Wednesday, September 19. 2012The world's first transhumanist politician
New Scientist claims that Giuseppe Vatinno became the world's first transhumanist to be elected as a member of the a parliament. Giuseppe Vatinno's platform? "Becoming less human is not necessarily a negative thing..." From New Scientist:
Why do you think it is important to have a transhumanist politician? Wednesday, August 15. 2012Futility of enhancing your kids
Parents everywhere want the best for their children. We spend money on swimming lessons, piano lessons, tutors, private coaches and the latest gadgets so that they will have an edge over the other kids. We want them to succeed.
But many want to go beyond lessons and gadgets and actively give their children a genetic advantage with germ-line genetic enhancements. Sounds fantastic doesn't it? Having the smartest, fastest and best looking children on the block. Logically, this is about as far as most people get before they say, "Sign me and my kids up!" But ask yourself what enhancing our children really means. It means being trapped forever in a dangerous biological game of "Keeping up with the Jones." Bill McKibben, an environmentalist, in his book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, outlines the trap we will fall into once we begin to enhance our offspring: ...if germline manipulation actually does begin, it seems likely to set off a kind of biological arms race.... Of course, the problem with arms races is that you never really get anywhere. If everyone's adding 30 IQ points, then having an IQ of 150 won't get you any closer to Stanford than you were at the outset. The very first athlete engineered to use twice as much oxygen as the next guy will be unbeatable in the Tour de France - but in no time he'll merely be the new standard. You'll have to do what he did to be in the race, but your upgrades won't put you ahead, merely back on a level playing field.The typical argument is that enhancements are just like gadgets. We are always upgrading those, so what's the problem upgrading our kids. The problem is that people are not gadgets. People should never be considered obsolete. But that is exactly where enhancements will take us. McKibben warns us: If germline genetic engineering ever starts, it will accelerate endlessly and unstoppable into the future, as individuals make the calculation that they have no choice but to equip their kids for the world that's being made. Once the game is under way, in other words, there will be no moral decisions, only strategic ones. If the technology is going to be stopped, it will have to happen now, before it's quite begun.I wholeheartedly agree. Enhancing our children will be a destructive genie that once it is out of the bottle, will never relent. Enhancements will reduce our moral worth to no more than that of an old computer collecting dust in the corner of the basement. So unless you want your children or grandchildren to become "obsolete" it is time to fight enhancements well before they are a reality. Monday, August 13. 2012New Digital Series on Transhumanism
Hollywood is clueless about a lot of things. They don't get marriage. They don't get true love. They certainly don't get religion.
But one thing they do get is transhumanism, the promises, the pitfalls and the peril. Bryan Singer, creator of The Usual Suspects and the X-men movies, has made a digital series on transhumanism called H+. Continue reading at Creative Minority >> Tuesday, July 17. 2012The Singularity is [Hopefully Not] Near
S
![]() It was as enjoyable to read as eating sand, not only because of what it offered: endless pages of technical jargon, but also because of what it didn't: any sense of anything other than "self." What is the Singularity? Well defining it is a bit like nailing Jello to the wall, but I will give it a try. The Singularity is the moment when human intelligence merges with non-biological technology to vastly enhance our capabilities. The word singularity is derived from the mathematical term referring to a value that does not have a finite limitation. So essentially, after the Singularity, human intelligence, with the help of machines, will no longer be limited to what can be accomplished in our finite brains. With technology, it has the chance to become infinite. I will let Kurzweil explain the Singularity: "The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains. We will gain power over our fates. Our mortality will be in our own hands. We will be able to live as long as we want (a subtly different statement from saying we will live forever.)"Basically, we will merge with our technology, and Kurzweil predicts: "There will be no distinction post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality."And what will this technological utopia look like? The human body version 2.0 will be mostly "non-biological" with all of our major systems, nervous, circulatory, immune, digestive, and respiratory augmented or replaced by nanotechnology. Nanobots will allow us to perform Olympic pace sprints for 15 minutes without taking a breath, eat whatever we want without gaining weight, have super-fast, limitless cognitive skills, summon a virtual reality, including a virtual lover, at will, and have a "back-up" of our consciousness ready if needed. We will never get sick and, most importantly to Kurzweil, we will never have to die. So when will this amazing human 2.0 come into existence? Because of the exponential growth of technology, Kurzweil predicts as soon as the 2030s. Yes that's right. In the 2030s, I will hopefully, be getting ready to retire and take care of my grandkids. My children will be starting their