear an afterlife of “Hell,” and so they seek religion in order to avoid burning eternally for not having believed in God during their natural lives.

Recent studies indicate that approximately 81 percent of all adults possess some system of religious or spiritual belief. Among contemporary scientists, however, disbelief in God is almost total. In 1914, a landmark survey of scientists’ attitudes towards religion was conducted by American psychologist James H. Leuba. He found that 58 percent of one thousand randomly selected American scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that among the four hundred “greater” scientists within this sample, this figure rose to 70 percent. He repeated his survey in 1934 and found that these figures had increased to 67 percent and 85 percent, respectively. This represents a 16 percent increase in disbelief among scientists and a 21 percent increase among “greater” scientists in a span of only two decades.

In 1998, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham conducted a further survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in order to gauge belief among “greater” scientists. The survey found almost universal rejection of the transcendent by natural scientists of the organization. Disbelief in God among NAS biological scientists was 65.2 percent, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0 percent. The highest percentage of belief among the scientists was observed in NAS mathematicians (14.3 percent). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5 percent), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5 percent) (Larson & Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, 1998).

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among scientists to their “superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.” In fact, the love for science that my brothers and I share was the primary influence on the decision that we each ultimately made to dissociate ourselves from our religious background. Mere awareness and cognition of the power of science and the explanations that it provides is compelling. Religion is based on mere faith, a concept that I have found very hard to grasp, whereas scientific theory is proven through hard empirical evidence and repeatable experimental processes. I found the beliefs that had been instilled in me as a child very irrational after having the criticisms of the alleged supernatural phenomena contained in the stories of the Bible (such as Jesus rising from the dead or healing the blind with mere touch) made available to me. Other influences (such as individual life experiences) have, of course, played partial roles.

As time passes, science will be looked upon to answer new questions that religion was once sought to answer. Eventually, we will come to a point when the superior knowledge and understanding of which Leuba spoke is shared globally. When science has provided all of the answers, will there even be a need for religion? Advances in science and technology threaten to render the very concept of religion obsolete. One of the most notable technologies of the twenty-first century is genetic engineering. Scientists now have a vast amount of knowledge of cellular functions and the influence of genes on behavior, appearance, and the intrinsic properties of individuals. Human genetic engineering, also explored in Silver’s book, is a process by which the genes or DNA of a person are changed to achieve more desirable outcomes. It holds the promise of being able to eliminate inheritable diseases (such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s chorea) and strengthen the immune system, enabling the body to better fight off viral agents. Human genetic engineering may also be used to alter physical appearance, improve mental faculties such as memory and intelligence, and even influence capacities usually learned through experience (such as talents and tastes) (Silver, 2006). It is a perfect possibility that, within the next century, genetic engineering will be a common means by which new humans are produced. These humans will be immune from disease, will have the talent and intelligence to flourish in society, and will live twenty times as long as humans do today. With a new race of genetically engineered humans being integrated into society, what exactly will have been the role of God? If God is the Creator, will we attribute his steady hand to the newly renovated human? Or will the betterment of human nature be deemed yet another problem solved by science? Only time will tell.


Works Cited
Brown, D. (2000). Angels & Demons. New York: Atria Books.
Larson, E. J., & Witham, L. (1998). Leading Scientists Still Reject God. Nature , 313.
Larson, E. J., & Witham, L. (1997). Scientists are Still Keeping the Faith. Nature , 435-436.
Relationship between religion and science. (2009, March 30). Retrieved April 11, 2009, from Relationship between religion and science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Scientific_study_of_religion
Silver, L. M. (2006). Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
World Almanac Books. (2008). The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2009. Pleasantville: Reader's Digest Trade Publishing.

Closing Notes

First, I want to thank all of you for a fun semester, and apologize for my ongoing failure to return grades in a timely manner. I assume that most of you have no trouble deducing your grades from your comments, but still - I apologize.

Second, I'm going to begin grading now. All papers which have already been turned in (by email or on the blog) will receive full comments -- many of you will have your final grades today. Papers turned in this afternoon and evening will still receive *some* comments - probably a paragraph or two. Papers turned in tomorrow morning will receive no comments, but I will accept them (without penalty). Anything past noon tomorrow will be penalized.

Email me if you have any questions, concerns or problems, and good luck on the rest of your finals.

Final Project-

Melanie Siokalo Tues. 6-8:30
When the Motivation No Longer Exists
Imagine the pattering of feet on the gravel road, heart and pulse rates sky rocketing out into the heavens, and the words “I think I can” being spoken all around you. You are so deep into the flow that none of these things concern you. But, what happens when the words “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can” become “I know I can, I know I can, I know I can?” The drive and motivation that once possessed the athlete now turns into pride and egocentricity. If the expression, “you know you can,” wins this marathon, then what is the point of running it in the first place? The accomplishment of winning a marathon turns into more of a chore. The enjoyment and the flow are lost and, instead, dread has been gained. So, is there a limit? Yes, there is a maximum to what the human race can achieve in terms of making things “better.” “Better” becomes “the best” and that is all it really can be. The competition of life will be lost. The “best” will outshine all the rest. And once this maximum has been reached, all individuality is lost. What makes the human race, the human race, is gone.
But what exactly is the “flow”. According to Mark Strand, the flow can be described as “You're right in the work, you lose your sense of time, you're completely enraptured, you're completely caught up in what you are doing... When you are working on something and you are working well, you have the feeling that there's no other way of saying what you're saying” (Finding Flow). Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the founding father of the idea of the flow, describes flow as having three parts. These parts include the merging of action and awareness, a sense of control, and an altered sense of time (Csikszentmihalyi). But there are certain criteria that must be true, for the flow to arise. These criteria may include the individual must have goals that are predetermined or “a balance between perceived challenges and perceived skills” (Csikszentmihalyi). The purpose of the research of Csikszentmihalyi is to “suggests that the phenomenological experience of flow is a powerful motivating force. When individuals are fully involved in an activity, they tend to find the activity enjoyable and intrinsically rewarding” (Csikszentmihalyi). The purpose of the flow and motivation is essentially to make the human race happier. So, by eliminating the flow, the human race looses all happiness as well. But isn’t the purpose of human race is to reach perfection? What is perfection without happiness? Happiness cannot be replaced or even take the form of something else. The happiness that we know now, is the only happiness out there. I’m talking about the feeling Micheal Phelps got when he won that eighth and last medal in the Olympics, or the complete satisfaction after a high school student comes in contact with their diploma. No drug or no other sensation can replace those feelings. To me, when those feelings are met, that’s perfection.
Throughout my life I have been the kind of girl that really does have a need for speed. The wind at your back, chills on your spine, kind of speed. Around the age of 8, I started ski racing at a mountain in New York. Ever since then, skiing has not been the same. Once the announcer says those enchanted five words, I hit a world of my own. “Racer’s ready, three, two, one!” are like the magic words to any racer. The flow is something that I can barely describe. It is as if time has stopped, and the only thing stopping you from winning that gold medal, is a few turns. I find that I talk myself through the entire race. The very words of the “Little Engine That Could” really do go through my head. I cannot imagine losing a feeling like that. When I am racing there is nowhere in the world I’d rather be. The drive and motivation I enter at every turn is a thrill that I wouldn’t replace for anything in the world. If my personal flow was eliminated, I absolutely would lose a lot of my happiness. Racing wouldn’t be the same anymore. Why even bother racing, if no matter what, you are going to get the fastest time. And not just that, the whole competition would be lost. The elite racers would develop, without giving a chance to any other racers. The elite would dominate the whole industry. The elite would be so identical that even they would not be able to compete against one another. To me, losing the flow is something I am not willing to risk. But my experiences and my views take the shape and form and many other ways including books and comic novels.
In the books, “Enough” and “Jimmy Corrigan”, the future of our race is compared in many ways. To the author of Enough, Bill McKibben, the human race will soon merge into one identical race. There will not be a difference among individuals nor their abilities. In the comic novel, Jimmy Corrigan, the author predicts the future in a more humorous way. The future of our race is, simply put, a very gloomy one. These two books help portray the idea of the loss of individualism among our race if we continue at this pace. One portrays the future in a more humorous way, and the other in a serious one.

