There are many questions that are raised when the topic of genetic research and genetic engineering are brought to the floor. The first and foremost question is that of ethical obligation. The issues of defining sentient beings, humanizing of cyborgs, and cyborging of humans give rise to these many ethical questions. I believe that humans are made in the image in God and are made for the purpose of honoring Him with our actions. Thereby we are replicants of Him. This central belief forms my basic beliefs and morals, and creates my concrete foundation that technology must have limitations set upon it.
My beliefs as a Christian have a huge influence in how I view the world around me. In Genesis 1:26-28 God makes our authority clear and tells of us being replicants of Him and the authority He gives us on earth:
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground'."According to this basic belief of Christianity, humanity was made in the image of God and was given authority over everything on earth. We are, therefore, replicants of God Almighty, and are in power on the earth. Notice this power was given over other beings (birds, fish, etc.) not over other humans. There are many religions in the world that would agree with this basis of Christianity, that humans were created by a higher being. Whether or not this power was given to humans by this higher being is not the debate. It is insignificant to reality. The reality is that almost all forms of government have some sort of law and consequence system. Such systems form the structure of society in which we now live. Governments have such a system to maintain control of humans in society, and it would be logical to me that if we created a human-like machine that it would also be under this human restriction. The control would also give humanity the authority to determine the existence of the technology and when deemed necessary the termination of it. Technological society under the same government or human control would have the same laws and consequences of human society. My belief in the Holy Bible implies that humanity is already given this power. This basis of termination, in the case of human like technology, should be based on the foundation of God’s law of termination of human life or on the forms of punishment deemed necessary by society. If the machine is not humanlike it is the same as any other machine whether it be sentient or not and could be dealt with in similar fashions. These forms of termination could include the dump, recycling, or spare parts. This type of termination would be the same as that of my computer, car, or furby. If we create a biological engineered computer its termination would be a little more complex because of its bio-engineered mechanisms, but then the circumstances of termination should be based upon some system of laws and consequences. If the machine is sentient, humanity should take special considerations.
Some may argue that humanity should not control life, given by God. But is existence given into an engineered being considered life, and what control should humanity have over his creations? Whether or not God gave power to humanity does not negate the fact that there is authority on earth that insures order, safety, and consequences for its citizens. The argument may be as Priss said, “I think therefore, I am.” My pet dog can think. Lab monkeys can think. Other beings and human created devices have the capability to think. The “thinking” ability of the “Deep Blue” computer has been debated. As it thinks when playing chess against the world’s best. This is not a quality that is isolated to human existence, but it is a quality that is more highly developed in the human race than in other beings. It clearly appears to me that there must be a system of order, and humans ought to have some sort of control on technology to maintain order. It does not necessarily matter if this power was given of God or not as reality shows that we have it and use it. This is not a debate on the power of taking life. Some people oppose the termination of any form of life. I believe that if a complex biological machine has been disobedient to the rules of society then it should pay the consequences. If someone in society murders twenty innocent people, the guilty individual may be put to death for the actions against society. If a dog kills a young child, the dog may be put “to sleep.” The same rules should apply to any creation of engineering. The basis for our rules in society and consequences for disobedience should have a solid foundation. There should be no double standard. The guilty party ought to pay the consequences whatever they may be.
THE OBLIGATION TO SENTIENT BEINGS
A sentient being can be defined as “1.) Having sense perception; conscious. 2.) Experiencing sensation or feeling(American Heritage Dictionary).” These two definitions of sentient beings encompass a wide spectrum from humans to almost any machine installed with sensors. This definition of the word “sentient” does not obligate humanity in anyway concerning genetic research, the cyborging of humans, or the humanizing of cyborgs in ethical matters. The ethical problems in Blade Runner are not relevant for today. As yet the human race has not progressed to the stage in biological engineering where we can create human like non-mechanical machines. The human race has attempted to make machines to emulate human behavior, but all have involved machinery not biological systems. These examples include furby, voice recognition computers, and other manmade machines that have the capability of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.
THE CLASSIFICATION OF REPLICANTS
The definition of sentient is very vague in its classifications. Some may say that a replicant in Blade Runner would be considered as such a being. But the important question is, does this engineered being have its own feelings, or does it operate on programming initially implanted in it? It is hard for one to argue that a human, animal, or machine that violates the codes of public conduct ought to continue on its path with no correctional measures. These measures could be prison, a police ticket, death, or a multiple of other consequences due to the circumstance of the incident and the accepted punishment of the society. So my basis would be to treat such a machine with respect but also with authority setting the rules down out front.
As we debate the issue of humanizing of cyborgs and cyborging of humans there are a few considerations to consider. Is it wrong to help a child that has a bad retina by giving this child an engineered one that will allow the child to see? No, it is not! We have a moral obligation to help that child if we can. I believe it would be a crime to refuse a person the right to enjoy the simple pleasures of life that we as normal humans enjoy. The same would be with helping an elderly person with an arthritic hip. If we have the capabilities to restore health, increase life span, or ease pain it is our duty to do so. Others may ask about the process of human genetic engineering. I believe me should be very careful when playing god in creation.
I believe that there ought to be regulations on genetic engineering.
The issues that come up due to genetic engineering will need to be addressed.
Engineering of human characteristics should be avoided if it is just for
personal likes or dislikes. This can only lead to a civilization
where the rich are born with superior “engineered” children and the poor
are forced with the luck of genetics. In the event that we obtain
the ability to engineer biological human replicants the same decorum and
discipline ought to be observed. There should be no double standard
if they are the same as us, but we should also realize the risks in creating
such beings and acting as a god.