This week, I am going to write about a subject that I find a deep interest in. I have found that I enjoy researching things that have to do with what may happen in the future. For example, my senior thesis in high school was about Hydrogen technology and whether that would be helpful (and exist) in America years down the road. If you've been reading all of my posts, you may see this vein. I've talked about Global Warming. I've written a research paper for a class last year that had to do with creating diamonds. For that one in particular, I speculated about the future if a diamond microchip were to come into being, after pointing out a company that is working toward this. I used to read a Christian kids book series set in 2037 about a paralyzed kid who controlled a robot through his mind and explored the surface of Mars. I like to look forward. I am also intrigued by the past, and the classics. I like great ideas, and I like scientific research. That's what I'm going to discuss now.
Wired just released a number of articles about DNA research. The one that I read [http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/15-12/ff_genomics?currentPage=all] is about a company called 23andMe. In 2003, the entire human genome was mapped for the first time--all billions of strands worth. Now, that information is being commercialized. YOU can have part of your DNA decoded. For $1000, the company will take your saliva sample and send back a report explaining what your DNA reveals. While they say that this is not a diagnoses (which is partly said for legal reasons) this evaluation may point out a predisposition toward cancers or health issues, thus even life-expectancy. In a sense, it's almost like telling the future. The article goes into depth explaining how this works. If you want a synopsis, read the article. It's five pages and very informative. Or you can go to the website of 23andMe [https://www.23andme.com/] and watch some very cool flash videos that explain a lot about DNA. But where I want to take this blog is: what happens once people can read their DNA, and in a way, their future?
The author of the article, Thomas Goetz, puts this paragraph almost at the end of his article:
"The question becomes, then, whether you want to embark on this path of oddsmaking in the first place. Many individuals won't want to know what their genome has in store. Others will, only to join the worried well — those who live in fear of fulfilling their genetic destiny. And, of course, those genotyped or sequenced at birth won't have that choice; it'll already have been made for them."
Will people, if they do find out what information their DNA contains, attempt to alter their behavior and lifestyle in such a way as to beat the odds and live a longer life? In other words, is the information contained within the DNA, once learned, life-changing? I suspect it is. It may change the way that people view their lives. If a doctor predicts that you will live to be 45 vs. 85, that will have a effect on how you view your life. What are some of the implications of this new technology?
As there are thieves in the world, and identity theft already happens with credit cards and digital information (someone's identity is stolen once every 9 seconds). Imagine the ease of identity theft DNA reading technology becomes as affordable as aspirin (who knows what 30, 60, or 100 years will bring? What did people think about computer technology?). Suppose a celebrity eats a meal in a cafe, then throws away his trash...and someone else pulls that trash out and picks off the person's DNA and then sells the information online? Or what if someone is stalking you and does the same thing to you? That information seems a lot easier to obtain than someone's social security number, yet it is of an even more personal, sensitive nature. If a person steals your social security number, they take your identity and a lot of problems result. If someone steals your DNA, they have the information for your physical being and how you are constructed. In a sense, they haven't stolen your identity. They've stolen you! Either way, that's a lot of information. And information is power.
What if you don't want to know "your future" and don't want to be mapped? As Goetz said, what about those children who are born and their DNA is predetermined? What of them? They won't have any choice, but they will have people telling them how their lives should be lived from day one. This reminds me of Plato's Republic, where men have different souls--thus necessitating what they do with their lives. What if the child has the athletic gene? What if he doesn't? What practical implications does this have?
Are you thinking of Hitler's Germany? What's to stop people from trying to create the uberman? Once DNA is mapped, will it not be possible to alter it? And if it is altered, couldn't people (at least the rich ones) design what kind of child they'd like to have? Then how would people be treated? This is reminding me a little too much of Huxley's Brave New World.
Once you've created the perfect human, then why not clone them? The technology to clone is already available for other mammals--I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone tries it on a human. If it's not done right the first time, someone will do it again until it is done right. The lure of fame and glory is just too great--even if it is deemed illegal in every nation in the world, someone will find a way, eventually.