families. In other words, not in the distant future, but in this lifetime. Kurzweil writes: "Let's consider where we are, circa early 2030s. We've eliminated the heart, lungs, red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus, stomach, small intestines, large intestines and bowel. What we have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, sensory organs, mouth and upper esophagus and brain."He goes on to describe human body version 3.0 made a special material where we will be able to "rapidly alter our physical manifestations at will." With a 3.0 body, not only could change ourselves to be our idea of physical perfection, but our lover could even change us to be what they would prefer. Now many people will simply laugh at Kurzweil and dismiss him as some over-optimistic technophile. While his predictions may well be zealous, I would not ignore him or his wares. If even a small percentage of what he discusses in this book comes to pass, we are still in trouble. Namely that as the elite enhance, the poor will be left behind. The enhanced will then not only have a monetary advantage, but a biological one as well. Kurzweil acknowledges the disparity that is inevitable. He is even kind of snarky about it. He says that the unenhanced human will be "unable think fast enough to keep up." And when discussing the question of whether or not to enhance humanity, Kurzweil writes: "And to the extent that there will be debate about the desirability of such augmentation, it's easy to predict who will win, since those with enhanced intelligence will be far better debaters."He admits that the poor will be behind the rich in becoming enhanced, but in true transhumanist style he dismisses the problem by insisting that at by that time the pace of technological advance will be so fast that the poor will only have to wait a short time before they too can afford to enhanced. He is assuming of course that everyone in the world will have access to such technologies. In a human existence where dictators hoard money, food and medicine and keep them from the people, I don't think it is a valid assumption. What I found most disturbing about The Singularity is Near was not the physical description of the transhuman, but simply a lack of any of the virtues that make life worth living. The whole book is an homage to "self." While others would find it lacking a sense of reality, I found it lacking in love, sacrifice, and selflessness. It is especially haunting in that the self-giving conjugal love of husband and wife and the gift of children that result are non-existent, an after thought, victims of virtual lovers and the selfish quest to live forever. Like I said, it was like eating sand. Terrible taste, terrible texture with little or no nutritional value. Here's hoping the Singularity is not near. Ever. Tuesday, May 29. 2012German ethicists say No! to cognitive enhancing drugsSometimes I wonder if Germany is the last bastion of common sense in our world. In Germany, they do not allow any research on human embryos. Germany just recently caved to pressure and allowed preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on human embryos, but only for cases whether the parents carry genetic disease. (In the U.S., we have no restrictions on PGD, not even for sex selection.) And it was Greenpeace of Germany that successfully challenged the patenting of human embryos in Europe. With the crazy ideas coming out of England and Australia these days, I found this story refreshingly sane. Dr Roland Kipke, of the University of Tübingen International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and his colleagues have written a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing that cognitive enhancing drugs for otherwise healthy people are too dangerous to be ethical. From Michael Cook's commentary at BioEdge: They contend that the neuroenhancers are wrong on two counts.Note the authors mention the coercive nature of enhancements. You can choose not to enhance, but you will be left behind or forced into low-paying, low-satisfaction positions. Medicine, research, engineering, the law, etc will all be reserved for the enhanced because us lowlys who don't want to be addicted to some drug we don't need just won't be smart enough anymore. Some choice. Monday, May 7. 2012Tony Stark on transhumanism in The Incredible Hulk
Commenter Tom from AZ writes about transhumanism:
How we can make machines to do things, rather than modifying ourselves, anyone who prefers the alternative is regressive. One of the key traits of anatomically modern humans is that, rather than adapting our bodies, we adapt our tools.Tom is right. Instead of modifying a soldier's eyes to have night vision, give him the best night vision goggles and then let him take them off at the end of the day and at the end of his career. We should be looking to advance technology like cell phones, glasses and hand-held computers that we can use and then change or stop using without having to see a physician. Integrating these technologies into our bodies with genetic enhancements, artificial limbs or eyes replacing perfectly good ones, or hooking up artificial intelligence straight into our nervous system ensures that we are slaves to the technology. In preparation for the new Avenger Movie, my son and I watched "The Incredible Hulk" with Edward Norton and in it I found a gem. In the now famous post credit scenes that lead up to The Avengers, General Ross is drowning his sorrows in a bar. His attempt to create a super soldier out of actor Tim Roth had some serious unintended consequences. In essence, Ross created a monster he couldn't control. Tony Stark walks in and says to the General, "I hate to say I told you so, but that super soldier program was put on ice for a reason. I always thought that hardware was much more reliable." Ross replies, "You always wear such nice suits." 0:38 for those who want to watch it: In other words, don't mess with the human body. Instead make a better suit. Friday, April 27. 2012Transhumanists selling their technological "utopia" to Christians