In Bill McKibben’s book, “Enough”, an example of a rock climber is used to explain the “flow” an athlete enters when they are concentrated on one particular thing. He states, “If he were genetically altered to have stronger fingers and forearms, he would be able to climb harder routes- but he wouldn’t go ‘deeper’ into the flow state” (McKibben 52). The piece of mind that a rock climber is in disappears. The rock climber no longer feels a challenge, just something to keep his body moving. The flow and self discovery are no longer things the rock climber looks forward to at the start of the task. The rock climber reaches for the next groove in the rock without hesitation and sense of a challenge. McKibben also states, “So an upgrade won’t multiply your joy. Instead, it might as well sap joy, because forgetting the self seems to be a key part of falling into the flow” (McKibben 52-53). The "knowing" of what you are capable of (which in the future, if this continues, will be everything) throws away the flow. The process of the "flow" is almost like an out-of-body experience. But it is not so out-of-body when the task is no longer a challenge but an ego boost. "I think I can" turns into, "Ha, yes, so, I knew I could climb that rock without even flinching." The human race will have nothing to look forward to, nothing to strive for. There will no longer be a separation between world class athlete and honor roll student. Actually, everyone in the race will be that combination and more.
But there is a time when an end has to be met. If everyone is the best then what happens? The answer- the sense of individuality- is lost. We no longer have an identity but a mere number to distinguish one from the other. The human race blends into one, identical species. Once the human race becomes all it can be, there will be nothing left to achieve. In the comic novel, Jimmy Corrigan, a young boy is portrayed with a dream to be like Superman. Now let’s look ahead to the next one hundred years when every human being is just as strong, just as smart, and just as handsome as Superman. Who is the superhero then? Do we have one? The answer is “No.” The human race will have no one to look up to as their savior or their hero. The desire to become just like Superman does not exist if you already are just like him, or even better than him.
On the other side of the spectrum, is Lee M. Silver, the author of the book “Challenging Nature”. Silver is so for genetic engineering that the flow is something that wouldn’t even matter. Although Silver does not actually touch on the subject of the flow in his book, he does believe that anything, no matter that harm that is done on the way, will be beneficial to the human race. This is where I lean away from the ideas of McKibben and agree more with Silver. If a clone was actually produced a flow would not be eliminated. This type of genetic engineering is one that is not harmful to the happiness and perfection of the human race. I believe that the progress of the cloning will not eliminate the possibility of the flow and loss of individuality. Yes, the clone will be genetically identical to its “twin”; however, I believe that the power of nurture will override the power of nature. This cloning process can be compared to real life miracles that happen every day. Identical twins are the closest to clones as we can get. According to the “Better Health Channel” website, identical twins occur because “the fertilized egg divides in two while it is still a tiny collection of cells. The self-contained halves then develop into two babies, with exactly the same genetic information. Twins conceived from one egg and one sperm are called identical or 'monozygotic' (one cell) twins” (Twins). Yes, the twins will be identical on the inside and on the out, but their personalities will be anything but the same. Depending on how they are raised, the twins will turn out more different than anyone expected. Take for example my two very best, identical twins, friends. To me I have not one problem differentiating between Jennifer and Madison, but a stranger would really be put to the test. Jennifer loves Chinese food, while Madison, not so much. Madison can paint the most beautiful painting, while Jennifer cannot draw a stick figure if it would save her life. Jennifer will be a world class soccer player one day, Madison, a ballerina going to Julliard. The differences between them could not be anymore monumental, yet they are genetically identical. Weather Jennifer is playing goalie in a championship game, or Madison in a life changing audition, both girls are in a zone all of their own. So wouldn’t this be the same for a clone? Genetically identical, however each clone would have a personality completely different from the other. Both girls were raised under the same roof, yet Madison stuck to her mother and Jennifer, to her father. The up-bringing of every twin, truly did mold them to be who they are now today. No individuality would be lost, because every girl will be different. Each flow will be different. Everything about the two will be different. The future of the flow would not be compromised with the advancement of cloning; however the future of the flow might be with the advancement of other genetic engineering.
If Silver had written about the flow, I believe he would have said something exactly the opposite of McKibben. That the flow that we know of right now may be eliminated, but a new flow will be created, one that will be far better than the old one. That maybe changing our chemical makeup may be able to stimulate our minds and our bodies not to eliminate the flow, but to enhance it. This new flow will be so enhanced that the old one will no longer be in comparison. To Silver, there is no maximum for human achievement in human genetics. The best will keep on getting better. To help enhance this flow, steroids were made. Steroids can achieve the ultimate “in the zone” feeling and can lead to complete self accomplishment. But steroids can also lead to an increase in ego and therefore loss of any sort of “underdog” feeling. This “underdog” feeling often leads to motivation in any sort of task or event. Without it, motivation, nor individuality, exists. In a recorded clinical study, a group of men were given testosterone to observe the change in muscle mass and strength. The article, “The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men” states “The men in the testosterone groups had significant increases in the cross-sectional areas of the triceps and the quadriceps” (NEJM). Already, just from appearance, the ego of these men has gone through the roof. The results of this study are incredibly dramatic.
The combination of strength training and testosterone produced greater increases in muscle size and strength than were achieved with either intervention alone. The combined regimen of testosterone and exercise led to an increase of 6.1 kg in fat-free mass over the course of 10 weeks; this increase entirely accounted for the changes in body weight. (NEJM)

