We feel as though Dr. Kass wrote his cautionary remarks specifically for our benefit, as there are very few individuals or groups of aspiring interventional bioengineers/ biogerontologists that we know of who are contemplating doing what he cautions against. 

 

The classic tales of ”Frankenstein” and “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” are cautionary tales in the vein of “Mad scientists should not attempt to play God without suffering a fate worse than death.” Kass’s aim in writing this report was perhaps that we might become more reasonably accepting or compliant toward our natural human condition.  Unhappily for him, if this were the case, he has failed.   We are no more accepting than we ever were.  Indeed, we are more determined than ever.  Could you imagine telling the Wright brothers to stop doing experiments with their childish flying machines just when they were getting close, on the grounds that God intended only birds to fly?  They would have told you “to go fly a kite.”  There were audaciously committed to their dream.  One of the brothers almost died in their quest.  Many other Wright-trained pilots flying Wright-built aircraft did crash and die performing daredevil stunts at well-attended air shows.

 

Starting on pp. 287-9 in the Prepublication Version of his report, we have attempted to extract five major premises (P1 – 5) followed by a conclusion (C1) in Column 1 of the Table below that have the form of a syllogistic argument, i.e., an argument such that if you accept all the premises, you must be persuaded (by force of logic) to accept the conclusion (e.g., All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore, Socrates is mortal.).  The GRG accepts all five Kass premises (modulo the spin element on each one), yet we forcefully reject the conclusion.  How can than be?  We have placed our refutation in a point-by-point fashion in Column 2.

    


 

Within Therapy (Kass)

Beyond Therapy (GRG)

P1.

The fundamental goal of a physician is to correct deficiencies or deviations from a patient’s notion of wholeness or well-being.  Doctors function as servants to Nature’s own powers of self-healing, a wondrous product of evolutionary selection.

True.  However, we ourselves never went to medical school for the sole purpose of practicing conventional medicine.  Rather, we went to advance the state-of-the-art of medicine and to develop revolutionary new modalities of treatment.  Otherwise, our wondrous products of evolution will simply perish “right on schedule.”

P2.

However, when a bioengineer intervenes for non-therapeutic ends, he stands not as Nature’s servant, but as her aspiring master guided by nothing but his own will and serving ends of his own devising.

True. But, so what?  For us, Nature is a blind, indifferent force -- a truly harsh mistress, having no interest in human beings whatsoever.  There is nothing wrong with mastering Nature, given the chance to do so.  She might not even know or care.  Most species on this planet have already gone extinct.  

P3.

It is far from clear that our delicately integrated natural bodily powers will take kindly to such impositions, however desirable the sought for change may seem to the intervener.

True. But maybe our bodies could be forced to accept them anyway without too much pain for the owner.  The only alternative to attempts at intervention is death.

P4.

The problem is one of hubris, what Council members have called “the temptation to hyper-agency,” a Promethean aspiration to remake Nature, including human nature, to satisfy our purposes and to satisfy our desires.

True. Come to think of it, the term “hyper-agency” is not all that bad.  We might actually start using it. 

Recall that Prometheus, son of a Titan, was punished by Zeus for stealing sacred fire from Mt. Olympus and teaching mankind how to use it.  Despite an eternal punishment  (being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten every day by a vulture), he didn’t die, but was later rescued by Hercules who killed the bad bird.  By the way, Zeus gave his brother Epimetheus, the “gift” of a wife named Pandora, bringing a host of ills and sorrows into the world.

P5.

This attitude is to be faulted not only because it can lead to bad unintended consequences; more fundamentally it also represents a false understanding of, and an improper disposition toward the naturally given world.

Unforeseen consequences? True.  But crossing the street may lead to getting hit by a truck.  And who is holier than thou with respect to the impropriety part?  Our human predicament has been thrust upon us.  Submission to Nature is not like surrendering to The Borg (“Resistance is futile.”)

C1.

… In the face of such hubristic temptations, appreciating that the given world – including our natural powers to alter it – is not of our own making could induce a welcome attitude of modesty, restraint, and humility.  Such a posture is surely recommended for anyone inclined to modify human beings or human nature for purposes beyond therapy.

False.  On the contrary, our posture is one of boldness, audacity, and assertiveness.  By the way, “modifying human nature” is not an explicit part of our agenda, although that could happen once the constraint of mortality were to be lifted.  Our real goal is to expand our lifespan/healthspan indefinitely.  If this were to make us appear god-like (and thus no longer human), so be it.  But I think we’ll get over it.