In December 2007, the first human-animal hybrid embryo was created in Great Britain. Professor Lyle Armstrong’s team at Newcastle succeeded in producing human cells from cow cells. This plunged the defenders of bioethics, secular or religious, into an abyss of incredulous perplexity and furor. An embryo has been produced (or created?) from a bovine ovocyte [egg cell] and human cells. This technology is the improved consequence of the production of the first hybrid embryo in Shanghai in 2003 from the cells of humans and rabbits.
The goal of the exercise was not to give birth to chaemeras (human-animal hybrids) but to furnish a way of producing stem cells without using human ovocytes; this was in order to find new treatments for degenerative illnesses such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. In Great Britain, a debate is raging over whether to allow or to forbid the creation of hybrid cells. Cardinal Keith O’Brian declared that such a project was ‘a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity, and human life’ — and yet it is in order to cure people! Abstract dogma is opposing reality, just as certain sects condemn blood transfusion and organ transplants. British Catholic MPs and Ministers are opposed to legalising the production of stem cells and hybrid cells. The real reason for this opposition is not so much the defence of concrete persons as that of the dogma of ‘Man separated from Nature’. According to this monotheistic, anthropocentric, and implicitly creationist, anti-evolutionary dogma, there is no unity of life; man has nothing to do with animal-kind.
Taking an intermediate position, the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority only authorised the experiment under the strict condition that the hybrid man-cow cells not be implanted in a maternal uterus, that is, that of a woman or heifer, and that the cells be destroyed 14 days after fertilisation. In reality, the human-bovid embryo only lived three days in vitro (in a test tube) after having divided into 32 cells, but who knows what it would have become had it been implanted in vivo in a woman’s or heifer’s uterus? Forbidden to try, forbidden to know.
Let us be clear that the technique consisted in removing bovine DNA from a cow’s egg and injecting into it the genetic material from a human stem cell. According to Professor John Burn, director of the Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Newcastle, ‘the result is 99.9 percent human and 0.1 percent animal’. This statement deeply shocked certain people — yet how is implanting animal properties in a human genome shocking or abnormal? It is the same old anthropocentrist dogma which at bottom rejects Darwinian evolution and thinks of man as a being apart from the animal kingdom. Yet we all have in our chromosomes a majority of genetic building blocks exactly similar to those of animals and even of plants. If one includes in a human genome an animal gene which allows immunity against this or that disease, or allows for an increase in physical capacity, why do without it in the name of obsolete morals that bear the mark of magical thinking?
What the Future May Have in Store...
We must mention — in the fields of applied sexuality and human reproduction, of the biological selection and modification of the human being himself — two apparently opposed theses.
The first consists in affirming that biotechnologies can and will radically alter all the bases of human sexuality and reproduction, as well as human beings themselves in their capacities and appearance. Humanity is on the eve of being able to proceed in a Faustian (and perhaps dangerous) way to alter itself and to evolve itself. It may proceed even as far as to create semi-human hybrids; to make parthenogenesis, extra-uterine births, biological robots (even conscious, thinking ones), and so on, possible. This thesis may be pertinent, and in that case we have still not taken the measure of the shock that awaits us.
The second thesis consists in saying that, out of billions of human beings, these biotechnologies (whether therapeutic or eugenic), whatever their psychological impact, will concern extremely few people — tiny minorities — not only on account of their difficulty and cost, but also due extremely powerful ideological and religious barriers. This argument also deserves to be considered. Only future generations will be able to decide the matter.
* * *
It is worthwhile to enumerate several of these biotechnological revolutions that are possible in the course of the twenty-first century. All of the discoveries mentioned below are either already available, in development, or a subject of current research. I am not speaking here of the application of these techniques to animals, but to man, in the knowledge that there is no biological separation of the two.
Another important point is that these various biotechnologies can be combined with one another. Different kinds of political ideology will react very differently to these innovations. To simplify, voluntaristic and eugenic ideologies and ‘libertarian’ market ideologies will ally to make use of these innovations, while human rights ideologies and those inspired by Christianity will be allied in fighting them — especially those that are not deemed directly therapeutic.
1. The production of male reproductive cells, or spermatites, from brain tissue.
This revolutionary biotechnology is currently being developed by Swiss and Canadian teams. It is a matter of making spermatozoids from cells taken from the brain, then modified, in order to fertilise ova by intra-uterine insemination. This will have two consequences: first, an entirely sterile man can become fertile, with his spermatozoa being used for the artificial insemination of a woman; but above all, as we have seen earlier, two women will be able to reproduce together without any man involved. In such a case, the fetus can only be female.
