Dear Various Combinations of A, G, C and T (and all that arises from those in body and mind),
In the following sections of the book, I ask whether certain technologies and medical means might be brought to bear: (1) to reduce the propensity in some humans to kill and otherwise act in violence driven by extreme anger rising to the point of rage, self-unregulated violent sexual desires, psychopathy and the like, (2) to increase human compassion and charitable instincts even toward distant strangers, and to heighten empathy regarding their physical and economic suffering, (3) to combat various conditions such as extreme depression, panic disorders, alcoholism and other addictions, and (4) to moderate extremes of human desire to hoard and consume in ways harmful and destructive to both self and planet, while increasing levels of human satisfaction, among other positive changes.
Namely, lessening greed/excess desire, anger, selfishness, reduce other mental suffering ... the Buddhist Poisons ... increasing compassion, empathy, charity, peace, satisfaction and contentment ... the Buddhist Virtues.
I remind readers that the discussion in my book is based on four premises. I advocate that we consider the use of certain technologies if, and only if, those technologies and medical abilities are:
... then, and only then, we should consider (i.e., talk about their possible) use for good.
I remind readers that my advocacy of our possibly using such means is dependent on satisfaction of the above conditions. Until such point, I am merely opening this topic for discussion as to all ethical ramifications. My willingness to even consider such extreme measures arises from my belief that our instead choosing to do nothing if such cures and treatments do become possible, or our merely advocating stopgap or partial (and ultimately ineffectual) social measures, ... with the ice caps melting, violence against children continuing, wars festering, weapons of mass destruction standing ready, our prisons overflowing, homelessness and hunger so often ignored ... might perhaps be the more dangerous stance and vastly more harmful to human beings.
My book states:
It seems inevitable at this point, with all our mucking about with replacement genes and our first forays into body and brain enhancement, that human beings will keep tinkering with the human species. Perhaps we will do so to the point of creating whole new species to assist us, join us, improve on us, even someday supplant us. In all likelihood, Homo Futurus will be to Homo Sapiens as we are to Homo Habilis and Australopithecus – children and cousins, near or distant. Some of the newcomers will preserve, to greater or lesser extents, aspects of our inheritable make-up, just as our genetic code and resultant human bodies include bits and pieces of the many generations of apes, amphibians, amoeba and other species who came before us. At least, they will at first, until our descendant species themselves move on to birth or build their own child species, while our genomic contribution grows less and less, to a forgotten hint over time. Of course, our history and discoveries, literature and science will be in some memory banks somewhere, preserved in such way for the ages, although no more relevant than forgotten cave paintings.
It seems inevitable, because natural selection alone would do the same, sooner or later, over millions or tens of millions of years. Technology merely hurries things along. Developers choose by design, while nature experiments by random mutation, disaster, disease, deadly combat and dumb luck, seeing what works or withers by tossing species into the harsh arena of persist, prey or perish, stirred by the hands of fickle chance, seeing what lives or meets its doom. The Buddha said that all things change, and Darwin merely agreed.
Some people, on doctrinal or ethical grounds, will oppose any human-made (not to mention post-human-made) changes and meddling. Many Buddhists may feel that nature should be left to take its natural course, has its own wisdom, that we are interfering with “karmic streams” or just playing with fire, that mother nature knows best. I understand and empathize with these objections, although I don’t believe that nature always knows best, since nature also cooked up childhood cancers and birth defects, plagues and floods, and it sure has a violent, bloody, trial-and-error way of going about sorting the evolutionary winners from the losers. People often assume that we homo sapiens are the pinnacle of evolution just because, for a brief span of time, a few hundred thousand years, we have clung by our nails to the surface of this planet. Compare that to the dinosaurs, kings of the earth for over a hundred fifty million years before nature finished them off! In fact, nature makes no promises, is always trying out alternatives potentially better suited, is ever randomly scheming how to replace us, and we humans seem to be our own worst enemies right now.
In any case, it will not matter in the end whether some groups of us resist the idea of evolution by human intervention, or even that certain governments ban or regulate these developments: The technological genie will not stay in its bottle. Wealthy parents will be among the first to dive in, choosing characteristics for their yet-to-be-born children to aid them in getting ahead, just as they now choose private tutors, elite schools and other purchasable advantages. They will order laboratory adjustments to body and brain to increase intelligence in their heirs, gift their progeny with extra-ordinary sports abilities, musical talent, particular handsomeness. They will assure that inherited propensities to certain genetic illnesses and defects are scrubbed from their fetuses, no repeat of the European royalty here. Some Buddhists and others may object, but the marketplace will decide in the end. Even were governments to ban the techniques, it is easy to foresee future “gene splicing havens” on small tropical islands, much as “tax havens” now cater to the rich. Sperm and eggs will be screened in nearby clinics while the donors wait sunning on the beach.
