Trans-humanism Presentation

Anchor: [SLOW DOWN] An emergency session of congress has been called to rule on the legality of recent developments in genetic modification of human embryos.

Genetic modification and also the merging of artificial intelligence continues to grow in its possibilities. Most genetic modification experiments have been what is called “somatic”, where changes made affect only a single person and a limited number of cells. Germline modifications on the other hand can affect all cells in an individual and the changes can be passed onto future generations. Recently, Chinese researcher He Jiankui made changes to two human embryos to try to prevent HIV. Advancements continue to be made in artificial intelligence. Elon Musk’s company Neurolink implanted a computer chip in a pig in order to build a “brain-to-machine” interface. Musk plans to create “superhuman cognition” while also allowing people with neurological disorders to control computers and other technology.

Views from the scientific community vary on the ethics of genetic modification and AI merging: most scientists support exploration into the topic but proceed cautiously, knowing a failed experiment could have disastrous consequences. In general, the more people it affects, the more caution is advised and the ethics are questioned. Many scientists think the technology has gone too far when it changes a person’s DNA or it can be passed on to future generations.

For summation views from the public on the issue, reporter David Millhouse is out on the streets. David?

[VIDEO]

Thank you, David. Co-anchor Trey, that last person could’ve been your twin. Anyway, you had a special experience recently.

TREY:

I had the opportunity to sit down with 24 year-old Tanner Wright. Tanner, originally from Fort Worth, Texas is a college athlete and most recently a Paralympian finishing 7th in the 100m and 4th in the 400m as well as a big volunteer at Scottish Rite Hospital. Just back from Tokyo Tanner gave us his perspective on this issue.

[video]

[FULL LIGHTS]

TREY: Thank you Tanner. What an interesting perspective from someone who could benefit directly from trans-humanism. It seems like there is a range of opinions: some people believe uninhibited scientific progress is the way to save society while others see it as usurping God’s role in our lives, and those in between.

We have Dr. Abraham Wise, professor of systematic, public and biblical theology of Group 1 Theological Seminary, to provide an evangelical perspective on the ethics of this topic. Thank you for being here, Dr. Wise.

Me: Thank you for having me.

TREY: Doctor, the seminary recently released a statement regarding genetic modification and merger with AI. Can you explain your process in thinking through and coming to a conclusion regarding this issue?

Dr. Wise: Well, Trey, we began by taking a look at the current state of the conversation around these issues - Right? So: what are experts in the field of saying about it? Scientific journals, philosophical arguments, etc. Then, we did in-depth study of Scripture to find the relevant themes. And we prayerfully developed principles from those themes. This was truly theology in community.

Anchor: So after you researched the question, made sure you understood it. What did you and your colleagues conclude?

Dr. Wise:

While the Bible doesn’t explicitly speak about genetic modification and AI, it tells the inspired story of a God who creates humans uniquely in His image, and in so doing sanctifies human life. He gave humans the responsibility to rule over creation, but ultimately in submission to Him. After the first humans rebelled, God graciously provided redemption and continues to work to restore creation to its original design, including humans. As Christ-followers, we work with the Spirit to be restored and bring God’s restoration to the rest of humanity. It is important to note that we work with God, not apart from God, and with the motivation of knowing and depending on Him more and bringing Him glory.

Within this biblical foundation, we found four principles to be helpful as humanity naviages issues of this sort:

First, in light of God’s cultural mandate to humanity, and his having given us dominion over the earth, we should make every attempt to maintain and restore human life. We think here, of course, of Ge 2:15, and even Psalm 8:6: God places humanity “over the works of God’s hands,” and God places “all things under [the human’s] feet.”

Second, we should look at the fruit of the Holy Spirit as a rubric for the helpfulness of technologies. Since we were made to know and walk in submission to God, we want to put ourselves in positions to cultivate these fruits. Galatians 5 is a touchpoint here. With regard to any given technology or procedure, we ask: Does this help someone to cultivate, display or experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and/or self-control?

