It is interesting to me that, if there were shown to be medical and technological means to allow people to be less angry and violent, more moderate in their desires, less addicted to harmful substances, more empathetic to strangers including the hungry and homeless, more caring of others ... all worthwhile and traditional Buddhist goals ...
Scientifically speaking, the alteration of genetics is something that cannot be predicted when it comes to complex traits such as emotions and desire which come from multiple genes which themselves interact with their environment in often unpredictable ways. There will never be 100% safe gene alteration just by the nature of human genetics and their expression as the human phenotype (what we actually get in a human body) because it is not 100% predictable. Genes interact with other genes and with the environment, including our culture. I know of no research which looks at changing genes to alter human compassion or desire to consume even in its earliest stages, and please correct me if I am wrong, Jundo. Geneticist Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project points out the issues of working with multigene traits:
"Many of the scenarios discussed aren’t about correcting a disorder caused by a single gene. For that preimplantation genetic diagnosis already offers a practical and much less ethically challenging option for most couples seeking to avoid the birth of a child with a serious genetic disorder. Instead futurists dream about changing traits that someone decides could be improved, such as intelligence, height, or the risk of some common chronic illnesses. All of those are complex multiple gene situations in which the environment plays critical roles, an no single genetic change would be expected to have much benefit."
(https://www.statnews.com/2015/11/17/...embryo-crispr/
It is less harmful to human beings to let them starve, die in wars, die of alcoholism, to be victims of rape and child abuse because messing with the genes (subject, of course, to proof and safety and efficacy by all standards of reputable medical testing) is somehow worse than that?? How would it be worse that that?
If people get to choose, why would they when they get to choose now whether to benefit themselves or fellow human beings and mostly choose the former.
If the latter, qui custodiet ipsos custodes (who oversees the overseers)?
Again, the possibility of genetically changing traits such as kindness and desire to consume is hugely unlikely and highly unpredictable.
In any case, I posted about another device this week. Could something similar be used to head off the craving for a drink by the alcoholic? Sexual urges arising in the convicted child molester? Not for me to say, but seems like something to investigate by the experts, and technically not so far-fetched to imagine it might. If a device like this could do so (e.g., firing neutralizing signals upon detecting sexual arousal or raging anger), it is possible that untold numbers of children and other victims of violence could be saved from being raped etc..
In summary,
1. Specific arguments in terms of interventions for child abusers, rapists and (for different reasons) alcoholics I have no problem with these being discussed by people who are experts in the areas of addiction and jurisprudence. These arguments are, to my mind, separate from the more general one of modifying consumerism and empathy in a general population and they should not be conflated.
2. Gene editing for empathy, anger reduction reducing consumerism are hugely problematic as these are complex traits which are the product of many many genes and their interaction with our cultural environment. Editing for each of these things is incredibly unpredictable in terms of how they will change other elements of personality. Neurotransmitters and hormones are incredibly blunt instruments which control many physiological and emotional functions. Also, behavioural traits which are dangerous in excess serve a useful function. Taking away anger may also reduce self-assertiveness. Increasing empathy may remove the ability to judge when we are being taken advantage of. Being precise is really really really difficult, and I know of no research which is suggesting we can do this through gene editing. Even attempts to gene edit for simpler physical traits run into problems. Because of this I think it is very very unlikely we will ever be able to achieve gene editing on these kinds of trait with any precision regardless of how much research is done. Human behaviour is really complex and involve the interaction of genes, what we eat, how much sleep we get etc. That doesn't mean I don't think any research should be done but I do think it is not a particularly fruitful line of research that will achieve what Jundo is wanting to happen.
3. Even if we could edit genes to precisely manipulate human empathy and consumerism, why would people agree to have this done? What is the moral implication of parents being able to choose traits for their children if it goes wrong? Society choosing for people is even more morally difficult.
So, in short, I do not think that gene editing in this way to make a better breed of humans will ever be possible. Sure, continue research but I think this line of thinking is very very unlikely to be a long-term solution to human problems and carries both moral and physical dangers. Breeding better humans has a horrible history and the fact that any programme would be run by humans with their own agendas does not fill me with confidence.
Anyone wanting to learn about the history of eugenics can do worse than listen to the Bad Blood series of radio programmes from the BBC, which includes a final episode summaring the present state of play on gene editing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fd39
Should we be talking about these things here? Sure, why not. Do I consider doing so to be a hugely beneficial use of my time? Only in the sense of being able to appraise the usefulness of doing something like this based on my background. Ideas like this have been around for a while and I have been thinking about them since my early 20s both as a biologist and a member of the Green movement. Over that time I have become less and less convinced of their potential to solve human problems. I am fine that others think differently, and Jundo clearly has a passion for this subject, but presenting it as the only solution to the present situation seems incredibly flawed based on where the science is now, what the potential is for the science in the future, and the distraction it gives to think of some magic bullet in the future from addressing the solutions we need to be thinking about right here, right now.
Attaching Treeleaf to Technofuturist views troubles me a lot. I am fine with this being a passion project for Jundo, but am no more comfortable with it being a large part of Treeleaf than I would be if we promoting any other kind of ideology that isn't Zen. These kind of ideas are not the only solution to the present problems we face and, to my mind, they are not even the best or most likely solutions. Presenting it as a dichotomy of it is this or we let people suffer is just false. It is fine to hold that view, but it is also important to realise that people who do not agree are doing so are not therefore effectively leaving us to a future of greater suffering. These Future Buddha ideas can be interesting to discuss but they are unproven, often scientifically very unlikely, and come with huge range sociopolitical and moral problems of their own. Being open to them is fine, seeing them as the one and only hope for the future is a stretch.
Apologies for running long.
Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-
Comment