An old rabble-rousing repost for the Fourth

Thought I’d show something I put in my diary exactly ten years ago. I was pretty proud of the fighting the good fight. It seemed appropriate for the Fourth. So here it is again.

***

Thursday, July 04, 2002

World Watch
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear World Watch:

I’m afraid that your “Beyond Cloning” issue of July/August 2002 will probably always be your issue that I was least happy to read. If you’re wondering, I’m generally a big fan.

Frequent reference is made in the issue to the importance of preserving “our common humanity.” The phrase disturbs me. The greatest threat to that, I think, is the tendency to think that other people who may differ from us do not share that “common humanity”. The phrase implies an alternative, which evidently in your issue does not refer to existing variation but refers, apparently, to any new variation that may come along. In the articles I find an assumption of a distinction, rather than a demonstration of it – and I’m afraid I do not see much behind it but naked xenophobia.

The discussion on genetically modified human beings was alarming in the way it handled the extremely questionable talk of “posthumans.” In “The Genome As A Commons,” enthusiast Lee Silver is quoted as saying, after predicting a rigid future genetic-separatist caste system: “[Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become … entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.” In “Views From Around The World,” George Annas is quoted in opposition to the idea of genetic engineering in humans: “Given the history of mankind, it is extremely unlikely that we will see the posthumans as equal in rights or dignity to us, or that they will see us as equals. Instead, it is most likely either that we will see them as a threat to us and thus seek to imprison or simply kill them before they kill us, [or that] the posthuman will come to see us (the garden variety human) as an inferior species without human rights, to be enslaved or slaughtered preemptively.”

The inclusion of these perspectives would be more understandable if elsewhere there had been any mention at all of their unlikelihood. Both opposing priorities above assume that “posthumans” will be a separate race or species. But what happens if, from the beginning, individual genetically engineered persons do what people have historically done, that is, fall in love with and have babies with whomever they darn well please, and so the genes are simply mixed democratically or randomly into the general population? If that happens, and it appears extremely likely to happen, the two “naturally inimical” (species? races?) never happen.

Frankly, this – or presentation of this as “the total picture”, with no reference to its improbability – is phobic talk. This is as if, in response to Nazi talk of German Aryans as a “master race”, the opposing nations in World War II had accepted the statement, fulminated feverishly about the danger to others posed by these beings, and at the end of the war had systematically exterminated Germans and those of German descent down to the last baby. Both sides of the coin are equal nonsense.

The ease with which the natural inimicality of the interests of genetically engineered people is assumed is alarming in its own right. And I find a parallel here with the other, smaller discussion in the issue, the briefer mention of human cloning.

The only oppositions to cloning mentioned there are intrinsic: people would “have become artifacts” (do test tube babies count here?) – and also the brief comment: “If I cloned myself, would the child be my son or my twin brother? In truth, he would be neither. He would be a new category of biological relationship – my clone.” Richard Hayes goes straight from here to saying approvingly “opposition to reproductive cloning is nearly universal”, and says that “only the most egotistical or deluded would want to clone themselves.”

Two points here: I’m adopted. I did not come biologically from my parents at all. They call me “son” anyway. Granted, I might have seemed like I crawled out from under a cabbage leaf to my peers, and it was slightly embarrassing for me, but everyone involved coped fine. Also: if fending off unorthodox biological relationships among humans were an established virtue – apparently the highest level of virtue – same-sex relationships and same-sex parenting would be universal anathema. They certainly make some people uneasy, but I support acceptance of both, and so do progressives generally, and I’m glad of it. So why is the prospect of “a new category of biological relationship” supposed to evoke, not just uneasiness, but absolute support for an absolute ban? Among progressives? Because I observe that it does.

Dr. Paul Billings comments – again, invoking the necessity of preserving our “sense of humanness” (I’ve been trying to hold off saying how very close this type of phobic talk is to racist phobic talk, but I can’t) – “For example, nearly all scientists and physicians oppose reproductive cloning, and those doing it now should be sanctioned and punished. If a rogue scientist should succeed in creating a human clone, he or she should be treated as a criminal and the occasion should be used to strengthen our bans to prevent it happening again.” Question: While prison is being used to prevent Dr. Billings’ skin from crawling, what happens to the successful clone that has appeared – remember him or her? Surely this is an issue in managing the catastrophe. Is he or she supposed to be quietly murdered (euthanized), assuming he or she was brought to term? Or do we make certain, as he or she grows up, that everyone understands – and that he or she understands – that he or she is Not Human, or is A Tragedy, or is The Enemy? The question does not arise; Dr. Billings is still focused on preventing cloning, never mind that he has strayed over into talking about after it has happened – and he does not recognize the humanity of that person strongly enough for the question to have been important enough to consider.

Look, I subscribe to World Watch, and The Natural Wealth of Nations is the book I’ve been pressing on everyone. The Worldwatch Institute is a great monitor of significant information and a searcher for practical solutions. Here, however, I think World Watch has failed to notice a blind spot. There was nothing wrong with your discussion of the problem with knowing the consequences of changing particular genes. I have a lot of respect for the precautionary principle in practical questions, and it is natural to be concerned with the “helplessness before the market / inevitability” context in which these things are being approached – although progressives should realize that there are a lot of alternatives between, or other than, a total free-for-all market and an absolute ban.

But, in this issue, I think that the editors did not recognize that group xenophobia isn’t a factor specific to the wrong-headed opposition. It’s universal – and I do not like seeing one of my favorite magazines driven by it. This issue did not cover the range of possibilities that it could have and should have. And it makes things no better to say that the underlying reason is shared all across the political spectrum.

Alex Russell