Salon.com > Ralph Brave

“Human beings, as currently constituted, are good enough”

Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:00:00 +0000

Bill McKibben, author of the renowned book "The End of Nature," has a new concern: the end of human nature.

In his just published book, "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age," McKibben zeroes in on the prospect that new genetic technologies could ultimately be used to create "post-human" children, whose character and skills would be designed by parents or society. As McKibben sees it, when genetics merges with other new technologies, such as robotics or nanotechnology, the word "human" may not even be part of the equation. The greatest danger, he argues, comes not from any future genetic dictatorship, but rather from genetic or other technological enhancements that, at least on the surface, seem desirable.

The result, McKibben fears, would be the loss of what he most values in human existence, values he hopes others share. His new book surveys what scientists are cooking up, then delivers his meditations on the choices we will face and on whether we will have the wisdom to say "Enough."

Decoding the genome

Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:40:00 +0000

The text of the human genome -- those 3 billion-plus bits of DNA that contain the basic instructions for constructing and operating a human body -- is now in the hands of editors at Science magazine and is due to be published early this year. An astonishing scientific accomplishment, all acknowledge. But equally astonishing is how little of that text we are currently capable of reading. It's as if we had a list of all words in the English language but lacked a dictionary to tell us what they mean.

No one knows how quickly we will decipher this "code of codes," the Holy Grail of human biology. Both the biotech industry, which has a considerable investment at stake, and scientists, who seek to alleviate suffering, to secure a place in history and to make their own molecular millions, want to move rapidly. Yet, facing a genome that contains thousands of genes, coding for a million or more different proteins (the biochemical powerhouses that do much of the work in making a human and guiding its functioning), they have a long road ahead. And we know even less about the proteome (the entire array of human proteins) than we do about the genome. That's why J. Craig Venter, president of the Celera Corp., who delivered the genome text to Science, told a science writer earlier this year, "We don't know shit about biology."

Being Martin Heidegger

Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:54:00 +0000

"Why is there something instead of nothing," asked philosopher Martin Heidegger, and he asked it again and again throughout his life. But, considering his at times nearly incomprehensible response to his own question and his affiliation with the Nazis during the 1930s, there are more than a few who have since plaintively wished, "Why couldn't there be nothing instead of Heidegger?"

Still, after all the revelations of his involvement with National Socialism, all the mockery over his idiosyncratic vocabulary and all the dissension over his postmodern progeny, Heidegger persists. Indeed, Heidegger thrives. Each year sees more of his work translated into English and other languages around the globe. Each year seems to find some new group proclaiming a new way to apply Heidegger's philosophy to its practical tasks. Nurses, environmental activists and even salesmen are now being urged to "authentically" relate to their clients, their work and the world, a quintessentially Heideggerian notion. Presidential candidate Ralph Nadar quoted the philosopher at a rally the day before the election, echoing Heidegger's sentiment that the "basic fact about human beings is that we care about one another."

Building better humans

Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:00:00 +0000

A young couple having difficulty conceiving a child undergoes tests to pinpoint the problem. As they sit in the doctor's office, awaiting the results, each wonders whose reproductive system has failed.

"There's nothing wrong with either of you," the doctor tells them, at last.

"So what's the problem?" they ask.

"You're two different species. You can't interbreed."

Science fiction? Perhaps for now. But according to the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson, this is where the human genome project will inevitably lead us. He and his Princeton colleague, molecular biologist Lee Silver, say that rapidly emerging genetic technology will ultimately split humanity into many species.

They draw their conclusion from cold, complex science, but their point is simple, and frightening: Once we figure out how to safely manipulate our genes, people will start adding and deleting them to their perceived advantage. Different sorts of humans will emerge. And it's safe to assume that each will decide that it is superior.

While anyone who watched even a minute of "Britney in Hawaii" might believe that this has already occurred, rest assured it has not.

The great gene race

Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:00:00 +0000

The genome fanfare Monday -- the White House announcement, the TV hookup from London, the press briefing afterward -- had only one purpose: to provide a picture of two rival scientists sprinting simultaneously and triumphantly across the finish line after more than a year of bitter exchanges in the press.

But it was clear that the moment belonged to one of those scientists: J. Craig Venter, president of Celera Corporation, the Maryland company that completed its genome project in just nine months. And it was clear too, that the groundbreaking life sciences, including control over the code of human genetic destiny, has decisively shifted from the realm of academia and government to the private sector. It will take weeks, even years, for experts to sort out what this shift means for medical research, the open sharing of information and the protection of patients whose genetic makeup will soon be an open book.

Maybe the hoopla Monday did erase some acrimony between Francis Collins, leader of the publicly funded Human Genome Project, and Venter. When everyone is talking breathlessly about curing cancer, or glimpsing the "book of life," who wants to think about a nasty feud? Why spoil the party by recalling that just weeks ago, Venter called Collins' behavior "despicable," or that Collins once said Venter was capable of producing nothing but a "Mad magazine" version of the genome.