This site's administrator does not necessarily endorse everything written on the above links.
The text on the right is Copyright © 1998 Stuart K. Hayashi, and may not be reproduced by any means without his expressed written permission. All rights reserved. |
PLAYING GOD—A MORAL NECESSITY
Stuart K. Hayashi
Usually, whenever a great new advancement is made in technology, such as cloning and the transferring of genes from one species to another, many people shout that this is unethical, because it is "fooling with Mother Nature" or "playing God." Yet, it is precisely because of our "fooling with nature" that we have survived as a species.
When man first evolved, his extinction seemed imminent. Unlike the other members of the animal kingdom, he had no claws, fangs, scales, or any adequate form of defense. He was weaker and slower than the top predators, and he lacked all of the advantages of common prey. In a world where only the most physically powerful survived, humans would have died out. Fortunately, our species has been preserved for generations by an advantage over all competing lifeforms it had then and continues to posess today—intelligence.
This is our ability to think, judge, and re-shape our environment to suit our own needs with knowledge drawn upon fromt he past. In the harsh wilderness, men survived by using their natural surroundings for their own benefit. They carved tools out of stone and wood, and ignited fires to cook and illuminate the night sky. They used surrounding trees to build shelters to protect themselves from the elements. All of this was accomplished by using nature for their own benefit, or "manipulating nature," and thereby "playing God."
The reason why we have so many breeds of dogs and domestic cats is because humans chose to "play God." People re-engineered living animals through selective breeding, mating the individual dogs and cats possessing physical traits they wished to preserve. Through this procedure, we have artificially evolved wolves into St. Bernards, poodles, Chihuahuas, rot weilers, and many others. Is it wrong that we have all of these different breeds?
Though some environmentalists criticize our civilization for "arrogantly" believing itself to be "superior to nature," many environmentalists themselves display a belief in man’s dominance. Because of our power, we have caused many species to become extinct or endangered. This itself actually is natural, because, in natural selection, the species which can’t compete die off. If we didn’t believe we were above the laws of nature, we’d accept this. However, we are convinced that it is in our power to save these species, in spite of these natural laws. We believe that we are in the position to decide which species live and which ones die. We have asserted our dominance to save Hawaii’s Nene goose from extinction, even though its inability to compete should have ensured its dying off. Is this not "playing God?"
Occasionally, when humans "manipulate nature," terrible accidents occur. The makers of the Titanic were "arrogant with their technology," and the artificial creation of killer bees was a disaster. However, while these mishaps have killed several people, they did not bring an end to the human race. What we must ask ourselves is this: Are these rare, isolated incidents—the exception—reason enough to ban technological progress which will more likely save and expand millions of more lives in the future—the rule? If geneticists wish to use a bio-engineered organism to produce a vaccine for cancer, should we ban this, out of fear that they may accidentally create some sort of "Frankenstein monster?" Though dangerous scientific blunders sometimes occur, progress’ overall benefits to our lives far outweigh the losses.
If man had not decided to defy the earth spirits by using fire for his own "selfish" purposes, where would we be? If we had not used the trees and the rocks to make weapons to hunt for food and fight off predators, would we even be here right now?
At the moment, bioengineers are putting human genes into pigs, in order to produce human blood. This is helpful, because pigs produced more blood than we do, and this will reduce the need for blood donations from people. Science and industry plan to use this special human blood from pigs in blood transfusions. This practice has been denounced for being new, unusual, and "unsettling." Yet, it will save and expand lives our lives in the future. Is that unethical?
We may believe that, with our current dominance, there is no longer a need to continue advancement. That is far from true. Viruses and bacteria are our natural predators, and they evolve at an alarming rate—faster than that of any other sort of lifeform. They constantly form new methods of protecting themselves from our antibiotics, mutating into strains even more difficult to treat. Should we refuse to find new ways to stop them, it would mean the death of us in the long run.
If not for our ability to use the natural world for our own convenience, our species may not even have survived as long as it has, and many more lives would be lost, both in the present and in the future. Contrary to much of today’s rhetoric, technological progress is not unethical. Rather, it is a moral necessity.
Return to Controversial Essay Page!
Back to Main
Stuart K. Hayashi is the executive vice president and vice chairman of the Reason Club at Hawaii Pacific University. His writings have appeared locally in The Honolulu Advertiser, The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Pacific Business News, and Hawai'i Libertarian, as well as nationally in Libertarian Party News and The Daily Objectivist. |
|