April
3rd 2008
Posted under Pro-Life & Science
Reminiscent of how the Confederate flag has been handled in numerous Southern states. “Progressives” are all for representative systems — except on those occasions when such systems might fail to come up with a “progressive” result.
The Government is heading for its biggest confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church to date over its controversial new laws which will allow the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos.
A senior Cardinal condemned the plans as “monstrous†and of “Frankenstein proportionâ€.
Tad B Johnson on 03 Apr 2008 at 2:32 pm #
You guys seen this? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/pages/laqueur_disraelia/
My son sends the most interesting stuff.
TBJ
Weaver on 03 Apr 2008 at 7:21 pm #
Dostoevsky,
where are the Protestants, pagans, atheists, etc. on this issue?
The scary thing is, such research will likely continue in Asia and in parts of the world that are less law abiding…
I wonder if in 30 years “naturalist” and “humanist” will be the slurs of choice replacing “nativist” and “racist.”
This issue is going to become so huge… perhaps you ought to cash in and write a book, hint, hint
Though if you do, hopefully you won’t make the mistake of so many Catholic writers today: of exclusively targeting a Catholic audience so that nonCatholics are made to feel out of place and do not pick up obscure Catholics-only references 
I suspect such is done unintentionally for the most part.
For example this has made distributism less popular in America than I think it otherwise might be. And such wisdom as is in it could be applied to a nonCatholic state. Though religion is an important foundation to any state, other Christian ethics are very similar I believe, and even nonChristian ethics tend to share similarities: C. S. Lewis’s Tao.
This goes back to the original question of: where are the nonCatholics on this issue? Well, we don’t have your guiding traditions and wisdom or some other strength apparently. So, I think it’s up to y’all to lead the rest…
And yea I ought to get more involved with this issue too. Been meaning to…
Harold Crews on 03 Apr 2008 at 7:46 pm #
Weaver, most likely there is a high correlation between the breakdown on abortion and the combination of human and non-human genetic material. Those Christian who oppose abortion will most likely oppose this also. It is a fairly reasonable assumption anyhow.
Dostoevsky on 03 Apr 2008 at 8:16 pm #
I can’t claim to be an expert on modern culture in the British Isles, but I suspect most resistance to this sort of thing will come from Catholics there.
I say this not out of a Catholic bias, but because I presume all the serious Protestants left for the Americas some time ago. The remainder are perhaps just ambivalently Anglican — attached to the Anglican Church in a purely superficial manner out of habit, inertia, and a hazy sense of “Englishness” rather than any deep existential conviction.
I could be wrong, of course — obviously Eliot & Lewis are fairly recent exceptions.
I can’t distinguish too much essential difference between the perspective of Catholic distributism and that of the agrarianism of the American South.
On this side of the pond, I’d highly, highly recommend Wendell Berry — the best-known living advocate of the agrarian tradition — as an accessible writer on the question of nature & technology, and somebody with a strong and coherent perspective.
Definitely not a Catholic — and only Protestant in the loose sense of the word.
Here’s a couple useful reviews of “Life Is A Miracle”, a very apropos book for the topic:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_5_128/ai_75445604
http://www.dwpoet.com/berry_regen.htm
Also, ironically enough, somebody decided to post Berry’s beautiful “The Joy of Sales Resistance”.
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/resist.html
Of course this illuminates part of Berry’s limitations — it’s not enough to say that modern man goes wrong in his conception of technology, though that is a good start and better than most.
We need some sort of conception of what is the *right* way to develop technology — some affirmative “thou shalt”, vice purely negative “thou shalt not”.
But Berry’s still brilliant in that he goes beyond the stale, cop-out clichés along the lines of “technology is morally neutral, it’s only the people who use it who are good or evil”… implying that any given technologies can be used for a wide and flexible range of intentions.
Which would, *ad absurdum*, lead one to conclude that atom-bombs are multipurpose instruments — like Swiss army knives.