Based on the results, it is safe to say that with the legalization of steroids, all individuality will be lost. The sense of not always being on top will be eliminated. Yes, the men that showed the greatest amount of strength gain also exercised, however the individuality would still be lost, if everyone that took the steroids also exercised. No possible flow can be achieved because one of the criteria is not met. This specific criterion states “a balance between perceived challenges and perceived skills” (Csikszentmihalyi). If the perceived challenge is eliminated, it is not possible to achieve the flow, no matter how enhanced it might be. The perceived challenge would be eliminated the same way as the “Little Engine That Could” feeling. If the individual already believes he is the best and will achieve everything, the perceived challenge is essentially eliminated. Every man will look and have the same abilities as the other. The men who didn’t take the steroids will have no chance against the ones who did. The results of this experiment prove that every man that is on this steroid will look just like the other. The muscle masses and the strength will all be the same. Originating to the concept of the human race being ideally perfect, but perfect in a way where there is no distinction among the individuals. If steroids become legal and ever player abuses it, the sport, or any, will forever be changed. It can be compared to as if one baseball team was completely on steroids, exercising hard, and still competing against the rest of the league. What would be the fun in winning ever game by a land slide? This elite team would dominate every game. Now imagine if the entire league was just the same. The elite now could not be able to compete against themselves. Ever game would be tied with the same amount of hits, strikes and homeruns. This again brings us back to the idea of loss of individuality. The human race will all become one big, record-breaking, mess.
Sometime in the future, a line has to be drawn. A vote needs to be cast on the reality of the situation. Someone needs to stand up and say, "Is this really what we all want? Let's look at the consequences if we continue with the way we are." Well, if that never happens, I urge that we climb all the rocks we can now. Enjoy the very last of the challenge that is put forth. Enjoy the flow of "not knowing" and of self discovery. And enjoy all the superhero's you idol. Because soon, they will all be gone.


Works Cited
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, Sami ABUHAMDEH, and JEANNE NAKAMURA. "Flow." 28 Mar. 2009 .
"Finding flow: the psychology of ... -." Google Book Search. 26 Mar. 2009 .
McKibben, Bill. Enough Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2004.
"NEJM -- The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men." The New England Journal of Medicine: Research & Review Articles on Diseases & Clinical Practice. 01 Apr. 2009 .
"Twins - identical and fraternal - Better Health Channel." Better Health Channel - quality consumer health information for Australians. 16 Apr. 2009 .

A Fraction of a Soul?

Julia Sandoval
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
April 18, 2009

A Fraction of a Soul?

One of the most interesting subjects Lee M. Silver discusses in his book, Challenging Nature, is to what extent conjoined twins are recognized in society; be it as separate persons with a soul, or simply soulless parasites to a fully human host. The matter is difficult, considering how sporadically society must deal with such an issue, but nevertheless it must be determined. In cases to determine if these fractions of persons do in fact have souls, it is necessary to decide if the conjoined body has the function of reason and intelligence or not. Not only is the matter of even the existence of the soul integral to decide if a conjoined twin, or fraction of a person, has one, but it is also important to consider when and how the embryos receive this or these souls. It is my opinion that in the case of a pair of equally fully functioning conjoined twins, they share two souls, but when those twins are unequal in their functions and one is more of a parasitic mass, the more coherent of the two is the twin that contains the soul. Lee’s view on conjoined twins has ignited a great amount of interest in me about the subject, and has led me also to ponder the very issue about when exactly ensoulment even occurs in a person.

The soul is something that makes humans different from just animals. It endows personality, spirit, upon its body. The soul is indistinguishable and cannot be recognized other than through the emotions and reasoning of its host. If the nonfunctioning conjoined twin is unable to reason, defend, or control itself, it is no more than what can be considered a parasite and therefore, it is not worthy of the same rights a fully functioning human being is. If the conjoined twin has an ability to reason or at least defend itself, along with anatomical means to do so, it has a soul.

The soul of these entities, if in fact are one in the same, should bare the same characteristics and personalities of the conjoined host. Even the ever popular notion of “soul mates” has always been regarded as two persons, sharing in them a cohesive and natural bond. This bond is inexplicable, but is manifested in their relations through the emotion of love. This kinship is recognized as two souls that were meant and destined to be together. Now, this all can seem very mythical and that it should belong in a fairytale, but in all reality, it is no more unbelievable than the prospect of a man born with two heads. It is not my intention to imply that the souls be romantically involved, but if a “soul mate” is recognized in each of two beings as sharing the same soul, why is it so hard to recognize the same exact soul in the body of conjoined twins?

If there is only a fraction of a person, is there only a fraction of a soul? And to what extent can it be determined that this person and fraction of a person are connected at all, other than by some body tissue? It’s difficult to differentiate souls within a single body because the degree to which conjoined twins are equal in capabilities must be considered. In the case of Abigail and Brittany Hensel (the two headed, one bodied, fully functioning set of conjoined twins), there is a very strong mental and physical connection, attributed to their sharing the same nervous system. “Evidence of a direct mental connection comes from their eerie ability to read each other’s mind” (Silver 153). Despite this mental and physical connection, it is very well understood that these two girls are in and of themselves separate persons. They have different interests yet still can make their own decisions. They each write with their own hand and give completely different answers on tests and such. They claim to not feel the other side of their body and it is attributed to the fact that each of the Hensel girls has her own nervous system. Each twin also has her own sense of style. From their early childhood, the parents of these unique twins have reiterated that each twin is an individual person. It is very apparent to friends and family that the girls have very different personalities and most of their similarities are only present in their ability to coordinate flawlessly in their actions (Weathers). They are quite talented and in sync with each other. Each controls the half of their body, allowing them to drive, play piano, type at a normal speed, and ride a bike.

