Cogito Ergo Sum as Stated

Cogito Ergo Sum

As stated centuries ago by Rene Descartes, the statement "I think, therefore I am," no longer holds true for the dawn of the twenty first century. Due to emerging monumental technological advances in virtual reality since Descartes first coined the phrase in the seventeenth century "My computer thinks, therefore I am" has become the contemporary version of this statement. Descartes' words have most definitely given way to a lesser meaning by way of our popular culture and popular thought. Today it is the computer that possesses knowledge over mind and human thought has now been relegated to the artificial intelligence capabilities of a machine. In tern, that to which Descartes challenged man to strive for is seemingly a lonely term in philosophy textbooks. Since the advent of mega technology, today's popular culture has plagued and urged its citizenry to pick up a diversion control wand, leap into a world of fantasy and have their minds thrust into what is perceived as a new reality. Today popular cultural aficionados and cybernauts alike can fasten on virtual reality goggles and body suits for perceived pleasure stints in these artificially created worlds. Unfortunately, however, the fundamental mechanisms are resolutely different from the quantum fields that constitute the real physical world. The notion now of what is real and what is virtual fantasy, what is true and what is imaginable has become a way of life and cyber-living is fast replacing real living. The entire dichotomy between inner and outer reality became crystallized with the recent popular movie, The Matrix. The remainder of this paper will focus on today's popular culture in a mega technological advanced world and investigate three areas that are not only highly scientific but troublesome and alarming as well, namely transgenics, cyborgs, and designer kids.

Cyborg. From movies of the 1950's to scientific technology of the twenty first century the idea of biotechnology and human development has captured audiences the world over. Debates have raged as to the ethical considerations, commercial correctness, and familial concerns in respect to the very process itself (Andrews, 1999). However, like any other medical or sociological phenomenon in today's world the process of human creation, alteration, or computer augmentation has its pro-activists and protagonists as well as those who loathe and condemn the activity. Right or wrong, the scientific investigation into human alteration, augmentation, and cloning is not necessarily in the hands of those who have no material or ulterior and concealed motive for creating a scientific observable fact that carries with it massive moral responsibility.

The single most important factor underlying the issues of human cloning, augmentation, and alteration is the dehumanization of man through the advancement of biotechnology. Today the computer offers mankind the opportunity to advance well beyond previous limitations set my intellect, mortality, and strength through the evolution process of DNA. With significant breakthroughs in the bioelectronic field new advanced technologies now permit the interfacing of computer chips with the human's central nervous system that, in tern, pose the very real possibility to effect biological changes and the intercellular level (Lappe, 1990). The very possibility is not only scientifically phenomenal but unprecedented as well. However, the question at the forefront is whether or not the process is ethical and should strict limitations be set on the integration of biotechnology and human life. Determining the social consequences is a very important issue that needs to be addressed as well.

In an article by Leon Kass (2001) the concept was expertly expressed as an empirical investigative endeavor whereby man's scientific accomplishments are at the expense of cultural stability, respect for personal choice, and the right to individual control. A second, and just as formidable, argument against human cloning, augmentation, and alteration is that continued experimentation will result in an incomprehensible denial that everyday man has lost control of his destiny; and if permitted to continue will thrust mankind back into the horrific era of Nazism. Therefore, support must be garnered from those who oppose the process in terms of pressuring the government to enact legislation to entirely halt ubiquitous scientific human cloning or genetic alteration endeavors.

Continuing with Kass' argument against human cloning, augmentation genetic alteration through biotechnological means he labels the process as unethical and one in which the cloned or altered individual would be subject to insurmountable psychological, sociological, and even possible future mutant abnormalities. Whether tongue-in-cheek or not, Kass found a way in which to present a little humor within a rather abhorrent topic by wondering if a cloned child of a "Daddy" will still be loved by the "Mommy" if the parents ended up in divorce. Other arguments against cloning are directed toward the commercialization of cloning, the destruction of the family unit as we know it today, the responsibility "cloners" have to those they have cloned, and the possibility of creating the next generation of "Boys from Brazil."

Although supporters of human cloning, augmentation, and alteration are steadfast in their support for the process with respect to bone marrow cell reproduction to fight leukemia, growing hearts, kidney, lungs, and livers for those who are in need of transplants, and to help infertile couples conceive, the tantamount fact remains very clear; namely, that human cloning, augmentation and alteration takes ethical decision making out of the equation and personal choice is not an option. Further, by creating humans through an artificial means defies nature and is in direct opposition to nature. Doing so will surely result in a sub-culture that is neither appreciated nor tolerated by society. Artificially developed individuals will be looked upon as not being a part of society's citizenry and discriminated against significantly. Although biotechnology in the medical field can be looked upon as a medical miracle, the euphoria will not likely be long lasting. Once the jubilation is over there will be fear, anger, and mistrust. To be accepting on an individual who has not been conceived in what society describes as the "normal" way will only lead to heightened discrimination, chaos, and havoc; thus resulting in more problems. Once biotechnological human change begins we will have lost and sacrificed our own personal individuality, our own sense of oneness, and our own need for individual expression.

At this point one must agree with NBAC's (1997) proclamation that cloning "...at this time is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell transfer cloning." As science exists today regulatory mechanisms, global advisory panels, and legislative bodies are yet in place to govern the outcomes of any human biotechnological endeavor. And the question will always remain "Who am I?" (Meilaender, 1999).

Trangenics. Another pivotal issue in the area of advanced medical science is that of transgenics. The practice of transgenic medical therapy is commonly called gene implant therapy wherein the human embryo is corrected rather than being discarded. Broadly defined transgenics or genetic engineering is a biotechnological technique used in medical research to isolate genes (human, animal and plant), modify their behavior to function better, and insert the new prepared genes into a new species, thus developing transgenes. Once a selected gene is isolated and latered to function effectively in what is known as the host organism it is combined with other genes of the organism and introduced still into another organism. The process is generally labeled chimera (Dorlan, 2000) and the medium of introduction is technological rather than selective breeding.

Although many states have passed legislation forbidding genetic experimentation with humans French Anderson of UCLA (Monmaney, 1998) proposes a new gene therapy technique that actually involves the fetus to exposure to a transgenic gene insertion into the female womb. The principle behind Anderson experimentation was to use two DNA splicing techniques to attempt to cure inherited diseases in fetuses. However, gene therapy has not been restricted to like species and current developments are undergoing to use the transgenic process between species for the hope and/or prospect of curing various genetic diseases. Although transgenic technology does, indeed, have medial therapy potential, questions with respect to ethics and control are at the forefront of the debate. Some of the more interesting, if not alarming, issues are as follows: