Bio-Comprachicos, Incorporated

Alyssa Ford, Utne.com, writes:

Biopolitics, a term coined by Trinity College professor James Hughes, places pro-technology transhumanists on one pole and people who are suspicious of technology on the other.

...and shoots herself in the foot with the lead sentence. I am no more "suspicious of technology" in this context than I am "suspicious" of fire because of the perversions of pyromaniacs or "suspicious" of knives because they have been used to carve children's faces into permanent smiles.

What I am suspicious of are ostensibly rational individuals who act like vomit-brained Pollyannas (yes, I'm talking to you, Reynolds and Postrel) on the subject. There is far too much evidence from human history as to the kind of downside that is present here for anyone to so flagrantly and dishonestly ignore it. We can take the examples of dog and cat breeding to be normative for what is going to happen with the tranzihumanists. Look for "stunties," permanently genetically-fixed children, thalidomide babies for the pelagic enthusiasts, and genetic determinism for every child. Oh, by the way, excuse me for laughing directly in your face when you tell me that such things will be "forbidden" by "law."

Why is this the case? The ugly truth is that the "trans"(anti)humanists possess the same reductive view of biology as their supposed left-luddite enemies. The anti-humanists take the same "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" conceptual approach to the ethics of genetic use that the Ingrid Newkirk crowd does, they just favor USING it irrationally rather than OPPOSING it irrationally.

God, Providence or Reality help us all.