2. To ensure birth from surrogate mothers who have not been fertilised.
A fertilised egg is placed in the uterus of a surrogate mother, who sees the pregnancy to its end without being the biological mother. This technique is sometimes practiced, but is very expensive. It concerns couples in which the woman rejects the fertilised egg. It is practiced either by extracting the fertilised egg from the mother’s uterus and implanting it into that of the surrogate mother, or (much more difficult and not yet perfected) by in vitro fertilisation of an egg with the father’s sperm, which is then implanted in the surrogate mother. The expense of this operation may decrease.
3. The production of human stem cells or of human/animal hybrids.
These latter, after being cultivated in vitro, are destined to produce blocks of cells or specialised organs. They will have numerous application: to repair or graft organs, to reconstitute skin (after burns) or bone (after traumatic fractures), the cure of certain genetic diseases, and so on.
4. The incubator technique, or artificial uterus.
Several laboratories are currently perfecting this revolutionary procedure, which will probably see the light of day over the course of the twenty-first century. We will then witness a revolution in human reproduction, in the nature of femininity, in sex, and in the nature of social relations — if, at least, this innovation, which avoids pregnancy and childbirth, affects the population at large.
We already know how to produce children without sexual relations (artificial insemination) and even bring them into the world without their biological mother carrying them (surrogate motherhood). But now the artificial uterus is being developed, that is, an ‘incubator’ which will ensure the gestation of the fetus, from embryo to birth, without any woman carrying it. We have already mastered how to keep an embryo alive in the first weeks and last months of a pregnancy. All that is missing is the intervening seven months.
Concretely, the fertilised egg (whether fertilised by artificial insemination or through sexual relations) is extracted from the natural female uterus and placed in an artificial one (the ‘incubator’) after just a few days of gestation. The incubator nourishes the fetus with cellular elements removed from the mother’s body and cultivated. Birth follows at the end of several months, probably less than nine. There are three possible applications of this development: 1) to allow a woman who has suffered multi
ple miscarriages to have a child, 2) to avoid pregnancy and childbirth for those who want to devote themselves to their profession, and 3) to make possible for an authoritarian State that wants to raise the birthrate to install real baby factories which mass-produce children from selected male and female genetic material.
5. The synthesis of computer science and biology, and the production of thinking computers and androids.
The power of computers doubles every four or five years, which presents us with a geometrical curve, typical of the progress of young technologies, that is, exponential improvement, which will be followed inevitably by a gradual deceleration and then plateau.[14] This performance is due to the miniaturisation of circuits and the architecture of new computers. But today research is being carried out on replacing silicon-based electronic circuits with circuits based on exchanges between chemical molecules or even living cells.
Besides the creation of an artificial intelligence (see Appendix G), this innovation will allow for the production of human robots or androids capable of carrying out complex tasks, even painful or dangerous tasks — with the capacity for initiative and reflection — with a level of performance superior to that of humans. Japanese researchers are fascinated by this goal. Military or police applications are imaginable, as are directly sexual applications (that is to say, the production of anthropomorphic androids of both sexes that are able to ‘make love’ is conceivable). The commercial future of such an application requires no comment.
6. Cloning, or producing a fetus genetically identical to the model, from chromosomes of the same individual.
This technique, which has been shown to work for animals, has now been abandoned because its limited commercial applications make it unprofitable.
7. Practical eugenics via genetic manipulation.
In order to improve the biological quality of certain humans, it is thought to modify their genetic patrimony ‘upstream’ by intervening in the parents’ sex cells before fertilisation and mitosis. This technique is clearly more interesting and faster than positive eugenics by deliberate selection of the parents, because of the slowness of female gestation.
8. Sterilising serum.
At the disposition of an authoritarian State that wished to prevent the reproduction of certain populations or individuals, for whatever reason, current technology is very clumsy, and includes sterilisation by local radiation or surgical intervention. Research is presently being conducted, especially in Russia, China, and the United States, to develop a more simple and easily used procedure for permanently sterilising men or women, namely a serum injected intravenously or (even better) absorbed in liquid form (with or without the consent of the parties involved) that permanently blocks the ability of sex cells to duplicate themselves.
9. The production of manipulats.
The neologism is my own. It concerns living beings produced by genetic manipulation, in three possible forms: GMHOs (genetically modified human organisms), GMAOs (genetically modified animal organisms), and GMMOs (genetically modified mixed organisms). The potential applications are numerous, and various competing ideologies will have to decide how to respond to this techno-scientific offer.
Let us summarise. GMHOs may involve humans disburdened of inherited genetic deficiencies (according to a therapeutic logic), as well as humans endowed with ‘augmented’ capacities in this or that domain: physical, mental, or both (according to a biopolitical logic). All possibilities are imaginable. GMAOs, animal equivalents of agricultural GMOs, will allow for the production of livestock optimised in various ways, especially as regards food value and milk and meat production. GMMOs are hybrid living beings, genetically and sometimes physiologically in between man and this or that animal species. There will be multiple applications: men with various animal dispositions in their genetic patrimony, or animals with human capacities. All three of these categories of living being can be infertile, depending on the choices made.