Yes, in some cases the extra mass attached to the host is in fact a fully formed, intelligent being. Yet in others it can be as insignificant as a tumor, donning some random pieces of human structure, like teeth or hair or nails, found attached to the other twin, or even inside, as is the case for a fetus-in-fetu, or a teratoma. Either way, the prospect of whether or not these entities have “souls” is both ethically and morally confusing. These entities in my opinion cannot in anyway contain souls as they are parasitic and unable of any human thought. Being deprived of a normal life by their god-given restrictions and shortcomings, the fetus-in-fetu and teratoma were not meant to live, even though their existence was the result of genetic malfunctioning or a random occurrence in the maturation in the womb. The teratoma and fetus-in-fetu do have the same genetic makeup as their more capable counter parts. However, their genetic code has many mutations and is not fully complete; therefore it is inhuman and should not have a soul. If there are so many mutations in the genetic structure, it is basically a different species. Homo sapiens are the only species that we deem human, even though things like worms and monkeys have our same genetic code, with only slight variations making them different. Why would we call anything that is characteristically inhuman to be a fully enabled, cared-carrying person with a soul?

Most people who are uninformed about the facts of conjoined twins would probably be quick to assume that the easiest way to determine if the parasitic entity is capable of human thought would be to consider whether it has a head or not. I agree with Silver in that “Cutting off Abigail’s head would be murder, even if Brittany could keep the rest of the body alive, because Abigail’s mind would be terminated.” However, this head might not be fully developed and might not have a brain. Furthermore, this head might be attached to an otherwise normal human, and be just a parasitic mass that causes more difficulties to the cardiovascular system of the more conscious part of the conjoined pair. If a “being’s” sole purpose in life is to be a nuisance to its twin, what good does that do? During the existence of mankind people have pondered the questions as to why “God, the greater power, supreme being,” would bestow upon its own creation such things as disease, bad luck, and overall hardships. Why would he create a being that does nothing other than to endanger and sometimes prevent the life of its own flesh and blood? This individual, therefore, must not have been meant to live. It is hard to wrap one’s head around the notion that a being was not meant to live, but if its only means of survival is to take away from another’s, it was not fit to survive in the first place.

Sometimes the embryo splits and then reattaches together. This is how conjoined twins are formed, in the cases of a person with an arm growing out of his or her mouth. When the process of becoming conjoined twins begins, the embryo slightly splits in one place; if it were to fully sever, the result would be in twins; if there are two severs: triplets, etc. This split usually occurs within the first two weeks of maturation of the embryo. According to some religions such as Catholicism, the belief is that a soul is provided upon conception. But what would they say in the latter situation? The point of conception for the conjoined part of the embryo simply does not exist. This “conception” that would occur would have to have had occurred after two weeks. This is unnatural and cannot be associated in the same sense as conception.

The Jewish belief about when one acquires his or her soul is based on the passage Genesis in the Bible. However, the same passage in the Bible directs the Catholics’ teachings of the same subject. Catholics believe that one acquires the soul upon conception; referring to the point at which Jesus was conceived in Mary’s body and when she was informed of this occurrence immediately by the angel Gabriel.

According to Silver’s interpretation of the Jewish Religion, the point at which a body receives its soul is at the first breath of life (Silver 10). This would mean then that during the time at which this particular embryo splits, it is not endowed with a soul yet. The point at which it receives its soul is only at the first breath of life. Yet, ironically, it is in keeping with the Jewish belief that abortion is an option within the time that the fetus is inside the mother’s womb; but the interesting part is after the birth. According to the Talmud (a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law and ethics), the fetus is a rodef, an aggressor, against its mother and this is the reason why abortion to save the mother’s life is permitted (Feldman, Dorff, 383). “A principle in the Jewish view of the matter is tza’ara d’gufah kadim, that her welfare, avoidance of her pain, comes first” (Feldman, Dorff, 383). The main point here is that the mother is the first and foremost person considered and protected when impregnated with a child. It is her duty to take care of both herself and her fetus, yet if her fetus endangers her in any way, it must be terminated to prevent harm on the mother. Another aspect that is interesting in the Jewish interpretation of the Ten Commandments is the fifth commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” The Jewish interpretation takes this to mean that one shall not murder. There is a great controversy over how the connotations of “kill” and “murder” differ. Jewish practice deems that “to kill” means to end a life, in the most innocent sense, be it because of self defense, necessity, or war. It is a different connotation than “to murder,” which is considered an act preventable and performed with the most malicious of intentions. Also, the fetus is hardly considered to even be murdered rather than be killed; in fact it is impossible to murder it, because it is not yet a human person. (Feldman, Dorff 384). “It’s the determination of the culture or the religion that declares not when life begins but when life begins to be human” (Feldman, Dorff, 384).

I have obviously created quite a tangent here in my paper, and while it might seem unnecessary, I think that it is beneficial to talk about abortion because it, like the matter of termination of a disabled conjoined twin, asks the moral question about what constitutes a life before or after a birth. This is of course, the matter of killing a child. Or is it a child? Both scenarios deal with the fact that it is a confusing and moral dilemma to either terminate a child’s life while inside the womb, or to terminate it after its birth in order to prevent death or hardships for the twin or mother. “For the Greater Good,” seems to be the best way to describe my feelings towards both of these issues. In my opinion it is far more beneficial to terminate a life if that very life poses a threat to the twin or to the welfare of the mother in the case of an abortion.

One devout Roman Catholic woman decided, without hesitation, that it would be completely against her religion to abort the fetuses of her conjoined twins. However and unfortunately, these conjoined twins were not the same; Gracie was fully functioning, but her attached sister, Rosie, had a body whose lungs and heart collapsed within a short time after having been born. She was then, at that point, considered a human, yet due to her reliability on her sister’s cardiovascular system, posed an enormous threat on both of their lives. The ethical issue was debated among the doctors, ethicists, and parents.

Lord Justice Ward argued that this act [separation of the twins] was one of ‘quasi self-defense’ (with the doctors acting on Gracie’s behalf). Rosie, he wrote, ‘may have a right to life, but she has little right to be alive. She is alive because and only because, to put it bluntly, but nonetheless accurately, she sucks the lifeblood of [Gracie] and she sucks the lifeblood out of [Gracie] . . . If [Gracie] could speak she would surely protest, "Stop it [Rosie], you’re killing me” (Wootton).

This was the point at which she must be considered a parasitic host. The operation, contrary to the mother’s wishes yet crucial to the survival of Gracie, went on as recommended and resulted in the death of Rosie and a fully normal life for Gracie (Silver 160). From my perspective, it was an outcome of both fate and luck that Gracie had the opportunity to survive. She clearly had a soul, yet was burdened by the parasitic twin. Since Rosie was not fit to survive on her own, it was crucial that she be separated from the body of Gracie. The Catholic teachings justify that the amputation could be attributed to self defense on the more functioning twin’s part. There is no way that she was intended to live and probably did not have a soul. I believe this because to me, and it is something that McKibben discusses, the intention of a human life is to prosper and make worthy of itself. “It is precisely in investing life, love, and labor that we constitute the world as a personal, as the place of intimate dwelling” (McKibben 94). This life that was endowed on Rosie would not fit into this ideal. It did not contribute anything to itself or its surroundings; rather, it took from its twin and served as not only a nuisance, but also a danger.