More and more I am seeing the assertion that transhumanism and Christianity are not only compatible, but that Christians can and should be transhumanist. Transhumanists know that to bring about their technological utopia, they need to convert the one group that has a real foundation with which to resist the transhumanist future: Christians. In fact, transhumanist Eric Steinhart wrote the following in the Journal of Evolution and Technology:
But transhumanism cannot avoid a fateful engagement with Christianity. Christian institutions may support or oppose transhumanism. Since Christianity is an extremely powerful cultural force in the West, it is imperative for transhumanism to engage it carefully.Steinhart comes armed with Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's book The Phenomenon of Man as a way for transhumanists to convince Christians we are all on the same team. With prophetic vision, the Holy Office issued a warning against the writings of Teilhard de Chardin in both 1962 and again in 1981 asking "Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers." Now a Presbyterian minister and professor at Columbia Theological Seminary is telling Christians that transhumanism is "inevitable." David Yonke writes in the Toledo Blade: Welcome to the posthuman world. Everyone is smart, tall, good looking, free from disease, and, some predict, will live forever.Douglas is a bit ambiguous, but he encourages Christians to "Believe in a better future because God is doing something." I take that to mean that we are to embrace the changes that transhumaism will bring because it is the work of God. (Douglas also references Teilhard de Chardin's writings against which we have been warned.) But let us look at the transhumanist future so eloquently reiterated by Yonke: everyone is smart, tall, beautiful, disease-free and will live forever. It this transhumanist desire to live forever that lets me know that this movement is not of God. Living forever in this world means forsaking the most important part of Christianity: the eternal life with God in Heaven purchased by the sacrifice of His only Son, Jesus Christ. What better way for Satan to deny us this gift than to convince mankind we should live forever here in this flawed existence? That way we may never receive what God has lovingly provided for us, a place in His house for eternity. But what about the rest of it? The "everyone is smart, tall, beautiful and disease-free" part? Well, the transhumanist really cannot ensure those traits will be available to everyone. Really how could that be? With billions of humans living hand to mouth, some without clean water, electricity or plumbing, how will we enhance everyone to be smart, tall, beautiful and disease-free? The truth is that the smart, tall, beautiful and disease-free life will be for those who have access and can afford the technology, creating a two-tiered society where the enhanced will rule over the unenhanced. This will further divide the haves from the have-nots and breed discord and injustice. Two realities we Christians are supposed to work against. The Catholic Church is very aware of this disparity that will come from going beyond using technologies like genetic engineering to heal and using them to enhance humanity beyond what can be accomplished by nature. Dignitas Personae states: Some have imagined the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool. Some of these proposals exhibit a certain dissatisfaction or even rejection of the value of the human being as a finite creature and person. Apart from technical difficulties and the real and potential risks involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society; such qualities do not constitute what is specifically human. This would be in contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals.It is not the fact that transhumanists are trying to sell their wares to Christians that bothers me. It is the fact that I don't think Christians are well-versed enough in their own faith to realize they are being sold ocean-front property in Montana. I get as much resistance to my writings on enhancement and transhumanism from fellow Christians as I do from transhumanists. I have been called anti-American and anti-military for pointing out the dangerous transhumanist messages in Captain America. I have been told that there would be nothing wrong with genetically enhancing a soldier's eyes to have night vision because it would help our military. (Talk about reducing a person to a means-to-an-end. Don't violate a soldier's bodily integrity for the rest of his life so you can feel safer. Give him a pair of awesome night-vision goggles that he can take off at the end of the day and at the end of his career.) I am not the only one who sees the incompatibility between Christianity and transhumanism. Wesley J. Smith, a much better mind that I, recently said it best. Smith wrote: Christians certainly believe that they will indeed become a new (“glorified”) being–but not “post human,” and certainly not through human efforts. And Rev. Douglas also seems to embrace a trend I see growing within some Christian circles, which expediently conflates what I want with that which supposedly God wants for me. Monday, March 19. 