What are Christians to think of this? Well at least, here is one thing that will not change: human nature. Man still hates his fellow man, and wants to be God. That's a problem. But is cloning wrong? Is genetic alteration wrong? Is learning your DNA wrong? Was artificial insemination considered wrong by Christians when it first started, and should it be considered evil? How about birth control medicine?
See, what I do not want to have happen is that Christians respond and say that these things in the paragraph above are wrong, without first deeply thinking about God's creation, His plan for the world, how technology intersects it, and about the moral implications of it all. I do not want Christians to get a bad rap for this like they often have. Think about Copernicus. He proposed a theory of the universe that Christians responded adversely to, but as we know, Copernicus was right. Let's not do that again. Let's think about these issues without allowing our culture or our times to skew our vision. What if, in 200 years from now, a copy of a person's DNA was included with their birth certificate (because it was just common procedure and no one thought anything of it)? Wouldn't people then, Christians and not, look back on us and (if we condemn these things) shake their heads?
Let's think about this from a different angle. Though we shouldn't be pursuing knowledge of the future so that we might live longer SO THAT WE MIGHT BE LIKE GODS, is it not wise for us to look forward in this way in the name of alleviating suffering? Suppose we could increase quality of life by diagnoses such as may come into being (and are already being done on a very small scale)? If that technology goes mainstream, maybe the church ought to actually be behind it! As James says, "Religion that our God and Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: To look after orphans and widows in their distress..." (James 1:27). What if this technology allows us to better look after the weak, or even better, prescribe a lifestyle that will lead to less people becoming the poor, widowed, and orphaned? Then shouldn't we, as the body of Christ, pursue this?
I'm not saying that the answer is "yes." I like to look forward, but what's more, I like to ask questions, provoke thought, and hopefully aid a more God-honoring response. We are able to create culture and help others in this world (in fact, I would argue that we are commanded to do so). So the question becomes: "how?" Or more specifically: "how ought this advance in the area of DNA mapping fit within the framework of Biblical Christianity?" and "how ought Christians respond to this advance?"
That, my dear reader, is the question I leave you to ponder.
If you would, oblige me by reading one last set of questions. What is it to be made in the image of God? What is the image of God? What is it to be human? What part of yourself do you have rights to? I suspect that these will be the questions of discussion in Christian and philosophical circles years from now (maybe 25 years, as they say that it takes about 30 years for an idea or technology to be feasible for mainstream consumption). Why not be forward-thinking and answer these questions now, and lead the charge on what the Christian position should be in regard to these issues?
Are you with me?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Televised Debates: help or hurt elections? Thesis revised.
Last week, I wrote a paper for my American Political Thought and Practice class about the effect that televised presidential debates have on elections. I finished and sent in the paper 24 hours ago, and have thought about the situation a little bit more. Writing the paper caused me to rethink my thesis.
I argued that there are positives and negatives to televised debates, but I said that the potential for positive influence outweighed the negative, so it was a good thing that these debates were televised. It is good because it informs the voters and allows the candidates message to go out to a greater audience than just where the candidate has physically travelled. It also forces candidates to be effective communicators. However, it has three negative influences. One, it causes the media to turn elections into a scorecard of "who's winning." Two, it makes the candidates "appeal to the masses," since voters can be swayed by emotion, it allows them to feel informed without actually causing them to make wise decisions. And three, it reduces the chances of getting great, "Level Five" leaders--leaders who do a great job leading companies are often not very charismatic; rather, they do a good job of assigning praise to others and making sure that everything gets done with excellence, without being the center of attention.
I argued: in theory, the best man will win out because the voters have been informed of what each candidate believes, and televised debates help inform voters. I agree with this still... but the problem is that I qualified my statement by saying: In theory.
Theoretically, I could fly unaided by any machine. Theoretically, I could walk on the moon. Theoretically, black could be white and white could be black... in an alternate universe. But theses are not to be built on theories. Especially when the evidence shows that when human nature is taken into account, it seems that the opposite case is true.
