catapult magazine

Case: A woman undergoes prenatal genetic testing and finds out that the baby she carries has Down syndrome connected to a genetic disorder known as a Robertsonian Translocation. This condition is traced back and they discover that she is a carrier for the Robertsonian Translocation which greatly increases the odds of further children being effected. The woman is overcome with a sense of embracement and does not want anyone to know of her status as a carrier. However, the woman has a brother who is planning a marriage for the summer. The information we know of his sister increases the odds that he is also a carrier for this genetic condition which then increases the odds of his offspring having Down syndrome. Should her brother be informed of this possibility which would require disclosing information about his sister without her consent, or should the confidentiality of his sister be maintained?

Do we have individual right to our DNA or do we share it with our families?

Why can’t we extend our creative energies in both places? Cloning could be a way of helping others, even if it takes massive amounts of money to do it. THis is an assumption others seem to make on this site, that money automatically corrupts things (big corporations are inherently evil, all wars are fought only for oil/money etc.). That’s kind of buying into the idea that human beings are just slaves to market forces. Although capitalism is founded on greed, money itself can be used well and indeed has been useful in the right hands. To put the argument in my own terms: not pursuing these opportunities because of the corruption of governments and scientific organizations etc. would be like me saying it’s impossible to make good music with mass appeal. I could look at the Britney Spearsies, Madonnalonnas and Limp Bisquicks for my evidence, but bands like U2 have proven that it can be done. I am hopeful that the U2 of cloning will arise and will ultimately prevail!

Why do we need cloning?

It is generally assumed that technological progress is good and necessary because it is good and necessary. Nobody (except some resistors like the Amish and Hippies) ask the question: Why? Some inventions turn out to be good but many things turn out to be bad. I think governments and corporations should be forced to be accountable to the public before they impose their creations on us.

I am not convinced by your line of reasoning that reduces all things to music. There are some fundamental differences between making an album and making round-up resistant corn.

My reference to music has to do with process. Both music and science share commonalities because they are both human endeavors of discovery. When I see a documentary of NASA scientists trying to study Mars, I see a very similar process as with artists. Both have to go to the edge of destruction to discover something worthwhile.

The ambition to try something that has never been done is not the problem. That’s the human condition: the desire to transcend limitations (death, taxes etc.). It’s not helpful to damn the desire to try something new just because modernism’s obsession with progress went too far.

Why cloning? As I understand it, cloning has the potential of producing healthy organs for those whose original organs are failing. Certainly the ability to replace people’s organs opens up a whole ‘nother realm of problems (the least of which being the implications for people with penis envy), but what’s new? This is the very life of history.

Though the Amish and Hippies are wise to question the motivations of technological advancements, time cannot be frozen or turned back. It’s an interesting connection to mention the Hippies. I hadn’t really thought about how their beliefs about technology really coincides with their primitivism aesthetic. The running-around-naked and smoking-the-good-substances-of-the-earth lifestyle certainly is an attempt to return to older ways of life.

I’m sorry. I just realized that I misunderstood the original topic of this discussion. Because this was an older discussion, I neglected to read the first several responses and only responded to the bit about “playing God”. I thought the title of this thread “Whose DNA is it?” was a question concerning whether DNA belongs to man or to God. Hence, the focus on “creating” human biological life with cloning etc.

“So then, who’s up for talking about cloning?!”, says grant the dictatorial conversationalist.

Well, the discussion had died, so I don’t think it’s a big deal to alter it to fit our purposes here :)

What you describe as the human condition, I would discribe as the fossil-fueled man’s condition—the industrialized, urbanized, capitalized, post-colonial human condition. Many indigenous peoples around the world don’t share your idea of what it means to be human. It might be more helpful to think about ‘the human condition’ you describe as a product of industrial capitalism. It’s too bad that many of those who disagree with your definition have been wiped out or have been converted to the religion of greed.

Look at how much humans have achieved since the industrial revolution, and then look at how people feel about what they’ve achieved. People in rich countries live longer but we aren’t happier. There is a general sense, I think, that things aren’t getting better. Every advance comes with a price (Nuclear power=nuclear waste, cars=pollution and dangerous cities, cloning=?)

So I don’t blame the average person for being suspicious of the corporations who conduct dangerous experiments without public input. What’s the point of pressing on when we know that almost every ‘advance’ turns out to have a dark side. What are we ‘advancing’ toward anyway?