201277 Shadow Street: a fictional look at transhumanism's natural end![]() The novel follows the residents of 77 Shadow Street, a luxury condominium, as they are temporarily transported to the transhumanist future. Some do not survive the horrors they encounter. One character muses about the posthumanist movement: The dark prospect of posthumanism was part of it that most excited the theorists and scientists: the augmentation of the brain with hundreds of millions of microcomputers made largely of carbon nanotubes, which would be distributed throughout our gray matter. These tiny but powerful computers would interact with one another, with the brain, and potentially with every computer in the world through a wireless network, tremendously enhancing the individual's intelligence and knowledge. The posthuman species, a combination of biological and machine intelligence, never aging, nearly immortal, still human in appearance, inspired scientists at MIT and at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, and at hundreds of other universities, institutes, and corporations around the world. They saw at last a possibly swiftt path to a human civilization with superhuman capabilities, the total submission of nature to humanity, the acquisition of godlike power, the looming end of nationalism and tribalism, and superstition, therefore the elimination of limits in all things.And that sums up what I believe to be the heart of transhumanism: an unhealthy desire to subjugate nature to human will. But in doing so, we will subjugate ourselves and our own nature to the technology we create. I do not want to give too much away but I will say that Koontz is astute in his assessment of science and scientists. And even after seeing the future, the altruistic scientist that set the ball in motion cannot grasp that his good intentions are not enough to stop the freight train of our own technology now out of our control. In private correspondence in 2011 with Mr. Koontz on a related matter, he told me about 77 Shadow Street. I share what he wrote only because I believe it is something everyone needs to not just read, but hear. Written on a typewriter, he wrote the following about posthumanism: Reading about the subject to research the novel, I was struck by how insane most people in this movement sound when they are writing about their dream future; insane not because I am too ignorant of science to understand them, but because they are so narrowly focused on the promise of physical immortality, that they can see only the promise of power that entrances them and nothing of the social, civilizational, and biological disaster that will make their dream a nightmare.I am with Mr. Koontz that the transhumanist future will not be the dream the transhumanists envision. It will be a nightmare where we are slaves to technology that radically changes our nature. Sometimes I wonder if transhumanism is the modern Tower of Babel. Will God scatter us to the ends of the Earth before we can destroy Creation with our irrational desires to radically change it? Will economies collapse before nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering become mainstream enough to effect such a destruction of Nature? Only time will tell. Wednesday, March 7. 2012E. Christian Brugger on transhumanism and Captain America
You cannot believe the flack I get for pointing out the transhumanist aspects of Captain America. It has been suggested that I am anti-military and possibly anti-American. Good, faithful Catholics have argued with me that Captain America was a good guy and not an example of the arrogant and power-hungry transhumanist that they envision.
I love Captain America as a super hero too but I am not certainly not going to overlook that in this beloved story line the United States Army took a perfectly healthy man and put him through a potentially lethal experiment to make a weapon of war. Talk about taking a child of God, disrespecting his inherent dignity and turning him into an object to be used. E. Christian Brugger, Associate Professor of Moral Theology at Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado and Fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, was asked about transhumanism and the Catholic world view and guess what example he uses? You guessed it: Captain America. Here is Dr. Brugger on Zenit.org: The problem of "Transhumanism" is so critically important to understand, and so poorly understood, that I think the topic deserves more than a single column. I therefore address it here and in my next ZENIT bioethics briefs.I don't want to gloat or anything, but I feel vindicated. Also read Dr. Brugger's Introduction to Transhumansim. Friday, March 2. 2012New Disney show pushing transhumanism The Disney channel has a new show called Lab Rats. Three of the main characters are teenagers that according to the promotional material are super-human kids genetically engineered by a billionaire investor to "save the world." Each kid has a special enhancement. Chase has been altered to have super intelligence. Bree has been enhanced with super speed and agility. And Adam is super strong, has laser vision, and is super dumb. Hat Tip: Bill Genereux Monday, February 20. 2012Crazy transhumanist ideas to "eliminate suffering"
The transhumanist will always insist that transhumanism is about healing. It is simply about eliminating suffering and so fear of the transhumanism movement is irrational and unfounded. And yet when you look at what the transhumanist actually proposes you find a bizarre mentality that everything found in nature, including humanity, is up for redesign.
