Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
chooses that most human beings suffer eternal damnation could easily
have created the nature we see.
To say that something occurs as a consequence of natural causes, for
example, is to absolve humans of responsibility for it. An act of nature
or an act of God is one that humanity had no ability to avert. In dealing
with great tragedies and taking up heavy burdens, people console them-
selves with the thought that their plight is God's will or that it couldn't
be helped. This fatalism forgoes the anger that would otherwise become
anguish. There is no one to blame.
While it is entirely reasonable to rely on the concept of nature to
refer to what cannot be helped, it is quite another thing to use it to
refer to what should not be changed. To place nature beyond human
blame or responsibility is simply to recognize the limits of our knowl-
edge and powers. To suppose that nature has itself a moral order or
purpose we should respect, in contrast, is for us to impose limits on those
powers.
The problem with engineering the human genome is not so much that
it will alienate or separate us from our human nature—from what is
given or contingent—but that it will increasingly make us responsible for
it. The nice thing about the nature we inherit—even if it is full of defects
such as the propensity for disease—is that it was no one's responsibility.
The more control we have, the more the genome becomes a matter of
intention and choice. It falls within the reach of human freedom pre-
cisely because it comes within the causal order our science and technol-
ogy may command.
In a way, there is nothing new here. Since the medieval period, people
have been liberating themselves—for better or worse—from their history.
A half millennium ago, one did as one's parents did. One stayed put.
One accepted the religion, beliefs, language, and so forth that came with
one's heritage. Five hundred years later, individuals choose religions,
careers, communities, and so on. They may soon be able to choose—to
some extent—the genetic characteristics of their children as well. Not
only does the individual not have a nature; the individual may no longer
have a history.
In Eden, nature was wholly beneficial; it cared for human beings as it
did for the lilies of the field. One consequence of our eating from the
Tree of Knowledge is that nature became hostile; it lost its moral order.