In my thesis, I think I wanted to argue that televised debates should help elections. They ought to. That would be ideal. However, my way of seeing what the world should be like obscures what the world is like. I look forward with hope and thus see the present inaccurately. It is thus true that my gift has a negative aspect to it. I would say I am gifted with the ability to look into a potential future and see what could become of a situation. But then, I sometimes forget that the potential future is only a potential.
Such was the case with my paper. At the time I wrote my negative arguments, I actually found them pretty convincing. Then I didn't do a good job answering those objections, and ultimately (in my paper), I cut out the objections section altogether. In fact, leaving my paper as I had submitted it, I think the reader might actually be persuaded against my conclusion than for it. The weird thing is, I think I might agree with them.
I find my second two negative arguments to carry the most weight. For the one about the leaders, I think that a workhorse kind of President may be better for the nation. Then again, if a President's job is to "preside," maybe he doesn't need to be a level five leader. This causes me to think: what should the executive position of our government look like? What ought he do? What kind of person would fit that position best? I'll leave those questions for us to consider.
My other negative argument is the most convincing to me. I don't have a very idealistic view of our culture. It's taken itself to Hell in a hand-basket. Think about appeals to the masses. What is being appealed to? What appeals to people? Sex, money, and power. Then everything else under the sun. I know there are some people who are concerned about the government and what it becomes, and honestly consider each candidate to discover who is the best man (or woman) for the job. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think about a million men who sit by their T.V.s watching the Superbowl with a beer in on hand and the remote in the other. What happens when those million men go to the polls? If all you live for is sports, then maybe you'll just vote for the guy who uses sports analogies... because you can relate to him better than the other guy. Maybe you don't vote at all, and leave that to people who have something to gain from a particular candidate, and that selfish ambition is why they are voting for that candidate.
The Framers of the Constitution created a document that worked with human nature. Yet putting political debates on television seems to go against the very idea of television. When watching television, aren't we supposed to be entertained? So what subconscious message is being sent? Politics should entertain us? We should vote for the candidate we like just like we would on American Idol?
I think I disagree that televising election debates is a good thing. But I think my problem doesn't lie with the debate, or the election, or the politics, but the television. And I would add, the deeper issue of the culture (who is voting). I've explained what I now think. Do you agree? The pieces just don't add up. My thesis is wrong.
Briefly, why is human nature so depraved? I think to the Bible passage that says: "The heart is deceitful above all else. Who can know it?" Why do we want things like sex, money, and power... but in such a messed up way?
It is because of the Fall. Sin messed up everything. When Adam chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his choice was so destructive and insidious that all of his children have lived with that sinful nature. Sin is twisting what is good into a form so that it is no longer good. It is placing self above God and others. It is living at less than what we ought to live at, while forgetting how we ought to live.
The good news is that Jesus came to make us right with God. What He did is changing the world for the better even now, and that will be completed when Jesus comes again. Creation will be regained. And the political problem will be solved. That's looking forward. And oh, what a good and real future that is.
I argued that there are positives and negatives to televised debates, but I said that the potential for positive influence outweighed the negative, so it was a good thing that these debates were televised. It is good because it informs the voters and allows the candidates message to go out to a greater audience than just where the candidate has physically travelled. It also forces candidates to be effective communicators. However, it has three negative influences. One, it causes the media to turn elections into a scorecard of "who's winning." Two, it makes the candidates "appeal to the masses," since voters can be swayed by emotion, it allows them to feel informed without actually causing them to make wise decisions. And three, it reduces the chances of getting great, "Level Five" leaders--leaders who do a great job leading companies are often not very charismatic; rather, they do a good job of assigning praise to others and making sure that everything gets done with excellence, without being the center of attention.
I argued: in theory, the best man will win out because the voters have been informed of what each candidate believes, and televised debates help inform voters. I agree with this still... but the problem is that I qualified my statement by saying: In theory.
Theoretically, I could fly unaided by any machine. Theoretically, I could walk on the moon. Theoretically, black could be white and white could be black... in an alternate universe. But theses are not to be built on theories. Especially when the evidence shows that when human nature is taken into account, it seems that the opposite case is true.