I know you aren’t advocating this position explicitly, but I think your arguments continue to feed the cult of progress. A good quality of life is worth working toward, but cloned organs won’t satisfy. Once the cloned organs are available, then we’ll ‘need’ something else, and then something else.

A little bit of the contentment that Jesus advocated would be a pleasant antidote to our greedy, hoarding ways. I’m just guessing here, but Jesus might say, ‘blessed are those with imperfect genes, blessed are those who don’t have the money for facial reconstruction, blessed are the farmers who try to honour their animals and plants, blessed are those scientists who don’t distinguish between facts and values. Again I’m not sure, I don’t think Jesus would be so excited about the Monsanto scientists who change species of plants so that their company can make a buttload of money.

The reason why I bring up WWJD, is because I think Jesus was onto something. But I don’t know how what you, Grant, are arguing about humans ‘improving’ nature fits with Christ’s teachings on contentment, the goodness of humility and poverty, the holiness of the least-of-these, etc. I know you consider yourself a Christ-ian, so fill me in on how this works. Yes, I know one must consider the whole Bible, but in the context of the whole Bible, what do you do with Jesus when it comes to these questions?

I’m going to try my best to avoid dwelling on all the story-telling issues that I always seem to come back to again and again. As you’re acknowledging, though, what it means to be human has to do with how we tell the story of human beings. There has to be a dominant story. I don’t understand why anyone would read histories that just said: this is how some people live, this is how other people live. There’s a built in dominance, even as the once marginalized peoples are now getting their stories told.

There’s no way to stop time. All human beings want to participate in the moments they find. Non-Westerners rise to the occasion of time and become parents, tribal leaders, warriors, monks, business-people etc. in response to their own cultural traditions. Jesus’s response to his time and place was to reinterpret the old story for a new age. His goal was not just to further progress for progress’ sake, but to bring in a new and everlasting kingdom. His specific mission was to the Jews who thought military resistance was the way to liberate Jerusalem from Roman rule. But his enduring legacy is the new Jerusalem, preserved in Gentile Christianity and on its way to complete fulfillment. So, as a Christian, I cannot give up on the idea that we’re heading somewhere, to an end goal (not the end of temporality), and I think it’s false of postmodern thinkers to pretend they have no goals or ends.

I see technological development as a continuation of God’s creation. What “native” peoples and/or 3rd-world nations do is also a continuation of God’s creation. Human beings can’t help but develop the opportunities that are in front of them. Whether you’re a Western capitalist or an aborigine, you’re a participant in creation. Both conquistadors and native American tribes participate in developing God’s world and are also sinful participants in it. This is a great mystery of God’s historical involvement that baffles me. For example, I am attending a CRC church with African-American and Dutch people. It’s the first church service that I leave feeling completely rested, healed and blessed. Part of it is the African-American way of worshipping God. Now when I think about it, I would not have such a church to go to if it weren’t for the historical conditions of slavery and the synthesis of African and European cultures in America. You might have your own experiences like this. What conditions or events of the past, good and bad, have made it possible for you to study at a North American university and tell the stories of marginalized peoples? This is why confessing our own individual and societal sins is an ongoing process for believers—our whole lives are propped up on sinfulness but, amazingly enough, also grace and mercy! When I leave my church service, I know in a very real way that God is bringing racial reconciliation on the south side of Chicago despite—and even through—our past mistakes.

I distrust any movement or system of thought that believes it will eliminate problems by halting technological advances or returning to a primitive “natural” state. Our natural state IS the problem. This is what Christ came to show and to correct. So, what would Jesus Do? Exactly what he’s doing—giving His Spirit to people so they can find ways to serve others and worship God by developing the gifts, abilities and opportunities that, by His own unfathomable wisdom, has come before us in our own time and place.

All I’m saying is that we can’t say that the human condition is the will to progress and development if we don’t take into account that only some people have held this view. It just so happens that the groups that held this view have largely disrespected and paved over (this is usually a metaphor) those who didn’t hold this view. Many groups of people rejected technologies that would have helped them to ‘develop’ in the European sense of the word, but they chose not to embrace them; or they didn’t invent them because they were relatively content (contentment is not something we understand). I’m using this example to show that the desire for new technologies is not as ‘natural’ as you say it is. There are lots of different kinds of people and maybe we can learn something from those who don’t think like us.

