I'll tell you when i've had enough

Giovanni Serrapere
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
October 8, 2008

I’ll Tell You When I’ve Had Enough

What a nice sound bite that is, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” It has a point, but like anything it should not be taken to an extreme. Thankfully, Bill McKibben is staying a moderate on that issue. Compromising, saying the growth should be conditional. McKibben only has a problem with certain growth and not all because he is a traditionalist, and believes somatic gene therapy can be put to good use.
Bill McKibben is an environmentalist, he doesn’t try to hide it instead he is proud of this. “Beginning the hour my daughter came home from the hospital, I spent part of every day with her in the woods out back of our house, showing her trees and ferns and chipmunks and frogs.”(55) Unlike extremists in the green movement, he does not see humans as beings stopping Mother Nature from flourishing. Seeing merit in traditional family values he views the human existence as something sacred. He believes the struggle of drawing meaning out of our own lives makes our experience worthwhile; we aren’t just here to have a parasitic relationship with our planet. “…the chance to develop skills and to apply them, to see our sweat manifested not only in a paycheck but in a harvest, a house, a book, a classroom full of growing children-that is among the strongest day-in, day-out meaning of our lives.”(94) In his book, McKibben tries to refrain from using the G word, but he does say that he believes in him. Therefore he would be against trying to stop human growth because each new life is in his eyes a blessing from God. Because he is a good Christian, then believes that growth in an area like somatic gene therapy would be necessary to alleviate human suffering.
McKibben clearly states in his book how we should use the “medicine” of somatic gene therapy. He tries to show how it is like medicine, “You take an existing patient with an existing condition, and you in essence try to convince her cells to manufacture the medicine she needs.”(9) This clearly shows that McKibben isn’t against all forms of new technology, just some. What he likes about this therapy is that it still keeps lets consecutive remain natural and untouched. Unlike germline engineering which would forever alter the genes and leave the succeeding generations with no choice. McKibben seems very interested in somatic therapy’s possibilities because many genetic disorders can easily be erased. He also has a very emotional interest, because of a childhood friend of his. “When I was a boy, my best friend in the world had cystic fibrosis.”(132) This tragedy has made him open to some growth; it has made him realize that some research would be okay. McKibben chooses if the growth is acceptable based on each’s characteristics; he is not for all or none. He says he is not a Luddite, saying “That’s a glib charge, as silly as accusing someone of being a prohibitionist because he’d rather leave a barroom with a warm glow than a spinning head.”(xii) I can see the wisdom in this because unnecessary growth seems, well unnecessary.
Before reading McKibben’s book, I assumed that any kind of progress or development was desirable. But after reading, I saw the blind faith involved with that sentiment. Where is the guarantee that progress will result in a happy outcome? There is no natural law that says this; it is just an ideological pitfall. That with some thought can be forgotten for a more sensible approach. It is highly possible that new technology will bring around the end of the world, so we should pick and choose what we do from now on. McKibben is more anti germline engineering than I am; I believe a little further research will benefit us at this point. The “Enough” point is when we get to the designer babies. As for McKibben’s view on the uses of somatic gene therapy, I see a major flaw. Why not eliminate the genetic disorders permanently with germline engineering? I believe he sees any germline engineering as taboo. There is a big question I have to ask. Why does McKibben see the lifestyle of immortality as bad, when as a Christian he believes in this same eternal life after death? We would have heaven on earth, which would be yes meaningless but just as meaningless as the eternal life he is waiting for. Still, me, McKibben and most of the world can agree on the stopping point.
McKibben does not see all growth as bad because of his ideas for somatic gene therapy, and his views on the human existence. Unless you are of pure ideological thought, or you are a scientist you probably believe in a reasonable point where we can say it is good enough the way it is. This book brought me to the point where I had to audit my beliefs and readjust; it made me lay off the ideological bottle. If we stay human then our lives will have more meaning, I would get too bored being alive for eternity anyway. I have to conclude that we should not be luddites, judge the growth for what it is, not so much black and white thinking.