NBICS and Faith?

by Gregor Wolbring

010/30/08

Nanotechnology  in its old meaning of molecular manufacturing and its new meaning of nanoscale sciences and technology alone and in convergence with other technologies such as biotechnology, information technology, cognitive sciences (neuron engineering) and synthetic biology, will lead to challenges for society in numerous ways. (see my other columns for a number of examples). Faiths, denominations, religion and theology  will be intensively impacted. This should come as no surprise, as advances in science and technology have always posed challenges to those committed to the various faiths and denominations of the world.

What are the challenges that will be faced by faiths, denominations, religion and theology with regard to NBICS enabled products and the NBICS discourse?

If one follows the public discourse in North America, one mostly hears religious arguments which can be subsumed under the questions of what life is, and what constitutes the destruction of life. Indeed, with regard to NBICS technologies one might be left with the impression that Christianity is the only religion impacted (and there a certain understanding and aspect of Christianity), and that this impact is solely related to the question of when life begins.

However the challenges with regard to NBICS discourses and products are not limited to a certain subset of Christianity but exist for every variation of  Christianity  and  challenges  exist for all faiths, denominations, religions and theologies. For example in the November 2000 edition of the academic journal Nature one can find a variety of articles in regards the challenges the Islam faces with regard to science and technology.

Furthermore the challenges faced by religiously oriented people with regards to NBICS discourses and products are not limited to the question of when life starts.

A recent article series in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Volume 36 Issue 1, covering the symposium, “Religions and Cultures of East and West: Perspectives on Bioethics” had the following articles that mostly covered enhancement technologies  (the abstracts are openly available):

Abstract  |  References | 

Go and Tend the Earth: A Jewish View on an Enhanced World (p 10-25)
Laurie Zoloth Published Online: Mar 3 2008 12:00AM
Abstract  |  References | 

"Enhancing Life?" Perspectives from Traditional Chinese Value-Systems (p 26-40) Russell Kirkland Published Online: Mar 3 2008 12:00AM
Abstract  |  References | 

Enhancement Technologies and the Person: Christian Perspectives (p 41-50)
Andrew Lustig Published Online: Mar 3 2008 12:00AM
Abstract  |  References | 

"Hindu" Bioethics? (p 51-58)
Deepak Sarma Published Online: Mar 3 2008 12:00AM
Abstract  |  References | 

Enhancement Technologies and the Person: An Islamic View (p 59-64)
Shahid Athar Published Online: Mar 3 2008 12:00AM
Abstract  |  References | 

Enhancement and Desire: Japanese Qualms about Where Biotechnology is Taking Us (p 65-72)
William R. LaFleur Published Online: Mar 3 2008 12:00AM
Abstract  |  References | 

And there are other areas where the conceptual issues of faiths, religions and theologies are impacted by the NBICS discourse and products. In a somewhat longer piece “The triangle of new and emerging technologies, disabled people and the World Council of Churches;  Able-ism: A prerequisite for transhumanism” published as e-book by the World Council of Churches and available on my webpage (It was published in 2006, so the science part might be a bit outdated), I cover the impact of NBICS on many theological concepts such as imago dei, children of god, blemish, CoCreators , and Creatio Continua and outline the impact of NBICS on one organization -- the World Council of Churches.

NBICS, Faith, and the concept of Health

Health is covered extensively in the scriptures of different religions and is a matter of great concern in most faith communities. Therefore any reinterpretation of “health” and related concepts such as “healing” and “disease” will necessarily have an impact on any given faith community and its goals. I have shown in earlier columns that appearing and envisioned science and technology products that allow for the modification of the body to obtain beyond species typical abilities allow for a shift in the meaning of health  where health no longer has the endpoint that someone is considered “healthy” if the biological systems function within species-typical, normative frameworks. Within the  transhumanized model of health all Homo sapiens bodies – no matter how conventionally “medically healthy” – are defined as limited and defective and in need of constant improvements made possible by new technologies appearing on the horizon (a little bit like the constant software upgrades we do on our computers). Health in this model is defined as having obtained maximum (at any given time) enhancement (improvement) of one’s abilities, functioning and body structure. The above listed articles on enhancement from the symposium provide a glimpse of some of the issues related to this new perspective.

