If you look at history (which itself, as a concept, is a modern invention), it would seem that all of the monumental inventions that played such an important part in profoundly shaping the world anew were never widely recognized in their true significance within their time, especially not in a general sense that it entered into thematic reflection on the part of the general population. Did the people of the Bronze age grasp the importance of the first sword forged in fire? Or even before that-- the mastery of fire itself? Was there a collective self-consciousness or general understanding that understood its place in time and the changes taking place? Doubtful. Because this was precisely the understanding developed in the concept of a universal world history, and it did not come into existence until the 17th century, and didn't reach its culmination until the 19th. And even then, this understanding was only a subject of reflection for the few philosophers and theorists who thought about it. No one thought of themselves as this phantom planetary subject called "humanity" before that. This abstract idea of "humanity" is a theoretical reflection of capitalism spanning the earth, of "globalization".
The wheel, the sea vessel, geometry, the printing press and literacy, giving a scribal power far beyond the purely oral. Gun powder, coffee, sugar, the steam engine, electricity, calculus, the lightbulb, refrigeration, vaccines, petroleum, the stock market, the automobile, the rocket, the radio and telephone, the airplane, nuclear fission, the Internet, smartphones, near instantaneous global communication of information-- of course, people are aware that these things can have a big effect on the world, the mode of production, on the human soul or inner character, on the way of life and culture, on how people see things and themselves, but isn't the real significance only ever really grasped in hindsight after the shape of silhouette of that period has already passed away? "The owl of Minerva only takes flight at dusk." Who could have foreseen, for example, that the printing press would have resulted in the church splitting into a million sects and ultimately leading to so many wars over religion? Did those who invented the gasoline engine foresee all of the myriad effects they would have? Traffic deaths, pollution, making the world feel smaller, etc. Truly rhizomatic in its effects, to use a term I can't stand. Each example of the works of human labor (including mental) reconstitutes the world in an oceanic shockwave. Then looking backwards, a periodization is ascribed. The world is divided into epochs with their own purposes, concerns, and character. Naturally, following the inner logic of this conceptual construction, one then must then pose the question of the "future", of anticipation or prediction.
Today the news reports that biologists and geneticists have accomplished a tremendous achievement that was once only the realm of science fiction: they have "brought an extinct species -- the dire wolf -- back from the dead" utilizing crispr gene editing technology. Scientists at Colossal edited the genome of a few grey wolves imbuing the animals with characteristics reminiscent of the dire wolf. These edited cells were then used to create embryos, which were implanted into surrogate dog mothers. So, not necessarily so different from Dolly the lamb in the 90s, only this was done with practically ancient genetic material that survived thousands of years and involved gene splicing. It's not simply that the old was brought back, but something new.
Not surprisingly, all the dullard moralists come out to give their religious sermons, mainly lifted from watching Jurassic Park and a religious backwardness tantamount to an uncontacted Amazonian witnessing a drone for the first time: "how dare we play God!" As if humans don't alter everything they come into contact with. They can't give up their shibboleth of "nature" conceived of as some kind of harmonious whole untouched by man, with some purpose -- "equilibrium". They act like "nature" is some kind of court of appeal that "cares". They never notice how they uncritically paste their political-economic concepts (which don't even hold in that realm either) onto nature.
And certainly they fear what they don't understand (mainly everything outside of their incredibly narrow immediate surroundings, which they mistake as the whole, or the world).
"To see this work being done with such a casual disregard not only for the truth but for life itself is genuinely abhorrent to me.”
And what is the truth here? They never say.
It's just more of the usual: completely abstract moral outrage, clinging to completely imaginary and made up ethical quandaries that no longer match the new changes taking place under their noses. Every advance in scientific knowledge has to be earned by a painful struggle against this spontaneous propensity for ignorance.
"What will these wolves eat? The environment they once existed in no longer exists!"
Oh, I don't know. Deer!? Rabbits? Hopefully you? Whatever they can get their grubby mouths on like any other animal in the "wild". The morally outraged don't want to know, and those who are curious ought to be ashamed. And this very act of knowing will itself transform the world.
These people have no sense for the dynamism of time. They only get a faint intimation of it when they look back saying, "where did the time go? Everything is so different now!" But they're so certain that nothing is really changing or could change because they can't get outside of their own immediate subjective impressions. They shudder in terror at every piece of knowledge science squeezes from the world. Anyway, apparently the sequence of genes is now "life itself", not merely the "building blocks". Very reductionistic but oh so grand (empty) at the same time.
The way people will theorize about this in the media, if they even do -- which is doubtful given that it will quickly fade into the endless infernal cycle of trending news and the latest and greatest sensations -- is that they'll start getting all pope-esque about the prospect of designer babies. The boring cliche of "spontaneous vs natural". They have no problem with someone selecting a mate based on looks (height, weight, hair color, skin color, smell, teeth, face shape, and on and on), personality, intelligence, income-- in short, on some often rather calculated and prejudiced criteria. There's a million industries set up for this. As long as their offspring comes out with a set of random traits, fine. But it would be absolute horror to, for example, use the technology to make sure people don't suffer from cerebral palsy, cancer, mental disability, or blindness. Because the rich would "buy super babies"? As if they don't already use their money to give their children every life advantage possible. But who would be outraged that a bourgeois paid for math tutoring so little Jimmy had a chance of getting into Harvard? Apparently genes have to be left up to one of the other great human inventions that the true significance of never gained much popularity: God. Why? Because "we don't know the effects!" So nicely circular! This is old wine in a new cask, the well-worn argument that, if we are to retain our moral dignity and values, it’s better not to know certain things. That was the lesson of Genesis after all. Eating from the tree of knowledge is the fall of man into sin.
What they notice here is that exclusion that comes along with the institution of private property and money-- and yet they don't draw this connection, nor do they think the power of money and the right to property is exclusionary or immoral in any other sphere.
Comments
Post a Comment