I’ve been considering the ethics of Transhumanism (technology used to enhance individuals and make them run faster or be more intelligent) and stem cell research, cloning etc further and I realised that it comes down to incredibly fundamental beliefs on religion, science and politics. Each has fundamental views on life and death, and the role – or lack of – of death in society. I’m a fairly scientifically minded guy and in general I’d like to consider myself one of the enlightened ones. However that doesn’t mean that I don’t think religion has any good points at all and to be truly enlightened I need to consider these too. Those who ignore religion are just as arrogant as those who ignore science and recent events in my life have lead me to consider the other side’s points more fully, as has a quote from Angels and Demons.

The quote, considerably cut down and delivered expertly by Ewan McGregor, is as follows: ‘Science and religion are not enemies. There are simply some things that science is just too young to understand. So the Church pleads stop, slow down, think wait. And for this, they call us backward?’

It forced me to look at religion, particularly Catholicism, in a new light; one that I believe many Catholics themselves do. Not as a literal description of events, but as something that was created many years ago by those in power to try and instil moral values and at least some humility in a time when we had few. And yes, while some of these values may now be outdated (I’m not big on the whole no-sex before marriage thing, which I think was probably great during the times before condoms), as Ewan pointed out religion certainly has the advantage of time and maybe science learn to respect its elders just a little bit more?

In respect to Transhumanism and similar technologies such as stem cell research that fall into the category of ‘playing God’ religion is constantly halting the march of science and seemingly condemning many to death. This makes Catholics fairly unpopular when they constantly state to the ill that we shouldn’t save them because it’s ‘against God’.

The problem is that many religious zealots, even some of those high up enough to know better, follow the Bible blindly without actually thinking about why that advice is in there. Quoting isn’t going to help anyone, but the underlying idea deserves more attention. Warning against moving to fast is not ignorance but wisdom, and it is a sad truth that some people have to be allowed to die and that we can’t and shouldn’t decide when or if they do.

Both the religious zealots who don’t understand their own motives and those who advocate stem cell research with no personal stake in their success are selfish in their motivation. Respectively, they want to appear to be doing the right thing or to appear to be doing good in the eyes of God. So many people won’t even say what they believe to be true for fear of retribution from a higher power, or because they feel guilty or that they’re ‘wrong’.

I’ll admit here and now that I believe research into some cures for diseases is misguided. In order for society to function there must be deaths and there must be illnesses. Otherwise there’d be no room, and there’d be no progress. The same powers would stay on top indefinitely. The ‘nanny state’ tries to shield it from us, but the fact is humans need to die and we should view it in our own lives as a challenge. So many people believe what they think they should believe, rather than what they really believe. Why? Because they’re afraid to think the controversial in case it means they are struck down by illness themselves, or in case it makes them immoral people. Be fearless and true to yourself, free your mind.

We can’t save everyone – there literally isn’t enough room in the world. And though of course you’ll do everything you can to save a loved one, that doesn’t mean that the government should condone technologies that will indefinitely increase our life spans. A great ruler does not what’s best for them but what’s best for their people, such as when Superman chooses to save the missile heading for Metropolis rather than the one heading for Lois Lane.

Furthermore the threat of death is what gives us progress, adventure, freedom, glory and honour. Left wing politics that try and distribute wealth are again misguided (though well intentioned) in believing that there is any possible way to make everyone ‘equal’ and for not realising that in doing so we are limiting our own freedom – the most amazing gift granted to us by nature. I find it ironic that left wing parties associate themselves with freedom (‘liberal democrats’ for example), when really they’re putting limitations on our ability to succeed to make up for those who can’t or won’t. Sure we should all be given an equal start as far as possible but from there on we should allowed to fly – with full understanding of the possibility that we’ll fail.

There has to be a loser for there to be a winner, and if you put aside the social etiquette and dogma you’ve been brought up with you should understand that a race with no winner (as is actually encouraged in some schools now) is pointless. What is life without challenge? Would you play a computer game where you couldn’t lose for long without becoming bored? There’d be no progress either if no one died, the world would stagnate.

His Holiness himself, Superman, states in one storyline that he may have the power to cure cancer (amazing x-ray vision plus lasers with microscopic accuracy allow him to destroy individual cells), but that he won’t try as it would give him too much power. In Lord of the Rings Gandalf throws the ring into molten lava to prevent himself from ‘using it to do good’. He knows that to impose one person’s idea of ‘good’ on everyone is evil in itself, however well intentioned the culprit.