In such case, if it will happen anyway, if beyond our power to stop it, if the genomic genie is out of the lab and lamp, should not we Buddhists, at least, try to offer parents the option of birthing wise and compassionate, kind and caring, more Buddha-like babies? After all, the Buddha was predicted to become a great world monarch at birth, yet chose instead his path of peace.
Various nations and investors will go ahead, in secret scientific bases hidden somewhere, much as nuclear weapons research happens today. If outlaw regimes, scattered militaries and big corporations see a benefit, the research may take very ugly turns, perhaps reeking of “master race” eugenics, Putin-esque programs for the building of super-soldiers to fight better wars against enemy super-soldiers, or the breeding of hyper-efficient half-human/half-robotized workers whose multiple arms and legs and incredible stamina will make them wonders on the factory floor, barely needing to rest, requiring but a daily energy injection in place of dinner breaks or a dental plan.
If that will be the situation, and if Buddhists and other concerned citizens cannot stop the genie and stuff it back in its bottle, then we need to get our own hands on the lamp. Assuming that the process is unavoidable and irreversible (I believe it to be so), then those of us with a voice must do what we can to make the genie do better things. Oh, we can march and protest, writing letters to the editor or our congressmen, trying to stop it before it starts. Or, we Buddhists can do what we have done in the past, locking the monastery doors, keeping the world outside, preserving the 13th century within (hoping the super-cyborg-soldiers will not breach those walls.)
Or, as a third option, if meddling with biology will happen anyway, one way or another, let us work for it to happen in good ways.
Of course, it is not just about genetics, nor just a matter of pushing some simple "DNA switch," and many tools should be employed together: pharmaceutical, hormonal, genetic , neurological and other medical solutions, not to mention education, media, socialization within the family, plus the traditional practices of Buddhism and other humane creeds. Whatever works for good.
Thus, a central theme of this book, throughout all its pages, is that we Buddhists should help direct inevitable technology toward a better world, a pre-planned Pure Land, realizing positive goals in keeping with Buddhist ethical values, principles that we share with many other humanity-loving fellow humans who care deeply about this human race, working together to keep the magical lamp out of evil hands. If we have a choice (hopefully we will, before the industrialists and militarists monopolize biology), then any such future “designed evolution” might serve to nurture more humane, caring, charitable, healthier, nicer, gentler, kinder, happier beings rather than better killers or pacified industrial slaves. If we succeed, then the resulting gentler, kinder, happier, more pacifist and compassionate world citizens which result simply will be loath and unlikely to exploit, abuse, maim and kill their fellow citizens, as the desire or ability to do so will have been bred and written right out of them. No more Putin-esque wars because even our Putins will be peaceniks.
It may be surprising that a Buddhist priest (not to mention one of Jewish heritage, whose own relatives died as the victims of heinous plans to breed some monstrous "master race") would advocate genetic engineering and mind tinkering to improve the human race. But it should not be surprising at all, for our Buddhist vow is to rescue all sentient beings and do good. The Jew longs for tikkun olam, good works to repair this sometimes broken world. The means of rescue are less important than the fact of rescue. However, this is not an “ends justify means” philosophy for, in both means and ends, not a single life need be taken, not one person harmed, even as all will be aided and made better all along the way. This is the opposite of hateful actions to oppress and slaughter enemies. We really can leave the world better and do good.
But in order for us to succeed, it is vital that the necessary technology be mastered and employed by the good guys, the folks in the ‘white hats,’ those of us who will use it well, before the ‘black hat’ bad guys take over the town. As with every potentially mis-usable discovery or device throughout human history, it is vitally important who gets their hands on it first. The “white hats” need to head the villains off at the pass! I feel we have no choice, for if we stick our heads in the sand, the robber barons, generalissimos, despots and other villains will just have their way.
... (to be continued) ...