On the whole, manipulats — the uses, appearances, and capacities of which are very broad (therapeutic, military, industrial, whatever) — can have an enormous range of application.
* * *
Of course, we can imagine that these various technologies could complete one another or be mixed together. Considered from the perspective of ideologies deriving from the monotheistic religion, these technological possibilities for acting on life and man appear truly diabolic, according to a strictly moral rather than a practical conception of things. On the other hand, according to non-anthropocentric views of the world such as Chinese Confucianism or Aristotelianism, there is nothing shocking about these technological innovations. Science will offer them. Horrified philosophers and theologians will ask themselves: Is this licit? Is it human? But from a Promethean and Faustian point of view, or from a practical angle (which does not exclude wisdom), this sort of question is meaningless.
Biotechnologies applied to human reproduction (along with agricultural techniques) will not escape the destiny of all scientific innovation. According to the authority which commands and directs them, according to whether they are regulated or unregulated, according to the directions and plans chosen, one can expect all kinds of divergent consequences. But it is impossible to foresee them rationally or exactly. It is also impossible to stop them in the name of the ‘precautionary principle’ or ‘bioethics’, merely to control the use made of them.
The opponents of human biotechnologies as well as GMOs reason like obscurantists, like the Galilean censors. They do not understand that techno-science is like a river created by man himself, and that he can no longer stop it with his will, but only more or less dam it up or channel it.
* * *
Insofar as one can ‘foresee’ something of the future effects of biotechnologies applied to man, and especially human reproduction, here are a few sketchy remarks: first, none of this will be of any value if scientific progress comes to a halt or breaks down. Linear history, like progressive ideology, is a trap. A huge, universal techno-scientific regression is entirely possible in the course of this century, after a fracture-crisis, as I have explained in several of my books;[15] our descendants in 2050 may very well find themselves living at the level of 1650, 1350, 950 or even earlier; but, of course, not in exactly the same historical situation.
The second remark is that, assuming biotechnologies continue along their present trajectory up to around 2050, no ‘world bioethical committee’, no absolute moral or economic surveillance, no UN-style universal government will be able to exercise 100 percent control.
* * *
We may be at the dawn of an upheaval in which human techno-science will intervene in the sexual reproduction of humanity or, more exactly, of a small part of humanity. This intervention will occur for the first time at the level of the genome or that of the eradication of pregnancy (thanks to incubators), or even with the possibility of inter-female reproduction (thanks to spermatites formed from female subcortical cells). It is certain that a considerable shock will result from all this; that it is impossible to foresee the consequences; and that the only barrier to these attempts already being made will be ethical, theological, or philosophic.
We must not delude ourselves, however. Ethics has only been able to delay, not stop, the forward-march of techno-science. Even the weight of the great forms of monotheism and their sermons will not be able to do much. For, as Heidegger says, there is something autonomous about the progress of techno-science which escapes control and prudence. It is less tied up with planning than with a general state of culture, market pressures, and military ambitions.
Doesn’t the march of humanity occur blindly, in an indeterminate manner akin to sleepwalking? Doesn’t the march of evolution (also that of the cosmos) occur under the same conditions, in a random manner, without an overall plan, without a ‘roadmap’, and in general, without any rational God supervising things, without any sup
erior, teleonomic cosmic intelligence or logic?
One might perfectly well answer ‘yes’ to the first question and ‘no’ to the second if one follows the current intuitions of astrophysics and quantum physics for which a general principle called unifying force applies to the whole of our expanding universe. The destiny of man, who appeared a short time ago in terms of natural evolution, will have but little influence on the destiny of our planet. The Anthropocene Age will not have any great impact. Humanity may destroy itself; the planet will have another five billion years to get over it and give birth to new species. Human intelligence is perhaps not even necessarily a good thing, but possibly an impasse for biological evolution on Earth. And then, what is life on Earth, the Earth itself, indeed, the whole solar system or Milky Way Galaxy in relation the scale of the cosmos (or cosmoi)? In algebraic terms, the proportion is 10 to the power of 30.
But these considerations must not prevent us from reproducing.
[1] Contemporary astrophysics and quantum physics seem more Heraclitean than Platonic. For the question of ‘being’, of spatial nature (why is there something rather than nothing?), is substituted that of ‘becoming’, of a temporal nature (has the cycle begun, and will it end?).
[2] Most religions, whether monotheistic or polytheistic, explain the first appearance of man by divine and supernatural intervention. Judaism and its main schism, Christianity, were the only religions to push very far and in great detail the creation of man by God (an imperfect being in his image, thus a demigod) above the animal kingdom. European and Asiatic forms of paganism were content with vague allusions (it should be noted that neither Platonism nor Aristotelianism are pagan, since the gods do not enter their field of reflection). This explains why evolution shocked the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially obtuse Protestant American Christianity, more than minds that had become agnostic.
Sex and Deviance Page 36