Science can’t answer where the universe came from, while the Bible puts forwards a concept of a single God and used this for the basis of its morals. By describing God himself as something outside of human understanding however, religion has admitted to its own limitations and painted him as more an abstract concept. Of course there are elements of religion that do attempt to extend their reach, stories involving demons and monsters and rather fantastical events, many of which seem to have been put in place to instil fear, guilt and obedience and to prevent questioning the bible. Here is the dark side of religion. If we can accept the guidance of religion without having to subscribe wholesale, without having to label ourselves by one group’s random interpretation thereby becoming subservient to them, then it still has a lot of good advice to offer. Religion and science are at their best when they admit to their lack of understanding. They are at their worst when they try and explain things they cannot or empower humanity.

The fact that we don’t know what the purpose of life is or where it comes from means that no one person can claim to be a higher authority than another, which is exactly as it should be. Scientists who believe in evolution as responsible for our design (and evolution too is flawed when subject to too much though) should perhaps begin to show it a little bit more respect for a process that’s yielded such magnificent forms of life. Survival of the fittest may seem harsh, but then no system presented can be any less so. We are in fact part of a great system, wherein every event happens for a purpose. We’re getting to the point now where we’re intelligent enough to redesign this system, but it is essential that we also be intelligent enough to know that we lack the insight to do so.

We are no more central to the world and no more advanced or important than any other animal or even plant and we should operate as such. We should not be more careful to protect them (vegetarians) but we should not believe ourselves to be better than them. Sure we’re more intelligent (by our own definition of ‘intelligence’), but why is intelligence more important than the amazing sense of smell dogs boast? We have comparatively larger brains, but then my laptop is smaller than my old PC from 1990 and it’s certainly no worse off for it… A woman today told me off for not picking up dog poo. First of all, she was another busy body with dubious motivation (unless her child was once killed by a poo?). Second of all, I actually normally do pick up my dog poo and had just forgotten my bag – but didn’t see why I should have to explain myself to her (her understanding would make me no less guilty but rather be a demonstration of vanity). Thirdly though, I considered the fact that the dog poo was biodegradable (and harmless as the dogs were wormed) and that it was the road that was out of place. Furthermore it would be good for the nearby soil and probably enjoyable for other dogs who use it to smell who’s been there before. In this instance then my usual meek and polite demeanour was replaced by one less apologetic.

As a society, as a race, we create rules and laws and are lead to believe they are gospel. Yet we never question where they come from and whether or not they truly benefit life rather than the best interests of the bureaucrats who instil them; forgetting that we too were once pooing in the forest and thinking nothing of it.

But then perhaps our own machinations too are part of the grand scheme of God or religion? Am I being hideously arrogant again in believing that we have the power even to interrupt the system that bread us? Perhaps Transhumanism, stem cell research and roads instead of animal poo should be allowed to be dropped into the mix as it were. As I said, our own behaviour is no less important than those of other creatures and if these things give us an upper hand in the war that is evolution should we really feel guilty about not being the ones who lost out, for winning the race? If our tampering doesn’t work then surely God or evolution will see to it that it stops?

I wasn’t trying to come to any conclusions as that would make me as bad as the institutions I’m arguing against. I just wanted to stimulate debate and to try and get you to question your most fundamental assumptions (to expand beyond your boundaries if you like). All I can conclude from this inner debate that I’ve spelled out here in this article, is that by my own moral code I believe that we should treat all life with the same respect and equality. For me that means showing no more respect for a politician, a policeman, a millionaire or a pope than I do for a tramp, a prostitute, a dog or bacteria. When I get really ‘fair’ I wonder why the extreme left believe its okay to kill bacteria when curing diseases? I don’t know what the meaning of life is, so I’m free to do as I choose and without impeding on the freedom of others I don’t feel guilty about trying to get ahead – I expect them to do the same. Furthermore I’m very suspicious and offended by anyone who does try and enforce their rules on others. Your opinion of how you should live your life is valid only to you, stop trying to fix other people and get yourself right first. That even includes God and I’m not afraid to say it; even if a God did make us, he should respect our freedom and my opinions too (otherwise what’s the point?). My Mother doesn’t try and rule my life so why should he?

Mack LeMouse

Copyrighted material; do not reprint without permission.

 

View all articles by Mack LeMouse