But what, exactly, is a “parasite?” Any biologist will tell you that a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host (Dictionary.com). Yet, the tricky aspect concerning whether or not these supposed human beings can ever be attributed to this word, which is usually associated with tapeworms and leeches, lies in their capabilities. These lower life forms do not have a soul, according to both Catholic and Jewish religions. If the “lesser” conjoined twin definitely poses a threat to the healthier, and cannot function as a normal being should, the twin is usually considered somewhat of a “tumor” and is, for lack of a better word, removed. It is contrary to the belief about human existence to even suggest that a fully fledged, living human being of whatever living capacity should be associated with and determined a “parasite.”

The questions to be considered are: What would be done if the child is in fact conjoined, but with a nonfunctioning parasitic host? Is it morally and ethically alright to kill this body? If it were apparent before the birth, there is no doubt that in the Jewish religion it would be reasonable to abort the child(ren). Yet in the aftermath, does the same right hold? Perhaps if the nonfunctioning being was never able to breathe its first breath, for the only factor that would determine its possession of a soul would be this one moment in life.

So technically, by conjoining the two beliefs of the Catholic and Jewish religions, they are reciprocals concerning their perceptions about souls and conjoined twins. If a Catholic embryo (already endowed with a soul) becomes a set of conjoined twins, this second piece of human would not have the soul endowed upon itself during conception. Hence, the soul does not exist for this being and despite their views on abortion, does not technically have the right to live. The Jewish belief, however, deems it plausible that if this extra mass can in fact breathe after being born, no matter how disabled the being is, it would be wrong in their eyes to abort or amputate the mass. So it is ironic that the Catholic Church, being completely against abortion, would be more inclined to terminate the conjoined twin before those of the Jewish religion, even though they have no prohibitions about abortion before the birth.

After having reviewed much of the stages during which an embryo becomes a fetus, and when a fetus becomes a child, I have formed my own opinions about the time at which a fetus becomes human, or in another sense, when signs of independent motion are visible. The fetus starts to make its own movements at about twelve weeks into the pregnancy (WebMD). At this point a fetus’s brain and motor functions are capable of independent, albeit necessary and probably unintentional, movement. The fetus is no longer an embryo and is on its way to become a baby. Also at this stage, the chances of miscarriage are much lower (WebMD), so, by a Jewish perspective, there is much less of a threat to the mother regarding her own health and the health of her unborn child. If there is less of a threat, the baby has more of a right to live and less chance that this particular religion would see fit that it be killed.

As for the implications that arise from my views on what can be deemed “a soul” (i.e. reason, decision making, personality, etc.), it is reasonable to think that my views suggest that I would believe that a man suddenly fallen into a coma (and therefore be conscious and unable to defend himself or think rationally) would have lost his soul; based on my views that a child unfit to reason or defend itself or think rationally would not have been born with a soul. This is not my belief. I do believe the latter, but the former is not what I am implying. Back to what McKibben says about having a full life and striving to enrich it in every way, I believe that this man will have a soul up until the point he dies, during which the soul would leave his body and go into the afterlife. Because he lived a full life, making him human, he always had a soul. In the cases of teratomas, fetus-in-fetu, and non or hardly functioning conjoined twins, I would not believe they had souls due to their absence of any real life experiences and due to their inability to reason or defend themselves.


The prospect of what humans should deem a “soul,” has always been contemplated, among cultures and religions alike. The soul of a twin or conjoined twin also has toyed with the standards of ethics and moralities. But what truly constitutes a soul cannot be attributed solely on the presence of a brain or heart, for these are solitary and can sometimes show up separately, to non functioning beings. Without a soul, we are merely animals, or in some cases, parasites; acting only on animal instinct or living off of a host. Our ability to reason is what differentiates humans from animals, and when that right to a soul is gone, we can only be associated with the latter, no matter how painful that is to say.







Works Cited


Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.

Weathers, Helen. "Abigail and Brittany Hensel: an extraordinary bond." Mail Online. 31
Dec. 2006. Associated Newspapers Ltd. 17 Apr. 2009 .

McKibben, B. (2003). Enough. New York: Owl Books.

"Fetal Development Timeline." WebMD. Ed. Hoffman, MD Matt. 28 Oct. 2009. WebMD LLC.
17 Apr. 2009 .

Jones, David A. The Soul of the Embryo. New York: Continuum, 2004.

Feldman, David M., and Sandra B. Lubarsky. "This Matter of Abortion." Contemporary Jewish
Ethics and Morality. Ed. Elliot N. Dorff and Louis E. Newman. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.

Wootton, David. "Separating Gracie and Rosie." London Review of Books. 19 Aug. 2004. LRB Ltd. 18 Apr. 2009 .

final paper

The Singularity, defined by some scientists as “a future time when societal, scientific, and economic change is so fast we cannot even imagine what will happen from our present perspective,” (Kurzweil, 2007) seems far in the future; past our lifetimes at least. But data from all aspects of life shows that this might not be the case. In fact, Ray Kurzweil predicts in his book The Singularity is Near that this event will happen by 2045. Not surprisingly, this radically different future will have many problems, most of which are not discussed by Kurzweil or his followers. There will be external dangers—such as out of control self-replicating nanobots, which I will not discuss in this paper. There will also be dangers within the human race such as almost a complete destruction of human interaction and motivation. I believe that Kurzweil’s predictions will come true, but that beyond the inclusion of non-biological intelligence into human brains the potential technology is harmful.

The basis for Kurzweil’s predictions is the law of accelerating returns, which says that technology is improving exponentially over time (Kurzweil, 2005). An important example of this is Moore’s law, which states that the number of transistors that can be put on a computer chip will double every two years. While Moore only intended this to be a short-term explosion in computer technology lasting until 1975 or so, the trend continued and still is continuing to this day (Kurzweil, 2005). In fact, Paolo Gargini, chairman of the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, said in 2005 that Moore’s law should continue to be correct until 2020 (Kanellos, 2005). So this law turned out to be more powerful than even its founder predicted.