Gassho, J
stlah
In the following sections of the book, I ask whether certain technologies and medical means might be brought to bear: (1) to reduce the propensity in some humans to kill and otherwise act in violence driven by extreme anger rising to the point of rage, self-unregulated violent sexual desires, psychopathy and the like, (2) to increase human compassion and charitable instincts even toward distant strangers, and to heighten empathy regarding their physical and economic suffering, (3) to combat various conditions such as extreme depression, panic disorders, alcoholism and other addictions, and (4) to moderate extremes of human desire to hoard and consume in ways harmful and destructive to both self and planet, while increasing levels of human satisfaction, among other positive changes.
Namely, lessening greed/excess desire, anger, selfishness, reduce other mental suffering ... the Buddhist Poisons ... increasing compassion, empathy, charity, peace, satisfaction and contentment ... the Buddhist Virtues.
I remind readers that the discussion in my book is based on four premises. I advocate that we consider the use of certain technologies if, and only if, those technologies and medical abilities are:
(1) inevitable and coming anyway, cannot be halted, cannot be ignored;
(2) have a high chance of being misused by bad actors unless we use them in beneficial ways;
(3) can be shown to be effective and safe to use; and
(4) can be introduced in an ethical way respectful of individual free choice, civil and human rights ...
(2) have a high chance of being misused by bad actors unless we use them in beneficial ways;
(3) can be shown to be effective and safe to use; and
(4) can be introduced in an ethical way respectful of individual free choice, civil and human rights ...
... then, and only then, we should consider (i.e., talk about their possible) use for good.
I remind readers that my advocacy of our possibly using such means is dependent on satisfaction of the above conditions. Until such point, I am merely opening this topic for discussion as to all ethical ramifications. My willingness to even consider such extreme measures arises from my belief that our instead choosing to do nothing if such cures and treatments do become possible, or our merely advocating stopgap or partial (and ultimately ineffectual) social measures, ... with the ice caps melting, violence against children continuing, wars festering, weapons of mass destruction standing ready, our prisons overflowing, homelessness and hunger so often ignored ... might perhaps be the more dangerous stance and vastly more harmful to human beings.
My book states:
~ ~ ~
It seems inevitable at this point, with all our mucking about with replacement genes and our first forays into body and brain enhancement, that human beings will keep tinkering with the human species. Perhaps we will do so to the point of creating whole new species to assist us, join us, improve on us, even someday supplant us. In all likelihood, Homo Futurus will be to Homo Sapiens as we are to Homo Habilis and Australopithecus – children and cousins, near or distant. Some of the newcomers will preserve, to greater or lesser extents, aspects of our inheritable make-up, just as our genetic code and resultant human bodies include bits and pieces of the many generations of apes, amphibians, amoeba and other species who came before us. At least, they will at first, until our descendant species themselves move on to birth or build their own child species, while our genomic contribution grows less and less, to a forgotten hint over time. Of course, our history and discoveries, literature and science will be in some memory banks somewhere, preserved in such way for the ages, although no more relevant than forgotten cave paintings.
It seems inevitable, because natural selection alone would do the same, sooner or later, over millions or tens of millions of years. Technology merely hurries things along. Developers choose by design, while nature experiments by random mutation, disaster, disease, deadly combat and dumb luck, seeing what works or withers by tossing species into the harsh arena of persist, prey or perish, stirred by the hands of fickle chance, seeing what lives or meets its doom. The Buddha said that all things change, and Darwin merely agreed.
Some people, on doctrinal or ethical grounds, will oppose any human-made (not to mention post-human-made) changes and meddling. Many Buddhists may feel that nature should be left to take its natural course, has its own wisdom, that we are interfering with “karmic streams” or just playing with fire, that mother nature knows best. I understand and empathize with these objections, although I don’t believe that nature always knows best, since nature also cooked up childhood cancers and birth defects, plagues and floods, and it sure has a violent, bloody, trial-and-error way of going about sorting the evolutionary winners from the losers. People often assume that we homo sapiens are the pinnacle of evolution just because, for a brief span of time, a few hundred thousand years, we have clung by our nails to the surface of this planet. Compare that to the dinosaurs, kings of the earth for over a hundred fifty million years before nature finished them off! In fact, nature makes no promises, is always trying out alternatives potentially better suited, is ever randomly scheming how to replace us, and we humans seem to be our own worst enemies right now.