NBICS Faith and immortality. Who promotes a Culture of Death?

Many see technology as the means to defeat death and indeed see death as a disease to be fought. However scriptures, and the believe system of many faiths, see God as the means to defeat death. Is life extension allowed till it matches the ages in the scriptures?

NBICS and Transhumanism

It should come as no surprise that the different versions of Transhumanism are impacting on faiths, denominations, religion and theology in numerous ways. One obvious one is that many transhumanists reject religions and faith orientations. However there are other issues such as:

- The transhumanist linking of personhood to cognitive abilities and not to simply being human

-The attempt to transhumanized a variety of religious concept especially of Christianity. (That they do this first with Christianity is very likely based on the fact that the major NBICS advances are so far done in countries where Christianity is prevalent). Among others one can identify the transhumanization of “Imago Dei” and “God’s Children”

- A transhumanist philosophy would also lead to changes in the interpretation and scope and action required related to the concept of  “blemish” CoCreators , Creatio Continua

What do Judaeo- Christians think of NBICS

In the article “The Transhuman Heresy”, William Bainbridge, the ecoeditor of the NBIC report I so often cite, comes to the conclusion that highly religious people are rejecting new technologies. I would interpret the tables quite differently. With regard to table 1 (see the Bainsbridge article) it is quite surprising that in relation to the issue of uploading a human personality 22% of those who believed in God were in favor versus 34% from the group which did not believe in God. In the same way it is surprising that the difference with regard to the issue of Nanites inserted into blood stream was very small between the believers in God (46%) and the non-believers in God (57%). With regard to table 2, it is interesting to note that the people who had great confidence in organized religion were more positive than the ones who had hardly confidence in science. It is also of interest to note that the average scores are more or less the same for the ones who had only some confidence in organized religion (32%) and the ones who had only some confidence in the scientific community (34%).  Furthermore even between the group with strong confidence in religious organizations (26%) versus the group with strong confidence in the scientific community (42%) the difference was only 16% points which I would hardly see as an endorsement of Bainsbridges claim that those who subscribe to Judaeo-Christian beliefs for the most part reject new technologies. It is actually surprising how near these two groups score to each other.

With regard to table 3 it is equally surprising that only a slight difference is found between the groups in the response to the statement “Humanity is on the verge of evolving into a higher form of life.”

The same is true for the statement, “Technological convergence – combining nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science – will greatly improve human abilities.”

The high acceptance of these two statements by those with high confidence in religion and the slight difference between them and the group which did not evidence believe in God or confidence in organized religion suggest the need for a much greater effort by the World Council of Churches and other religious organizations to look at the issues in greater depth. In particular, it suggests the need to examine issues other than just from the pro life argument and just the technologies of cloning and embryonic stem cells. Many technologies which per se have nothing to do with the question of when human life begins and which do not destroy human life will have profound impacts on societal structures.

Interreligious relations & dialogue

It can easily be seen that different religions are differently impacted by different technologies and that these differences might lead to problems in the Interreligious relations and dialogue process, as it is another point around with divisions might emerge.

The Choice is yours:

The majority of the world population still believes in some faith or religion. It is important that these members of the world population get much more involved in the discourse. It is also essential that the techno critique provided by religious people include more than just the pro life concerns that are so prevalent in the North American discourse. Members of different faiths also have to think about whether their involvement in the discourse should be a top town (advocating for the perspective of the powers that be) or a bottom up (critiquing the use of science and technology through the eyes of the most marginalized).

Gregor Wolbring  is an ability and ableism ethics and governance, science and technology governance,  disability  studies and health policy scholar. He is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences, Program in Disability Studies and Community Rehabilitation. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Adjunct Faculty, Critical Disability Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada;  Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies;  Member: Review Board of the Journal, Review in Disability Studies;  Member, International Editorial Advisory Board, Journal: Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on Nano Bio Info Cogno Synbio and its social implications, maintains a blog on Ableism ethics and governance  and is a regular contributor to the  What Sorts of People  blog.

Please contact the author for additional information on this article or for other references at gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca

© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2008. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.