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 .