In my thesis, I think I wanted to argue that televised debates should help elections. They ought to. That would be ideal. However, my way of seeing what the world should be like obscures what the world is like. I look forward with hope and thus see the present inaccurately. It is thus true that my gift has a negative aspect to it. I would say I am gifted with the ability to look into a potential future and see what could become of a situation. But then, I sometimes forget that the potential future is only a potential.
Such was the case with my paper. At the time I wrote my negative arguments, I actually found them pretty convincing. Then I didn't do a good job answering those objections, and ultimately (in my paper), I cut out the objections section altogether. In fact, leaving my paper as I had submitted it, I think the reader might actually be persuaded against my conclusion than for it. The weird thing is, I think I might agree with them.
I find my second two negative arguments to carry the most weight. For the one about the leaders, I think that a workhorse kind of President may be better for the nation. Then again, if a President's job is to "preside," maybe he doesn't need to be a level five leader. This causes me to think: what should the executive position of our government look like? What ought he do? What kind of person would fit that position best? I'll leave those questions for us to consider.
My other negative argument is the most convincing to me. I don't have a very idealistic view of our culture. It's taken itself to Hell in a hand-basket. Think about appeals to the masses. What is being appealed to? What appeals to people? Sex, money, and power. Then everything else under the sun. I know there are some people who are concerned about the government and what it becomes, and honestly consider each candidate to discover who is the best man (or woman) for the job. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think about a million men who sit by their T.V.s watching the Superbowl with a beer in on hand and the remote in the other. What happens when those million men go to the polls? If all you live for is sports, then maybe you'll just vote for the guy who uses sports analogies... because you can relate to him better than the other guy. Maybe you don't vote at all, and leave that to people who have something to gain from a particular candidate, and that selfish ambition is why they are voting for that candidate.
The Framers of the Constitution created a document that worked with human nature. Yet putting political debates on television seems to go against the very idea of television. When watching television, aren't we supposed to be entertained? So what subconscious message is being sent? Politics should entertain us? We should vote for the candidate we like just like we would on American Idol?
I think I disagree that televising election debates is a good thing. But I think my problem doesn't lie with the debate, or the election, or the politics, but the television. And I would add, the deeper issue of the culture (who is voting). I've explained what I now think. Do you agree? The pieces just don't add up. My thesis is wrong.
Briefly, why is human nature so depraved? I think to the Bible passage that says: "The heart is deceitful above all else. Who can know it?" Why do we want things like sex, money, and power... but in such a messed up way?
It is because of the Fall. Sin messed up everything. When Adam chose to disobey God and eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his choice was so destructive and insidious that all of his children have lived with that sinful nature. Sin is twisting what is good into a form so that it is no longer good. It is placing self above God and others. It is living at less than what we ought to live at, while forgetting how we ought to live.
The good news is that Jesus came to make us right with God. What He did is changing the world for the better even now, and that will be completed when Jesus comes again. Creation will be regained. And the political problem will be solved. That's looking forward. And oh, what a good and real future that is.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
King Tut
For the first time, King Tut is being revealed to the public...in person. 85 years ago, Howard Carter found the tomb, famous because it is the only one that has been completely untouched by grave robbers. Tut was found in the tomb with all of his belongings--a massive horde gold and artifacts. Only today, Tut has been put on display.
King Tut got a CAT scan in 2005 and the scientists found that his body had been broken in 18 places. It seems like he died due to an infected fracture in his thigh, but that is uncertain. Essentially, the destruction was so bad that the scientists decided to only put his head on display. The rest of his body was not displayed. The mummy is not well preserved, as far as mummies go.
I am reminded of the trip I took to Philadelphia to see the King Tut exhibit last semester. I went with Dr. Bleattler's Egypt class just for the experience. When I got there, I was disappointed that King Tut was not there, but I should not have been disappointed. The sheer number of things in the many rooms was spectacular. It ended showing a projected image of King Tut, as well as the coffin of someone else (his mother?) whose coffin was made of three layers of solid goal and weighed many hundreds of pounds. At the time, I calculated the amount of money that it would have cost to make it, and I don't remember now, but it was certainly in the millions. And that did not even take into account the fact that it is a priceless historical artifact. What a find!