Critics of this law believe that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Businesses predict that a certain area of technology will improve exponentially and then focus their resources on making it happen. However, exponential improvement has occurred in so many different areas of technology that this cannot be the case. Also, there is no basis in physics for these laws. This allows critics to argue that that the exponential growth of technology has occurred because of non-scientific factors. Ilkka Tuomi says in The Lives and Death of Moore's Law that “technical development in semiconductors during the last four decades has reflected the unique economic and social conditions under which the semiconductor industry has operated” (Tuomi, 2002). Since these conditions cannot keep improving, growth will slow down in the future. I think these conditions occurred because of scientific developments, however. In the early stages of semiconductor research, vacuum tubes dominated technology and so no one cared about or put much money into semiconductors. But when semiconductors showed their enormous potential, people starting pouring money into semiconductor research, creating these “unique” conditions. In fact, each new technology has economic and social support once its potential for growth is revealed. Of course, this growth will only occur temporarily before the technology reaches its physical limit (and support for the technology dwindles). But even though an individual piece of technology cannot keep being improved over long periods of time, new inventions with more potential continue exponential growth. This has been seen in the change in computing methods from electromechanical to vacuum tubes to integrated circuits as each old technology approached its physical limit.


Evidence for an exponential improvement in technology is seen in diverse applications of technology throughout science such as DNA sequencing and patents related to nanotechnology. Despite this, people continue to think that technology will improve linearly. People naturally expect most things, including improvement in technology, to happen as they traditionally have. This linear view of the future has resulted in many terribly conservative predictions. Even Popular Mechanics, a magazine that has a more optimistic view of the future than most people, said in 1949, “[While] a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons" (Kurzweil, 2005). The difference between an exponential and a linear view of the future can be seen with internet usage over the past 30 years. There appears to be a small linear improvement for about 15 years followed by an explosion of use over the next 15 years (Internet Systems Consortium, 2009). When the data is shown on a logarithmic graph, however, the true exponential nature of the data is obvious. Thus, people making predictions about the future 15 years ago using a linear view would have grossly underestimated future improvement. All sorts of other technologies and parts of life have similar exponential growth.

A notable exception to technologies exhibiting exponential growth occurs with artificial intelligence (AI), where progress has been much slower than expected. AI researcher Herbert Simon predicted in 1965 that within 20 years machines will be able to do anything that humans can do. By the 1970s, however, it was obvious that his prediction was way too optimistic. In 1982, the Fifth Generation Computer Systems project in Japan used $900 million to create an intelligent computer but ended in failure (Nielsen, 1988). Attempts at AI have used very little knowledge of the brain, however, even though the goal of AI is basically to get a working simulation of a brain. Thus, AI at the present is only at a fraction of its potential, so even if AI is growing exponentially, the growth is still approximately linear. Our knowledge of the brain through reverse-engineering it is improving exponentially, however. By the 2020s billions of nanobots in the capillaries will be able to moniter the individual components of each neuron (nerve cell), which will make scanning the brain relatively easy (Kurzweil, 2005). Once reverse-engineering of the brain has is at this point, AI will be able to improve substantially.

The key ingredient of the Singularity, computing power, obeys the law of accelerating returns as well. The number of calculations per second that can be done with $1000 of technology has increased exponentially (Kurzweil, 2005). Based on the exponential growth of computing power and greatly improved AI, personal computers will be as intelligent as human brains by 2025 and superior to human brains soon after. A brain is estimated to be capable of somewhere between 10^14 and 10^17 calculations per second. When Kurzweil published his book in 2005, the best supercomputer in the world Blue Gene was being built to do about 5x10^14 calculations per second, already in the range of possible brain power. Less than four years later, the Roadrunner supercomputer can do over quadruple that (Top 500, 2008). So supercomputers will reach even the most conservative estimates for human brain power very soon. Thus, having personal computers with this much power by 2025 seems plausible. Of course, increases in computing power will not stop at 2025 but will continue to accelerate towards the Singularity.

While enormous increases in computing power do not seem physically possible, there are a variety of unconventional methods that are starting to be used for computing. For example, a DNA computer with speed rivaling that of supercomputers has already been made. It uses a single DNA molecule to solve simple problems and give a yes or no answer. While it seems ridiculous that this is possible, DNA after all can store large amounts of information and enzymes can manipulate this information accurately. DNA computers are smaller and use less energy than any previous computing device so they have enormous potential. A method with even greater potential uses the spin of electrons found in all matter. While Kurzweil predicted in 2005 that this method will be used in the future, in November of 2007 researchers at the Delft University of Technology were able to use an electric field to control the position of a single electron (Delft University of Technology, 2007). Whether the electron is “up” or “down” is akin to a 0 versus a 1 in a traditional computer. Using enormous numbers of electrons allows the computer to test every possible answer to a problem at once. These quantum computers use virtually no energy and can be built from anything that contains electrons, so any piece of matter can be used.

These interesting predictions for future computing seem non-threatening and theoretical until their potential to profoundly change humans and the universe is considered. A quantum computer built from a one kilogram rock, for instance, has the potential to do 10^42 calculations per second if its electrons can be controlled (Kurzweil, 2005). That is the equivalent of at least 10^25 human brains. Furthermore, a rock does not need energy to “run”; the electrons move on their own. This means that every kilogram of matter on earth can be built to have more intelligence than the combined intelligence of every person that has ever lived on earth. People can use a kilogram of this non-biological intelligence along with their roughly kilogram of biologic intelligence to become enormously intelligent. Of course, a single brain alongside the equivalent of 10^25 brains will be meaningless, so biological brains will pretty much become obsolete. I think this is ok, however. People will still have differences in every way that they have differences today. They will still be able to learn and work; albeit at an extremely fast pace. Contrary to the genetic engineering we discussed in class, however, these upgrades will be available to everyone regardless of income or age. The cost of non-biological intelligence decreases exponentially, so it will be affordable to everyone by the Singularity. This intelligence does not require a permanent alteration of genes or the brain like genetic engineering does, so people can upgrade their intelligence throughout their life rather than being born with a set amount of intelligence that will soon become obsolete.

The Singularity will enable humans to go much farther than adding a small portion of non-biological intelligence to every human. Brain uploading is an example of this. When humans are able to understand the brain enough to create non-biological intelligence, they will know enough to upload a brain onto a computer. This will have some benefits. As Kurzweil says, humans will have even greater potential for learning by being connected directly with all the knowledge on the internet (Kurzweil, 2005). Humans will become immortal, simply changing bodies every once in a while and keeping their brain. Also, people could be in multiple places at once using multiple copies of their brain (Leis, 2003). However, there are ethical problems with this technology that make it too dangerous to use. These problems include issues with “body identity, human immortality, property rights, capitalism, human intelligence, an afterlife, and the Judeo-Christian view of man as created in God’s image” (Leis, 2003). An example of these problems occurs when considering that uploading a brain keeps the original brain intact, creating two brains that may or may not be separate people. If a person chooses to upload his brain, he should have some superiority over the copy. For example, he should still have full rights to his property and identity. From his perspective, this seems reasonable. The copy, however, will not see it that way. He will feel they should be equal since, after all, their brains are identical. In reality, the copy would actually be superior to the original since the copy will live in virtual reality where it can do things much quicker. These are obvious dilemnas stemming from brain uploading, but Kurzweil does not address any of this.