As for Jesus, maybe I shouldn’t have brought him into this, but his concern was with injustice and salvation. I don’t remember any part of his message that advocated technological progress. I don’t mind if you advocate cloning or whatever, but saying that God wants us to do it…that’s a bit of a stretch. Running through the Bible there are more important themes than one advocating technological and social progress (i’m quite sure most Christians would agree with me on this). I know you are deeply committed to a ‘kingdom-building’ worldview, but I think it’s freaky when the kingdom building runs parallel to nationalism, imperialism, and global capitalism.

And the final thing I wanted to say is about ‘returning to a primitive natural state’. I never said anything about that. In fact, to quote from Bruno Latour’s latest book, The Politics of Nature (which I highly recommend) I have, like him, become convinced that “Non-Western cultures have never been interested in nature; they have never adopted it as a category; they have never found a use for it.” It’s Europeans who invented nature. Other people didn’t make the distinction between nature and culture. I’m not advocating a naive back to nature utopianism, but the alternative does not have to be a technocratic, progressist utopianism either. We can learn from non-western cultures who don’t make the distinctions that have gotten us in the mess we’re in.

What you are advocating is that we continue on the path we are on, that we continue doing what we are doing. Isn’t an important message of Christ ‘repent for the kindgom of heaven is at hand’? And isn’t the spirit of rock and roll essentially rebellion against The Man? How can a Christian rock and roller advocate for the status quo?

I realize I run the danger of sounding like I’m supporting imperialism or modernism in general (I’m perplexed by the “nationalism” and “global capitalist” comparison; my discussions on politics here on *cino should certainly refute that). What I think I’m doing is advocating a third way that acknowledges the reality that clashes between forces with a will to dominate (modernism) cannot be prevented by mere tolerance (postmodern multiculturalism is not sustainable as a life system because it denies its own sinfulness).

I think you are certainly right to include my view of Jesus in this discussion. How we view Jesus does explain how we view this or any other issue. If Jesus is just a buddy that makes my heart feel warm and happy, then it doesn’t matter what scientists or western capitalists do, as long as they have Jesus in their hearts. If we consider Jesus merely to be a wise teacher, then we’ll listen to those things we deem relevant to us now and ignore the other crazy things he said about demons and resurrection etc. But if he is the incarnate Word of God, then he is the very movement of life itself, the mediator through which creation continues to open up, revealing its possibilities of good to us despite human corruption.

If we see Jesus as a teacher of justice and take this very seriously, then this has to go along with all the claims he made about being the Lord, the King, the Master. Christ’s justice cannot be reduced to everyone admiring eachother’s differences. Some differences, some kingdoms, must be overcome by the one and only enduring Kingdom of Justice. Of course members of the other kingdom might not feel like it’s fair to them, but that’s because they choose not to acknowledge the true king of justice. The apocalyptic Christ of Matthew 20-25 is the one who comes when you least expect it and cuts you into pieces (Matt. 24:51) if you don’t do what he says.

We can’t divorce one theme—justice—from the total story, which is Christ reclaiming what belongs to the Creator. Now, if we want to stick closer to a theme that might have a more immediate relationship to cloning, we could start with Jesus’ suggestion that we eat his flesh and drink his life-blood so that we become more like him, clones, we could say, of his body walking around the earth. :twisted:

Alright so for the sake of argument, let’s say I agree that the point of the universe is that Christ is reclaiming what belongs to the Creator. I’m guessing that you believe that in their current state cells, genes, and organisms don’t fully belong to the Creator. If that is so, then your position in this debate so far suggsts that cloning and genetic engineering are one way to give creation back to the Creator. It suggests that the removal of a cancer gene and the cloning of a prize-winning sheep are a continuation of what Jesus started.

But then we might have to go the extra mile and say that the creation of round-up ready corn has advanced the kingdom of heaven, and that Kelloggs and McDonalds are serving God faithfully by using genetically engineered products. Because of the obedient kingdom service of countless corporations like Monsanto and Kraft, the Creator now owns a bit more of the earth than he did 10 years ago.

Please inform me as to how my logic is mistaken, because I hope very much that you do not endorse the position I just laid out.