At the museum, I also saw a show on the Kings in a planetarium. I've only been in a planetarium once or twice before, and it was fascinating. Staring up at the domed ceiling, it almost seemed like a gigantic IMAX theater. The video explained the Valley of Kings and how the Egypians were amazed by the stars. It gave me an interesting look into their culture.
At my old school, second grade was the Egypt year, where all of the students spent the year studying Egypt as their history class. I, unfortunately, missed that experience because of the way the school was structured when I was there. But as I have been learning more about Egypt in Western Civ last year and through trips and newspaper articles, it has made me wonder about the culture. Dr. Bleattler says, it's not that the Egyptians were obsessed with death, which is what it seems like to us today. Rather, they were obsessed with life.
The culture intrigues me. In a way, it is very similar to Christianity in that they believe in the immortality of the soul, the importance of life, and the existence deity. However, it is very misguided and dissimilar in that they were concerned about the pharoahs as gods and believed in many gods. However, I sense a seed of truth in their belief that eternal life is important and worth striving for. The interesting difference is that what happens in the afterlife depends on how the person is buried and treated AFTER he dies. In the Christian perspective, it all depends on what happens BEFORE you die. And clearly, there are many differences between the gods of Egypt and the I AM. But in striving for eternal life, as is evidence through the mummification and tombs and pyramids, they spent more effort toward it than potentially any other culture. I respect them for that. They were so concerned with what was transcendent that they spent much of their life seeking a way to gain a better life. What would happen if more people did that today? What if many Americans were not so concerned with sex, money, power, and the rest, and instead sought what was good for their souls? Would not more turn to Christ Jesus and live a life that is fulfilling, on earth AND beyond? But it does not happen.
How could one change culture in this way? How could people like you and me instill in the culture at large a desire to seek life? After all, there's only on thing that's absolutely sure (and in the case of every human being, save two), and that is death. Everyone dies. So why not spend a part of your life to determine what will happen after you die? Why leave yourself resigned to the idea that you are going to live your life and die, and that's all? What about the rest of eternity?
We occasionally hear about the whackos that have themselves frozen shortly after they die, with the hope that medicinal technology will get so good in a hundred-plus years, that they will be able to be brought back out of their state of hibernation and brought back to life. Some people are concerned about life...but they think medicine is the answer. The Egyptians believed that preparing a place for the deceased gave them the ticket to life. Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus is the answer. Why are we right?
Truly, the Bible is the only comprehensive, completely defensible worldview. It makes the most logical sense when viewed within itself. I coheres. What I mean by this is, if you grant the starting assumptions, such as a creation and the fall of humanity, then the rest follows logically. Like any worldview, it requires faith to believe the starting premises and certain points.
While that is a good rational reason for Christianity (albeit it takes volumes of explaning to express), the real way to prove that Christianity is true is by looking at how a Christian is supposed to live (and how Jesus Christ himself lived). The two commandments are to love God and love others. In a world filled with brokenness and hate, Christianity often comes as a welcome relief. As Dinesh D'souza said in the debate that was held by TKC, Christians are responsible for many of the great, loving things in the world. I agree. It's true that many Christians do not live up to the right standards. But if anything, that is further proof that what they say is right: the world is broken because of sin and not what it should be, but God has come to change that and is changing them. There is no more powerful a testimony than that of a changed life.
Well King Tut may have tried to get eternal life, but he did not find the one true God. Blessings be on all those who do find Him, whether they are kings or not.
King Tut got a CAT scan in 2005 and the scientists found that his body had been broken in 18 places. It seems like he died due to an infected fracture in his thigh, but that is uncertain. Essentially, the destruction was so bad that the scientists decided to only put his head on display. The rest of his body was not displayed. The mummy is not well preserved, as far as mummies go.