Another technology with the potential to transform our lives is virtual reality (VR). VR that is 100% real in our minds will be possible using nanobots in our blood vessels. The nanobots will simply be tiny parts of our non-biological intelligence. They will be able to make a neuron fire or suppress a neuron from firing whenever they are programmed to do so (Kurzweil, 2005). Thus, they can suppress every signal that comes from our senses to make us sense nothing naturally. Then they will create sensations of their own to simulate any conceivable action and environment. We can get pleasure just as humans did in Lilith’s Brood or be in any imaginable environment, including physically impossible environments (Kurzweil, 2005). Kurzweil seems to underestimate the potential impact of VR by considering it to be just a temporary, fun experience. He talks about his own experience with VR at the 2001 Technology, Entertainment, and Design conference, where he became a young woman named Ramona. Nowhere does he mention that VR could completely take over human lives. Reality will seem boring and painful compared to VR, so humans would spend every possible second of their time in VR. Therefore, human interaction would be brought to a complete end. We would also have no motivation to take care of our bodies, since we can escape them whenever we want. The real world would be almost completely replaced by our fantasies.

While some extremely influential technology resulting from the Singularity such as VR and brain uploading should be suppressed, humanity will still be profoundly changed in the near future. The law of accelerating returns will make computing power decrease exponentially until it can be done extremely cheaply and efficiently using quantum computers. These computers will have enormous intelligence that can be incorporated into humans. Simply adding a one kilogram non-biological “brain” with a traditional brain will enable humans to have near-perfect memories and to learn and work at speeds incomprehensible to us now. These predictions seem very unlikely to occur anytime soon, but that is because our linear view of the future does not accurately approximate the true nature of technological improvement.


References

Delft University of Technology (2007, November 5). Electron Spin Rotated With Electric
Field. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬
/releases/2007/11/071101144942.htm

Internet Systems Consortium, (2009). Internet host count history. Retrieved April 13,
2009, Web site: https://www.isc.org/solutions/survey/history

Kanellos, Michael (2005, April 19). New life for Moore's Law. Retrieved April
13, 2009, from CNET News Web site: http://news.cnet.com/New-life-for-Moores
Law/2009-1006_3-5672485.html

Kurzweil, R (2007, February 2). The Singularity. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
KurzweilAI.net Web site:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23696

Kurzweil, R (2005). The Singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New
York: Penguin Group.

Leis, R (2003, April 9). How long before uploading?. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
Transhumanity Website: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/th/more/339/

Nielsen, J (1988, December 2). International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer
Systems. Retrieved April 13, 2009, Web site:
http://www.useit.com/papers/tripreports/fifthgeneration.html

Top 500, (2008, November). Top 10 systems. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from Top 500
Supercomputer Sites Web site: http://www.top500.org/

Tuomi, Ilkka (2002, November). The lives and death of Moore's Law. Retrieved April
13, 2009, Web site:
http://131.193.153.231/www/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/index.html

Final Paper

James Toye
4/14/09
ENGCMP 0200
Dr. Johns
Final Paper

In the past twenty-odd years, technological progress has shown great potential and growth. This is especially obvious in the fields of genetics, robotics, and nanotechnology, which did not exist then as they do today. These technologies have opened up a plethora of possibilities for improving our quality of life, which had only been dreamed about before. Specifically, through genetic engineering, many diseases that plague humankind could be eradicated, physical disabilities could be cured, and it may be possible to increase the intelligence of every human being. If these technologies really can bring about this much good, then why is there so much controversy surrounding them today? Why do other people want technological progress to be halted or reversed? Do they see something we don’t or are they fretting about a minute chance of something going wrong and harming someone? Many scientists recognize the risk of genetic engineering causing a rift between people, or nanobots destroying everything in their path, and some suggest avoiding these areas of study. I however believe that we should pursue any and all technology, unbarred by restrictions or fears, because of the possible benefits to society. With technological stagnation or reversal, we will, not may, but will cause harm to humankind as a whole, and personally, I would rather take a risk and try to not let that happen, while opening up a new world of benefits to humanity.

Lee Silver, a professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University is one of the world’s foremost authorities on genetic technologies, one of the main concerns of anti-technological-advancement people. In his book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Silver asserts that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the consequences, which he discusses in one of his previous books, Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning will Transform the American Family. In Remaking Eden, Silver brings up the possibility that if any specific genetic modification is allowed, for a price, then humanity will become two different species, the genRich and the naturals. The genRich being what were the upper classes of society, able to afford genetic modification for their children, and the naturals being the lower classes that could not. Eventually causing the naturals to be wiped out or controlled by the genRich. No matter how likely this outcome, Silver argues that the pursuit is worth it, because of what it can do. “The organ shortage would be eliminated, the number of replacement operations and the frequency of success would climb drastically…” (Silver 175). As a consequence people would live longer healthier lives, and in turn be able to contribute to society. Even if the genetic techniques used to create organs for xenotransplantation were adapted for use to modify the human genome, and the government did not impose strict regulations on the use of those techniques, which it undoubtedly would, the worst that would happen would be the creation of a group of people better at certain things than other people. I find it strange that many people today have a problem with this, considering that there already are people better at certain things than others, such as Manny Ramirez being better than anyone in the weekend slow-pitch game. Because of this, the new influx of talented people would not have a large effect on society as a whole.

However, some people disagree with Silver and I, and would rather make a concerted effort to halt the progression of technological development in the world. From the May of 1978 through February 1996, a period of almost twenty years, some of the people on the breaking edge of new technology lived in a shroud of fear, that they might be the next target of the man known as the Unabomber (Joy). For the first fifteen years of his reign of terror, Theodore Kaczynski left no reason for why he was doing such a thing, until in 1995 he sent letters to various people and places, ordering for his essay, Industrial Society and Its Future, to be published in a major newspaper. This essay, more commonly known today as The Unabomber Manifesto, outlined his reasons for acting out in violence, as well as his vision and plan for the future of a movement he hoped to create. From a cabin in Montana, not only did he spark the largest manhunt in the history of the FBI, but Kaczynski also made thousands, if not millions of people aware of the debate between the good aspects of technological development and the bad with his essay, when it was printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in September 1995.

