Huxley was Right: A Whole New Meaning to the Term "Making Babies"
The hubris of the Brave New Worlders--and their folly--is on abundant display in this story about a future in which 100-year-old women will give birth. From the story:
And get how deeply the desire among brave new worlders for hyper mastery of all aspects of existence has advanced:
Woman will soon be able to give birth at the age of 100 due to advances in fertility treatment, scientists have predicted.This pathetic need to control everything--including the natural rhythms of human existence--is sad and doomed to failure. For 100-year-olds to give birth will require bodies like those of 30-40 year-olds--the old transhumanist pipe dream.
Within three decades, women of any age--from children to pensioners--could successfully conceive as infertility is effectively eradicated, it is claimed. Experts say advances in germ cell technology in which skin cells are used to create sperm and eggs and then combined to make human embryos will soon allow women to start a family at any time in their lives.
And get how deeply the desire among brave new worlders for hyper mastery of all aspects of existence has advanced:
Biologist, Davor Solter, of the Institute of Biology in Singapore, said: "The goals will remain the same in that we'll be trying to give children to those who can't have them and remove children from those who don't want them. I think IVF has gone about as far as it can..."Now, read the first chapter of Brave New World, which I wish there was room to quote in full, that includes this exchange:
Other steps forward that are envisaged in the next 30 years include gestation taking place in an artificial womb, low-cost IVF treatment being made available at £50 a cycle and more controversially the creation of embryos for experiments.
In the coming years, scientists also believe that people will be freezing cells from an early age to avoid diseases as they get older. Mr Solter added: "Today you can't experiment on human embryos because it's considered morally repugnant--and they are difficult to get. If embryos could be grown in culture like any other cell line, this latter problem would disappear. It would mean you could introduce any kind of genetic modification. The cell lines could be used to correct a mutation or to engineer an improvement, and used to make a mutant embryo for research purposes. They would become objects and would be used as objects."
But one of the students was fool enough to ask where the advantage lay.Huxley sure understood human nature. But we don't have to passively allow our values to shift to the point that we view human life as mere potter's clay. We have the power of choice. We have the power to say no to the attempt, that even when it failed, would cause tremendous moral damage.
"My good boy!" The Director wheeled sharply round on him. "Can't you see? Can't you see?" He raised a hand; his expression was solemn. "Bokanovsky's Process is one of the major instruments of social stability!"
Major instruments of social stability. Standard men and women; in uniform batches. The whole of a small factory staffed with the products of a single bokanovskified egg. "Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines!" The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. "You really know where you are. For the first time in history." He quoted the planetary motto. "Community, Identity, Stability." Grand words. "If we could bokanovskify indefinitely the whole problem would be solved."
Solved by standard Gammas, unvarying Deltas, uniform Epsilons. Millions of identical twins. The principle of mass production at last applied to biology.
Labels: Brave New World. Transhumanism.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:00 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Wesley, your trust in the impossibility of radical life extension does not make it impossible. Neither are you pathetic for continuing, as all humans do, to exercise control over the natural rhythms of your existence, despite your claim that such is pathetic. Our morality does not arise from our changelessness, else there would never have been morality. We do indeed have the power of choice, which is the power of the potter.
Well,I hope that the task will not be able to be done, and from the scientists I have spoken with about genetic engineering, it is most unlikely due to the sheer complexity of genetic expression.
But what bothers me more, as you know, are the values this agenda pushes. Read BNW, Lincloln. It really is prophetic.
Also, remember that many pots never become pots. They break.
I agree heartily that there are risks, and we should be working to mitigate them rather than embracing suppositions of impossibility. Human technology has been increasing in complexity at an exponential rate for a long time; and rather than deceleration, we observe acceleration. Yesterday's insurmountable complexity is taken for granted today; and I wager today's will be taken for granted tomorrow.
. . . if we survive. As you point out, values are the more important matter. They lead us to acknowledge or ignore, mitigate or exacerbate various risks.
100-year-old women will give birth
... as long as they can find 35-year-old fathers for their children. Women aren't the only people whose fertility wanes with age.
Does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing here? Even as some scientists blame global warming and general environmental problems on too many humans, other scientists propose expanding the ages at which women can give birth.
In many respects, it seems clear that there are indeed probably too many people on the planet, so fertility efforts such as IVF should be ended and outlawed, not to mention such brave new efforts as allowing centenarians to give birth. Infertile? Do us a favor: quit complaining and adopt a needy child if you can't conceive normally. Too old to conceive? Get over it. Nature's trying to tell you something.
Many of us fear that the house of cards we call civilization is about to come tumbling down in fights over ever-dwindling resources anyway. We need to tell those who are unable to have children without medical intervention to live their lives as best they can without the need of creating little DNA replicas of themselves.
The more we encourage breeding using artificial fertility means, the more pressure there will naturally be to end the lives of those deemed "unfit", a "burden", "worthless", or even "useless eaters", if nothing else because of the resource consumption issue. My disabled mother, whom I care for, would certainly be the victim of such asinine policies.
It appears that reporters are utterly incapable of reading journals. Solter actually said, in the journal Nature
"newborn children could have children and 100-year olds could have children"
He NEVER said they would give birth, but that they could 'have children' (that is, be a genetic parent), with the womb most likely being that of a surrogate or one of those artificial wombs he mentions.
"The natural rhythms of human existence" means dying at 30. If it weren't for interventions in these "natural rhythms", you'd be dead.
Michael: Not necessarily. Even in Biblical days the normal lifespan was 3 score and ten==70 years. Not there yet.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home