I am reminded of the trip I took to Philadelphia to see the King Tut exhibit last semester. I went with Dr. Bleattler's Egypt class just for the experience. When I got there, I was disappointed that King Tut was not there, but I should not have been disappointed. The sheer number of things in the many rooms was spectacular. It ended showing a projected image of King Tut, as well as the coffin of someone else (his mother?) whose coffin was made of three layers of solid goal and weighed many hundreds of pounds. At the time, I calculated the amount of money that it would have cost to make it, and I don't remember now, but it was certainly in the millions. And that did not even take into account the fact that it is a priceless historical artifact. What a find!
At the museum, I also saw a show on the Kings in a planetarium. I've only been in a planetarium once or twice before, and it was fascinating. Staring up at the domed ceiling, it almost seemed like a gigantic IMAX theater. The video explained the Valley of Kings and how the Egypians were amazed by the stars. It gave me an interesting look into their culture.
At my old school, second grade was the Egypt year, where all of the students spent the year studying Egypt as their history class. I, unfortunately, missed that experience because of the way the school was structured when I was there. But as I have been learning more about Egypt in Western Civ last year and through trips and newspaper articles, it has made me wonder about the culture. Dr. Bleattler says, it's not that the Egyptians were obsessed with death, which is what it seems like to us today. Rather, they were obsessed with life.
The culture intrigues me. In a way, it is very similar to Christianity in that they believe in the immortality of the soul, the importance of life, and the existence deity. However, it is very misguided and dissimilar in that they were concerned about the pharoahs as gods and believed in many gods. However, I sense a seed of truth in their belief that eternal life is important and worth striving for. The interesting difference is that what happens in the afterlife depends on how the person is buried and treated AFTER he dies. In the Christian perspective, it all depends on what happens BEFORE you die. And clearly, there are many differences between the gods of Egypt and the I AM. But in striving for eternal life, as is evidence through the mummification and tombs and pyramids, they spent more effort toward it than potentially any other culture. I respect them for that. They were so concerned with what was transcendent that they spent much of their life seeking a way to gain a better life. What would happen if more people did that today? What if many Americans were not so concerned with sex, money, power, and the rest, and instead sought what was good for their souls? Would not more turn to Christ Jesus and live a life that is fulfilling, on earth AND beyond? But it does not happen.
How could one change culture in this way? How could people like you and me instill in the culture at large a desire to seek life? After all, there's only on thing that's absolutely sure (and in the case of every human being, save two), and that is death. Everyone dies. So why not spend a part of your life to determine what will happen after you die? Why leave yourself resigned to the idea that you are going to live your life and die, and that's all? What about the rest of eternity?
We occasionally hear about the whackos that have themselves frozen shortly after they die, with the hope that medicinal technology will get so good in a hundred-plus years, that they will be able to be brought back out of their state of hibernation and brought back to life. Some people are concerned about life...but they think medicine is the answer. The Egyptians believed that preparing a place for the deceased gave them the ticket to life. Christians, like myself, believe that Jesus is the answer. Why are we right?
Truly, the Bible is the only comprehensive, completely defensible worldview. It makes the most logical sense when viewed within itself. I coheres. What I mean by this is, if you grant the starting assumptions, such as a creation and the fall of humanity, then the rest follows logically. Like any worldview, it requires faith to believe the starting premises and certain points.
While that is a good rational reason for Christianity (albeit it takes volumes of explaning to express), the real way to prove that Christianity is true is by looking at how a Christian is supposed to live (and how Jesus Christ himself lived). The two commandments are to love God and love others. In a world filled with brokenness and hate, Christianity often comes as a welcome relief. As Dinesh D'souza said in the debate that was held by TKC, Christians are responsible for many of the great, loving things in the world. I agree. It's true that many Christians do not live up to the right standards. But if anything, that is further proof that what they say is right: the world is broken because of sin and not what it should be, but God has come to change that and is changing them. There is no more powerful a testimony than that of a changed life.
Well King Tut may have tried to get eternal life, but he did not find the one true God. Blessings be on all those who do find Him, whether they are kings or not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