In his essay Kaczynski attempts to force his readers into believing that all they have grown up with is wrong, that they have been brainwashed, forced into submission by society and big government, or as he calls it “the system.” He does his best to convince people that technology exists for the sole purposes of exploiting lower classes, or broadening the divide between the lower and upper class, and for controlling people’s behavior in a totally complete fashion. Whether it be from the parenting techniques taught to new parents, or the genetic modifications that could prevent disease, the underlying purpose, according to Kaczynski, is manipulation for the creation of a state where people have no free will (Kaczynski 45 & 55). He defines the “Power Process,” what he views as the root of human nature, the combination of four aspects of what he sees as the motive for primal human drive, giving each person the urge to do whatever they end up doing. Made of four things, a goal, effort, attainment of the goal, and autonomy, the success of a person in the power process gives them physical and psychological stability (Kaczynski 15). He claims that a person must have a goal in order to live happily. If he does not have to collect food, protect his family, build shelter, or a number of different things, man will become depressed. In order to deal with this depression we come up with different goals, which he refers to as surrogate activities, which are not necessary to our lives, but give us some sort of enjoyment or sense of purpose that allows us to feel as though we are actively involved in the power process (Kaczynski 16). Thus, any scientific pursuit is a surrogate activity, and in turn not necessary to life, and not as fulfilling as doing one of the previously mentioned tasks, simply because it is not vital to human existence and just exists to waste someone’s time so they do not waste away.

Kaczynski adamantly believes that through the dissolution of our technological structure, humanity would be happier and better off. But would it? First, if we suddenly decided to stop using technology, a large proportion of people would die. Everyone in hospitals on life support, people who need oxygen, or people with disabilities that impair their mobility (they would not be able to hunt, and in turn would starve). Then, in a few weeks, starvation would start impacting people, especially in major cities. The population density is too high, and there is too large of a lack of food in the area, so through competition, a large proportion of people would not get enough food to survive, and would die. There would be lots of fighting for dominance, and disease would run rampant, due to lack of sanitation. Allowing extremely large numbers of people to die, that is what Kaczynski urges throughout his book, even though he knows that without it, hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, will die, he believes it is necessary. “As I see it, I don't think there is any controlled or planned way in which we can dismantle the industrial system. I think that the only way we will get rid of it is if it breaks down and collapses. That's why I think the consequences will be something like the Russian Revolution, or circumstances like we see in other places in the world today like the Balkans, Afghanistan, Rwanda” (tedk). His revolution “for [wild nature] as well as against [technology]” is obviously meant to occur at the cost of human lives (Kaczynski 69).

But what if we just stop where we are, just cope with what we have and what we do not, but not risk creating something that can destroy the world? In fact, there are many people who are pushing for the halt of technological progress. Bill Joy, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems, believes that humanity should not pursue development of genetics, nanotechnology, or robotics, and Bill McKibben wrote a book, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age about the dangers of genetic engineering and nanotechnology.

If the reader was to ask either of these two people whether Kaczynski’s idea is a good one, I trust that they would both answer in the negative. In fact, one does not even need to find and ask them, but rather can look in their writing. Joy writes “I have always, rather, had a strong belief in the value of the scientific search for truth and in the ability of great engineering to bring material progress” (Joy). McKibben mentions that “less isn’t always better; there’s no need to reject “the Enlightenment” or “Western civilization”” (McKibben 118). Both men obviously agree that some technology is good for society, and in turn disagree with Silver and I on how much. Yet both of them think medical technology should be pursued, a split from Kaczynski, who makes special note of it in his essay, saying that if medical cures are developed for genetic diseases, such as diabetes, we will cause the gene to become more common in society, causing more cases of the disease (Kaczynski 45).

Yet, Joy and McKibben both think that we should only pursue methods for treatment not related to Joy’s GNR (genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics) technologies, but rather we should stick with the so-called “traditional” methods that we’ve been using in recent years. Though genetic engineering could save millions of lives in future generations, both of them would rather let people die or suffer, making them, in my mind, just as bad as Kaczynski.

As I have previously stated, I believe that the pursuit of all and any technology is not only acceptable but vital to society. Through this pursuit, either option, whether society chooses to use genetic modification to simply end some diseases or create the “perfect” person, is acceptable, because I can see both having long-term benefits for the well-being of mankind. Certainly completely modifying everything about a person may seem strange, scary, or evil, but a smarter, better person would be able to contribute more to society and in turn help make every human being’s life better. Would it eliminate the need for other people to do work, and then as Kaczynski believes cause all sorts of psychological problems? I think not. As long as there are enough things for people to do or learn, we can remain happy, through the fulfillment of our surrogate activities. With the constant influx of new discoveries and technology, I can see no end to the availability of these activities, and thus believe that society can continue with progress in technology.

As society has evolved through the ages, from roaming bands of humans to small towns, to early cities, to what we have today, we have run into many situations where technology has improved life as we know it. Agriculture allowed us to settle in one place, it allowed us to reuse fields and produce enough food to survive in consecutive years. Industry allowed the mass production of things vital for life, especially clothing and shelter, and gave us some things, like cars, that we would not be able to live without. As I see it, genetics is just the next step in this progression, it is the industrial revolution of the twenty-first century, and like its counterparts in years past, may have its risks, will end up being worth it to our society, no matter what some other people may think.

People like Theodore Kaczynski urge the rest of humanity to shun technology, to throw it out the window and regress to the pre-industrial age. However, he knows, and tries to convince the general populous, that in order to do that, millions of people must die, and that there is a large chance that it might not work. He continues to assert that technologic development is the embodiment of evil, while offering no alternative to the benefits that it can give to society. Although some people, such as Joy and McKibben, don’t believe that technology should be completely abolished, but rather that development should stagnate, they still would rather guarantee harm to the human race, rather than try and make it better, just because of a chance that something will go wrong. Mankind has taken hundreds of these risks before, and so far, we still exist. There is no guarantee that a global nuclear war will not happen, causing nuclear winter, and the extinction of most life on the planet. There was no guarantee that when the Large Hadron Collider was operated that a micro black hole would not be formed, and yet, both nuclear technology and the LHC were still developed, and we are still fine, and at least in the case of nuclear technology, better off for people taking the risks that they took. Why stop now?

Bibliography
McKibben, B. (2003). Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: Owl Books.
Silver, L. M. (2006). Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.
Kaczynski, T. (2009). The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future. Livermore: WingSpan Press.
Joy, B. "Why the future doesn't need us." Wired April 2000.
"tedk". Insurgent Desire. 4/17/09 .