Dostoevsky on 03 Apr 2008 at 8:42 pm #
As to non-Christians, I’m sure there are some writers out there who retain a moral compass and some measure of *logos*. But the problem is that it’s difficult enough as it is sifting through all the Michael Novaks and George Weigels and Teilhard de Chardins to find the Chestertons and Berrys and Stanley Jakis, without casting a net at random.
I do try once in a while, though.
roho on 03 Apr 2008 at 10:14 pm #
An intresting article…….And T.B. Johnson: I loved your link and found the “King Of Diaspora” reference fascinating, considering that it was 1842! (Howard Rand could share some light on that!)………..And the reference of the “Rothschilds” seems to surface from century to century in spite of all that keep records of the family being called “Conspiracy Nuts” that live in mobile homes and see UFO’s!
As for the original content, as a layman of science, who knows?…….50 years ago, the idea of a kidney transplant was “sick medicine”!……But, there are thousands that live today as a result of our organ doner program. I can only assume that one must follow the spirit within them, and pray for truth?………..Disclamer: I’m a protestant.
Weaver on 06 Apr 2008 at 12:16 am #
Harold Crews,
abortion isn’t as large of an issue as is genetic meddling.
Abortion is merely murder: you’re destroying life. Genetic meddling alters humanity, blurring the line between human and animal, man and machine, and bringing into question the very value of life.
It also replaces God as the original Creator of all life. God still created the universe, sure, but if life is no longer his creation then we’re stuck with atoms, subatomic particles, and astronomy.
No longer will walking in the forest be a walk among God’s creation; no longer will a growing baby be a miracle of God; no longer will genetic diseases, abilities, and diversity be realities that must be accepted and/or appreciated.
Genetic meddling saps the very rock man stands upon. Without it, man will lose his way just as might a man trapped in virtual cyberspace. The rock is something that can be built upon, and it’s severely damaged, though admittedly not removed entirely, by genetic meddling.
It would be a far greater crime then, in my humble opinion, to genetically engineer a human that goes on to reproduce, passing on its altered DNA, than to mass murder millions and millions.
Death is a terrible thing, but we can replace those we’ve lost (to a degree) with new children. We can never undo genetic meddling.
The magicians never know what powers they play with. When they create a great boom, they pat themselves on the back. When they blow themselves up, the wise aren’t surprised. And, when they blow us all up, well, I guess we’ll have deserved it for not having stopped them.
Weaver on 06 Apr 2008 at 12:28 am #
Many who oppose abortion I suspect do not understand the moral implications of genetic engineering enough to oppose, say, the tampering of an adult human’s sperm or egg cells.
Opposing such because its murder is akin to a policeman arresting a murderer for jay walking.
There’s just no greater sin, nothing that perverts life and our very concept of values and morality more than ge.
Genetically engineered entities might still function, they might even one day surpass God’s creation in ways that seem superior, but how will they view themselves and the world around them?
GE makes me want to “return” to the farm, or to shepherding, or to even hunting and gathering… yet to do so is to accept defeat. For only power can combat power. So, if possible some sort of traditionalist state ought to be created that seeks to defend itself while waiting for the modern beast’s vacuous soul to suck in the leviathan destroying the whole.
A traditionalist state could never match its power, but it could perhaps maintain its integrity and defend against invasion while it waits for the inevitable implosion.
This has been my world view since around… 2003 I think: extreme isolationist and traditionalist… All in defense against GE; all in an attempt at thwarting history. For GE does very much appear to be inevitable. Once it’s in us, it can never be removed. It plays for keeps.
Weaver on 06 Apr 2008 at 12:33 am #
I guess I got carried away… but I don’t think the gravity of this issue is widely appreciated.
No war, no challenge, nothing compares with that faced by GE.
—
Dostoevsky,
thanks for the links.
Harold Crews on 06 Apr 2008 at 1:52 pm #
Weaver, you haven’t said anything that I disagree with. But remember my comment was in response to your question as to which Christian traditions oppose human genetic tampering. On the broader issue of genetic manipulation across species, excepting people, no Christian tradition that I know of has made any definitive statement. But it isn’t something that I’ve looked into.