In any case, it will not matter in the end whether some groups of us resist the idea of evolution by human intervention, or even that certain governments ban or regulate these developments: The technological genie will not stay in its bottle. Wealthy parents will be among the first to dive in, choosing characteristics for their yet-to-be-born children to aid them in getting ahead, just as they now choose private tutors, elite schools and other purchasable advantages. They will order laboratory adjustments to body and brain to increase intelligence in their heirs, gift their progeny with extra-ordinary sports abilities, musical talent, particular handsomeness. They will assure that inherited propensities to certain genetic illnesses and defects are scrubbed from their fetuses, no repeat of the European royalty here. Some Buddhists and others may object, but the marketplace will decide in the end. Even were governments to ban the techniques, it is easy to foresee future “gene splicing havens” on small tropical islands, much as “tax havens” now cater to the rich. Sperm and eggs will be screened in nearby clinics while the donors wait sunning on the beach.
In such case, if it will happen anyway, if beyond our power to stop it, if the genomic genie is out of the lab and lamp, should not we Buddhists, at least, try to offer parents the option of birthing wise and compassionate, kind and caring, more Buddha-like babies? After all, the Buddha was predicted to become a great world monarch at birth, yet chose instead his path of peace.
Various nations and investors will go ahead, in secret scientific bases hidden somewhere, much as nuclear weapons research happens today. If outlaw regimes, scattered militaries and big corporations see a benefit, the research may take very ugly turns, perhaps reeking of “master race” eugenics, Putin-esque programs for the building of super-soldiers to fight better wars against enemy super-soldiers, or the breeding of hyper-efficient half-human/half-robotized workers whose multiple arms and legs and incredible stamina will make them wonders on the factory floor, barely needing to rest, requiring but a daily energy injection in place of dinner breaks or a dental plan.
If that will be the situation, and if Buddhists and other concerned citizens cannot stop the genie and stuff it back in its bottle, then we need to get our own hands on the lamp. Assuming that the process is unavoidable and irreversible (I believe it to be so), then those of us with a voice must do what we can to make the genie do better things. Oh, we can march and protest, writing letters to the editor or our congressmen, trying to stop it before it starts. Or, we Buddhists can do what we have done in the past, locking the monastery doors, keeping the world outside, preserving the 13th century within (hoping the super-cyborg-soldiers will not breach those walls.)
Or, as a third option, if meddling with biology will happen anyway, one way or another, let us work for it to happen in good ways.
Of course, it is not just about genetics, nor just a matter of pushing some simple "DNA switch," and many tools should be employed together: pharmaceutical, hormonal, genetic , neurological and other medical solutions, not to mention education, media, socialization within the family, plus the traditional practices of Buddhism and other humane creeds. Whatever works for good.
Thus, a central theme of this book, throughout all its pages, is that we Buddhists should help direct inevitable technology toward a better world, a pre-planned Pure Land, realizing positive goals in keeping with Buddhist ethical values, principles that we share with many other humanity-loving fellow humans who care deeply about this human race, working together to keep the magical lamp out of evil hands. If we have a choice (hopefully we will, before the industrialists and militarists monopolize biology), then any such future “designed evolution” might serve to nurture more humane, caring, charitable, healthier, nicer, gentler, kinder, happier beings rather than better killers or pacified industrial slaves. If we succeed, then the resulting gentler, kinder, happier, more pacifist and compassionate world citizens which result simply will be loath and unlikely to exploit, abuse, maim and kill their fellow citizens, as the desire or ability to do so will have been bred and written right out of them. No more Putin-esque wars because even our Putins will be peaceniks.
It may be surprising that a Buddhist priest (not to mention one of Jewish heritage, whose own relatives died as the victims of heinous plans to breed some monstrous "master race") would advocate genetic engineering and mind tinkering to improve the human race. But it should not be surprising at all, for our Buddhist vow is to rescue all sentient beings and do good. The Jew longs for tikkun olam, good works to repair this sometimes broken world. The means of rescue are less important than the fact of rescue. However, this is not an “ends justify means” philosophy for, in both means and ends, not a single life need be taken, not one person harmed, even as all will be aided and made better all along the way. This is the opposite of hateful actions to oppress and slaughter enemies. We really can leave the world better and do good.
But in order for us to succeed, it is vital that the necessary technology be mastered and employed by the good guys, the folks in the ‘white hats,’ those of us who will use it well, before the ‘black hat’ bad guys take over the town. As with every potentially mis-usable discovery or device throughout human history, it is vitally important who gets their hands on it first. The “white hats” need to head the villains off at the pass! I feel we have no choice, for if we stick our heads in the sand, the robber barons, generalissimos, despots and other villains will just have their way.
... (to be continued) ...
Gassho, J
stlah
Comment