By Roland Watson

13. Genetic engineering, cloning, eugenics

Existential issues, with form. The last issue, nuclear, is an issue because many people, and not only corporations, are for it. They want the U.S., or their own country, to have a lot of atomic bombs and/or nuclear power plants. Similarly, many people are absolutely for such things as genetic engineering and even human cloning. What we should realize, then, from the lesson of nuclear, is that these are technologies that should not even exist: they should not be developed at all. Determinists, of course, with the backing of chaos, will say that there is no stopping them. Indeed, we better hurry if we want to make some money from them. (And they do!) But more reasonable (and less greedy) people will counter that we should not be in such great haste. We have been through this many times before. What we should do is slow things down, put some controls in place, and then consider carefully what is at stake and what we really want to do.

An excellent present-day example of this dialogue, or conflict, is the issue of labeling genetically modified food. Without such labeling, this is dictatorship. We have a right to know what we are consuming. Fortunately, in January 2000, an international Biosafety Protocol was finalized, which among other things will initiate some labeling. Genetically modified food that is exported from one country to another will have to be labeled, although the same food, when it is consumed domestically, will not have to be. Therefore, such food that is exported from the U.S. to Europe will be labeled, but not when it is sold in the U.S. itself. (Needless to say, this failing must be corrected.)

The Protocol also does not address the biotheft of genetic material, nor of the patenting of genetically modified life. But these are issues with great existential implications. It is immoral to steal life (it should be made criminal), and to manipulate it without its approval. Indeed, the latter is as bad as killing it.

This is actually the starting point for the analysis. While we have the ability - the power - to manipulate life, we do not have the right. Power does not imply or infer right! We do not have the right to manipulate other individuals and species, for any reason. The Supreme Court ruling in 1980 that allowed the patenting of life forms "made by the hand of man," was an atrocious decision. It must be reversed.

It is worth noting that "anytime a government or corporation is 'mapping the genome' of a species, it means it is doing so to eventually manipulate the genetic make-up of that species." (Militants Splice Animal Geneticists in Twin Cities, Earth First! Journal, September-October 2000, page 23)

As another example of such manipulation, we do not have the right to use other species as "living factories." Currently, a number of species are being genetically modified and then used as organ or drug factories. In addition, "the animals are killed when their useful lives are over." (Cures of the future are growing on 'pharms' today, Andrea Knox, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 4, 2000, bold added)

Is this what we want: to extend rather than reverse the carnivore "precedent," and use it to justify what really does constitute animal murder, and a crime against nature?

Furthermore, not only is genetic engineering fundamentally unethical, it also entails the greatest of risks. And the first of these, regarding humans, is that it will degrade our species gene pool, which has actually already started with the development of effective medicines and vaccines. Such medicines and vaccines enable people to survive, including people with recessive genes who without them would be "selected" not to. Genetic engineering continues this trend, and likely will increase it, although in a different way. In "somatic cell gene therapy," scientists convey genes into an individual's blood supply, usually via genetically engineered viruses. But in "germline gene therapy" (which has not yet been tried with humans - although it has been with monkeys) new genes are spliced into embryos, in the process completely replacing existing genes. Further organism development takes place with the duplication of these new genes. However, the genome is an ecology: most genes have multiple effects, and work together in numerous ways. And we are for the most part ignorant of this, of all of the effects of any particular gene. Therefore, if we change one gene, one part of the ecology, it is likely that there will be other changes as well, changes that (including through the effects of chaos) it will be impossible for us to predict.

We do not know what the long-term consequences of such degradation of our gene pool will be. In this case it is absolutely appropriate to fear what we do not know. Such scientists and corporations are gambling, for their own ends, with our species survivability.

(Technically, the first germline modification of a human has taken place. In May 2001, doctors took material from a donor's fertile egg and put it in the infertile egg of another woman. The inserted material included some DNA. The result of this is that the baby has one father and two biological mothers.)

In addition, all of the hype notwithstanding, research efforts at gene therapy have not lived up to their expectations. For instance, effective delivery mechanisms have not been developed. For somatic cell gene therapy to work, scientists "have to deliver enough healthy genes, one billion or more, to the appropriate spot and get them to stay there long enough to alleviate the disease." Also, "an NIH committee [National Institutes of Health] set up to review gene therapy concluded that problems remain in all basic areas of the technology." (Wall Street Journal, October 27, 1999)

Progressing from decoding the genome and understanding some of the functions of some of our genes to developing effective gene therapies for a variety of illnesses will likely be as difficult as moving from putting a person on the Moon to sending someone to Mars.

And then, even if such problems can be solved, there is the consequence of genetic engineering leading to eugenics, the purposeful design of humans, and cloning. Such designs, either "positive" (to improve certain characteristics) or "negative" (to eliminate undesirable traits), will fail. We will not get it right. And this will have catastrophic consequences, starting with the individuals involved. For example, consider cloned humans: it is likely that a high percentage of such individuals would commit suicide. The reason for this is the issue of personal identity. It is already hard enough trying to think of yourself as being original, much less unique, and having personal value. Think of the problem that would be faced by a clone: you are not yourself; you're a copy of someone else!

In any case, we already have cloning. That's what happens when form is so strong that stereotypes become accurate. The question is: do we want more?

Also, it is not only clones. Children who receive germline gene therapy will be "born" in test tubes: no sex will be involved. They will not have parents in the traditional sense: they will not receive a complete set of their parents' DNA. The overall consequence of this is that people will become manufactured "things." It will be the death of parenthood and individuality, and the creation of a new determinism: a new barrier to free will.

The unethical basis of genetic engineering, not to mention its uncertainties and guaranteed negative outcomes, makes it clear that it must be opposed, although given conditions as they now stand, with corporations in a seemingly invincible position (who is going to police their labs), it will certainly be an extremely difficult battle. (One viable defense against cloning, though, is that the doctors involved should be prosecuted for the mutations and deaths that result.)

14. Great wealth inequalities

An issue of form; actually, a measure that proves it is winning. A crucial future social issue will be the handling of the wealth of people such as Bill Gates. It is a crime against humanity that they are so rich while so many other people are so poor. They have more economic power than many nations, and are effectively new emperors. Their existence is an affront, and a great barrier, to our goal of equality.

Society took a great step forward when it recognized that the inheritance principle for political power was invalid; that such power should not be passed from father to son. But we have yet to draw the same conclusion regarding economic power; that great wealth should not be inheritable.

It is also noteworthy that such distortions are exacerbated by the behavior of the individuals involved. The question must be asked: why don't more people with great wealth and power (and fame) do more to help? Why don't they make their voices heard for the benefit of all human society, and all life? Why can't they leave behind their personal selfishness, their greed, to always want more and more?

A way or ways will have to be found to distribute their excess wealth. The obvious means is through taxes (estate taxes for the extremely wealthy should be increased, not eliminated), and this represents an evolving function of government, although - again - it is linked to the basic role of protection. We need to be protected from the wealthy, and the simplest solution to this is the redistribution of their assets.

(Regarding estate taxes, we should not forget that they traditionally were imposed in recognition of the fact that much great wealth was accumulated in the early stages of national development, through crime and corruption. Similarly, Bill Gate's wealth derives from the crime of Microsoft's monopoly.)

In addition, and as this makes clear, no one should be allowed to control, personally, any utility, at least any utility which enjoys a market monopoly. These are public resources; they should be owned by everyone. More generally, we must recognize that the goal of equality is inconsistent with any great accumulations of power, either political, military or economic.

© Roland Watson 2016