Weaver on 06 Apr 2008 at 2:43 pm #
“But remember my comment was in response to your question as to which Christian traditions oppose human genetic tampering.”
Oh good.
I was concerned that: “Many who oppose abortion I suspect do not understand the moral implications of genetic engineering enough to oppose, say, the tampering of an adult human’s sperm or egg cells.”
So, I wanted to be sure the issue was clear
“On the broader issue of genetic manipulation across species, excepting people, no Christian tradition that I know of has made any definitive statement. But it isn’t something that I’ve looked into.”
Human genetic manipulation has evoked the strongest responses to be sure, but I haven’t been following closely lately who has said what…
I can say the issue has grown a great deal in awareness, thanks in part to people like Dostoevsky, who has devoted a lot of time writing on it.
Dostoevsky on 06 Apr 2008 at 6:18 pm #
“thanks for the links.”
You’re very welcome.
As to the question of accepting defeat, it seems to me that the challenge is coming up with an alternative way of viewing & developing technology.
The technology generated by a culture which respected natural law and the integrity of the human person would not necessarily be weak as such — but would look extremely different, and would operate in a manner very different from anything we’ve seen. Graceful rather than brutish, and maybe requiring genuine artistry to use rather than punching a few buttons.
Even in purely pragmatic terms, there’s a certain folly in all of the posthuman evolution-cant about the emerging superman. People are getting all hot and bothered about adding new powers to human beings, when we have barely begun exploring the true depths of *natural* human potential.
A traditionalist culture would take the time to master its tools & powers, develop & refine their use, and grasp their range of potentials. A “progressive” culture, meanwhile, would be continually trading old tools for new, without ever holding on to any long enough to develop in-depth mastery of them.
I believe it’s not that the “progressive” mindset is ultimately more powerful in the end; rather it’s quicker, easier, and more seductive.
The progressives gain certain powers by refusing to acknowledge boundaries, true — but what’s interesting is that they also deny themselves other powers in the process. Arrogance proves an Achilles’ heel.
Weaver on 07 Apr 2008 at 3:23 am #
I like it.
I’m doubtful here, but there are many things I’m unaware of.
Modern society’s brute strength is derived partly from its mammoth economies of scale, but corruption, “diversity training,” law suits, short term focus (perhaps what you’re referring to), negative view of work, usury, and so on are major weaknesses I can see.
—
The strength of a traditionalist society I think is its dedication and appeal. Time is on our side provided the beast doesn’t burn our roots while it can. Its will to do so, let alone to continue existing, wanes with time.
I’ve of course got a Richard Weaver quote to follow this up with, but I’ve been separated from my computer. For some reason he’s not as widely read as he ought be, so the quote’s not available online. Will post it tomorrow – it’s one of my favorites.
How does it go… something like: Modern nations are ready to commit suicide by the command of the first man who says “I will.” Weaver’s version sounds much better…
Weaver on 07 Apr 2008 at 3:43 am #
Actually, short term orientation is indeed what you mean by:
So, if say development of cold fusion requires an enormous sum of capital, which a managerial state could easily provide, it wouldn’t be as ready to make such a sacrifice, at least not on a variety of technologies, especially since the masses and the investors (in the cases of corporate investment, though managerial states are most powerful in their government accumulation of capital) demand short term results.
Whereas perhaps a more normal society, in the desire to better future generations, make said sacrifices and pursue cold fusion without any appreciable benefit for many years.
However, I remain doubtful… because the modern is more prone to being a workaholic, and it is workaholics whose work gives meaning to their life that the managerial state creates.
They cannot create culture and art as can we, for they’ve no core to give value and cause for celebration. However, they can work and pursue goals. The workers as a whole might not value work and would escape to pleasure and find value in temptation, but extremely valuable workaholics would escape to their work.
—
I ramble… Due to demographics, it won’t survive this century though to be sure; I just hope we do.
Weaver on 21 Apr 2008 at 12:10 pm #
[Modern nations] seem ready for extinction by the first rude barbarian who says, “I will.â€â€”Richard Weaver. “The South and the American Union.â€