Thirdly, we should consider the effects of our decisions on our Christian community and neighbors. Think of all the one-anothers in the NT & particularly Paul’s letters: Jn 13:34; Ro 12:5, 10, 15:7; Eph 4:32, 5:19, 21; Col 3:13,on and on <1Th 5:11; Ro 13:8>. It’s about ‘us;’ not just ‘me.’ We have neighbors across both space and time. We have to think about how something like CRISPR gene editing will affect future generations.

I also think consideration of others means that scientists should abide by all applicable laws when experimenting with AI, and doctors when treating patients with gene editing and so on. This principle of respecting authority (within godly limits) pervades Scripture, but Ro 13 comes easily to mind.

Finally, we should seek submission to - not replacement of - God and the truth of the Gospel. So, ultimate healing comes from God. Transhumanism must never become a rival gospel, something we work up to solve our deepest existential problems. Paul certainly denounced that type of thing in Gal 1:6. It also recalls the sin of Babel, and even the original sin of Ge 3 - defining good and/or evil apart from total trust in God and His promises.

In our research, we found an incisive observation from philosopher Jim Stump:

“Eternal life is not merely this life continuing indefinitely. Jesus said that eternal life is to know God (John 17:3). That is a qualitative difference, not merely quantitative. The transhuman vision of radical life extension is just more and more and more of this world… I want something better.”

Anchor: These are great principles, Doctor. Thank you for sharing. What does this look like practically? What would you say to someone who wants to genetically modify their unborn child?

DR. WISE:

Let’s take the question of changing a baby’s ear shape as one example and apply the principles. Is human life at stake? Is there something to restore? If the ear shape is preventing hearing, then maybe it’s a good idea. On the other hand, if the shape just isn’t to our liking, probably not. The former is about restoring God’s human creation; the latter is cosmetic. So we’re looking at restoring God’s creation vs. fulfilling our selfish desires.

Is changing a baby’s ear shape going to help them bear the fruit of the Spirit? Probably not. Again, as long as the ears work, they can be used for compassionate listening.

How would a procedure like this affect others around your child, the Church or in the community? It probably wouldn’t

Could you honestly say this procedure would be in submission to the Gospel and trusting God for healing?Is it even about healing?

What about the prospect of implanting a chip in a patient’s brain, to prevent dementia. In this case, maintenance of human life is clearly at stake. So, the first principle yields a green light.

Same with the Fruit-of-the-Spirit principle. People in the throes of dementia are clearly hindered in their expression of love, joy, peace, self-control, down the line.

Prevention of dementia through this type of procedure would also take huge burdens off of loved ones, who otherwise would be consumed with either providing or paying for care-taking (not to mention grief).

Finally, I don’t think preventing or stopping the problem of dementia is necessarily at odds with trusting God and the gospel. It’s a way to love one’s neighbor.

Some further thoughts, in response to Harari’s ‘End of Sapiens’ chapter:

Even if a person, in relation to an “inter-brain-net,” becomes something no longer psychologically or biologically human, I suggest such (a) one(s) would still be *theologically* human - If for no other reason than that God has not upgraded (or downgraded) their status. They are still ultimately (I.e., eschatologically) accountable to God.

Also, the same principles apply to the scenarios Harari presents in Chapter 20 his book, Sapiens. The diversity and specificity of the scenarios only underscores the breadth and depth of the principles. God's church is concerned with ethics but not fundamentally so. At the crux of every case, real and/or imagined, is the disposition of the heart towards God. That is,

Are we worshipfully and empathetically seeking to heal and restore God's (human) creation?

Are we driven by a desire to cooperate submissively with God's Spirit and bear His fruit?

Are we putting the needs of others before our own?

In all of it, are we prayerfully keeping our attention on - and faith in - God and his past-present-and-future gospel? Or are we promoting a rival gospel of our own design, a là Babel (Ge 11)?

To re-appropriate Harari’s question: Do we want to want to be conformed more and more to the image of God the Son?

ANCHOR: Thank you, Dr. Wise, for sharing your wisdom with us. This concludes our special report in the studio. We will transition now to our live audience here in Dallas so they can ask questions.