The
Monster in Our Midst: The Next 10 Years
Glen Dawursk, Jr.,
www.yuthguy.com
When I consider the ethical issues confronting our
church and world today, I see that many of them will continue to be issues in
the future. Life style interpretations
concerning homosexuality, single gender parenting, and the blessing of same-sex
marriages will remain ethical issues our churches will have to face. Interpretations about the role of woman,
their rights and their limitations in the world and in churches will persist
especially among many conservative denominations. The issues of freedoms in
In the early 1800’s, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein
startled the world with its ethical commentary on the industrial age, Darwinism
and the control of human life. Her story
of man’s creation of a living being has been called a literary marvel as it artistically
presents the horrific results of technology combined with man’s sinful desire
to be God. This ethical concern is
prevalent today, however, I see it taking on greater proportions in the future
as technology continues to change and innovate more rapidly than ever before.
According to the Medical Dictionary Search Engine (http://www.books.md), “Bioethics is the branch of ethics, philosophy and social commentary
that discusses the life sciences and their potential impact on our society.” It is this area that I feel will be the
greatest impact on society for the next 5-10 years.
The Bio-ethics department at Dalhousie University
of Nova Scotia, Canada has divided the bio-ethics area into four categories:
·
Theoretical bioethics which deals with the
intellectual foundations of the field.
·
Clinical ethics which refers to the
day-to-day moral decisions confronted in caring for patients.
·
Regulatory and policy
bioethics
which seeks legal and policy solutions for moral problems concerning life and
death.
· Cultural bioethics which considers ethical questions in relation to the historical,
ideological, cultural, and social contexts in which they are expressed.
(quoted
from http://www.library.dal.ca/kellogg/Bioethics/definition.htm)
In order to make my contentions more clear, I will
discuss many of the specific issues I see under each category.
In the area of theoretical
bioethics we find that science is exploring areas of “brain science
manipulation.” More than ever before,
research is showing how our brains work and CT scans are allowing us to see what
stimulate what sections of our brains.
While the science may seem insignificant, we are actually finding out
how we can better manipulate our brains in order to manipulate decision making
and unconscious behavioral reactions to stimuli. This becomes an issue as we use these results
to in essence “brain wash” people in to buying products, accept ideologies or
respond in a predestined way. Brain
science has caused department stores to change their colors because red
encourages impulse buying and blue does not, products to include scents because
lemon smell makes us receptive to the product and chocolate smell makes us
desirous of sex, and styles of music everywhere especially heart-beat music
(like brogue) which soothes the mind and makes the person more alert, passively
active, comfortably positive and conducive to whatever is being presented. This does not include the significant
research on the effects of media messages (including violence, sex and
self-concept) and other audio/visual stimuli on the behavioral psyche of young
people. The ethics will especially
become an issue as we confront the issues of freedom of speech, and protection
of human rights. The ethical concern is
where do we draw the line and if we do, will the church’s “messages” also be
controlled as well.
Under this category we also confront recent
discoveries involving artificial intelligence, virtual reality stimulation
simulation, and nano-technology. Last week the BBC reported that a monkey
brain was used to control a robotic arm. Mandayam Srinivasan a researcher at MIT stated, “It was an
amazing sight to see the robot in my lab move, knowing that it was being driven
by signals from a monkey brain.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1025471.stm)
Steve Martin was in a 1980’s movie called “The Man
with Two Brains” where he kept his lover’s brain alive via computer for
replacement into another body. In the
next ten years, who is to say that not only could brain transplants be a
possibility, but what about the brain of Einstein (supposedly saved after his
death) being used to control a computer?
Virtual reality also becomes an issue from the
movies. Also in the 1980’s in a movie
called “Brainstorm” we see a man who dies of too much sexual activity using
extreme virtual reality stimulation simulation.
Using science fiction technology, the character in the movie video tapes
a sexual activity and then plays it back in a continuous loop. The experience stimulates all senses as the
technology allowed for a totally realistic experience – tactile as well as
visual. This technology is just now
become a reality. This stimulated
simulation virtual reality can be used for brain washing youth as the vicarious
experience of killing or other activities becomes more realistic than ever. The Columbine boys were desensitized by
simply a 2D video game -- what will happen when the experience is
indecipherable from reality.
Nano-technology is also taken
from the realms of science fiction.
While Star Trek used the “nano-cells” as
internal body invaders from the semi-alien creatures called the “Borg,” the
reality of combining medicine and engineering with physics and chemistry is not
too far away. Research in this area
suggests that we may see significant strides during the next decade. While scientists suggest that this technology
will offer a more productive world, many critics see the “Matrix movie scenario”
of a nano-holocaust as machines destroy our planet. (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCContent/news/july03-11.asp)
The next category is clinical ethics and I anticipate significant debate about birth and
DNA manipulation. Just recently the Associated
Press reported that the senate had “voted to ban the practice that critics
call partial birth, sending President Bush a measure that supporters and foes
alike said could alter the future of
This issue still stems from the continuing argument
of who has control of life? In the same
way, DNA manipulation prior to birth will become significant as science becomes
more able to control eye pigment, sex and hair color prior to birth. This does not include the issues of
conception as technology finds more and more ways for people to have children
without any intercourse. Conception
clinics have become serious business throughout the country and as the desire
for “immediate” children becomes a greater demand, technology is suggesting
artificial sperm cells or eggs may not be too far away either.
Regulatory
and policy bioethics could include areas of “life and death” decisions in the
The last category is cultural bioethics and I suggest that Human Genetic Data Bases will
become the greatest ethical concern here.
With DNA testing becoming more prevalent in court cases it is no wonder
that the medical and scientific communities are creating genetic data bases
which include information about even babies being tested. This DNA database is similar in nature to what
Hitler had hoped for. He sought out
information about the physical and historical information of the German
children in hopes of breeding the perfect race.
The DNA data base brings to question the privacy of individuals,
manipulation for breeding purposes and the disposition of cultures based upon a
prevalent disorder or disease. ELSAGen (Ethical, Legal and Social
Aspects of Human Genetic Databases) is a conference sponsored by the European
Commission for the purpose of determining the potential damaging issues to
society. (http://www.elsagen.net)
While society and the church will face ethical and
moral issues for as long as there is sin in the world, the focus of the church
still must remain on the mission of Jesus Christ. It is Satan’s desire to manipulate us away
from the message of salvation by confusing the world with issues that question the
authority of God in the process of life and death. Just as Mary Shelly seemed to imply in her
book Frankenstein, maybe the monster is actually in us. From the beginning of man’s fall at creation,
we have sought to be like God. Instead
of seeking God, our sinful nature encourages us to compromise our
salvation for the sake of being God. Bio-ethics totters on that line.