Take this piece by David Pearce in H+ magazine, the magazine for transhumanists. He titled it "Five Top Reasons Transhumanism Can Eliminate Suffering" which sounds all fantastic. And then you get into the dirty details. The first suggestion to eliminate suffering is to "weed out" those of us who feel pain more acutely or genetically engineer ourselves to feel less physical pain. Pearce writes: We’ll shortly be able to choose the genetically-shaped pain thresholds of our future children. Autosomal gene therapy will allow adults to follow suit. Clearly, our emotional response to raw pain is modulated by the products of other genes. But recent research suggests that variants of the SCN9A gene hold the master key. Thus in a decade or two, preimplantation diagnosis should allow responsible prospective parents to choose which of the SCN9A alleles they want for their future children — leading in turn to severe selection pressure against the SCN9A gene’s nastier variants.This suggestion is actually a combination of transhumanism (the genetic engineering of adults) and eugenics (the screening of unborn part) which makes sense because transhumanism has its roots in the eugenics movement. (Take careful notice of the "severe selection pressure" that Pearce mentions. I have had many transhumanists insist that transhumanism is all about the freedom of choice. They insist that no one will be coerced in the transhumanist utopia. And yet when transhumanists use phrases like "severe selection pressure" we had better listen.) The problem with this suggestion to "reduce" suffering is that pain is a good thing. It lets us know when we are injured. There are people with a rare genetic disorder called congenital insensitivity to pain, sometimes caused by a SCN9A gene variant. The lack of pain sensitivity means these poor unfortunate sufferers have no idea when they injure themsleves. Many bite off their tongues or have other serious oral injuries inflicted by their own teeth. ABC news reported about one girl who had this condition. She had her teeth removed to prevent her from further injuring her mouth and hands. When she was 2, she broke her jaw and did not know it. She ended up on IV medication for 6 weeks due to the infection that resulted. She has also already lost her left eye. At least Pierce has the sense to say that engineering the SCN9A gene to this level is not a good idea. But he goes on to suggest something even more outrageous. He wants to eliminate predatory carnivorism in nature to eliminate the suffering of prey: Perhaps the biggest obstacle to phasing out suffering altogether is wild animal suffering. Right now, billions of sentient beings in the wild are dying of thirst and hunger, or being disembowelled, asphyxiated or eaten alive by predators. Jeff McMahan’s landmark article in the New York Times is the first print-published plea from a mainstream academic calling for predatory carnivorism to be phased out.He wants to turn nature upside down and get rid of the predator-prey relationship? Seriously? And we are supposed to believe that transhumanism is a entirely benign endeavor that is going to create a utopia on Earth. Excuse me if I am not buying. Friday, February 17. 2012Prosthetic eye to treat blindnessIt maybe official. I think I am a TED video junkie. Here is one (hat tip ScienceRoll) that describes how researchers are developing a prosthetic eye to treat blindness. Take the time to watch the whole thing because it is fascinating. This is the very kind of biotechnology that we Catholics should support. But beware! The transhumanists will claim these advancements for themselves. They will say this prosthetic eye is just one more example of how transhumanism, the movement that seeks to use technology to make ordinary man "post human," will make all of our lives better. Except this prosthetic eye is not an example of transhumanism. This is an example of medicine, taking technology to restore a normal human function. Transhuman literally means "beyond human." So the transhumanist does not just want to restore normal function, they want to augment or replace it. So once the technology is good enough that the digital images are as good or better than what the normal human eye can see, the transhumanist wants such prosthetics to replace their eyes that can see perfectly well. We can embrace ethical technology where the intent is to cure or reconstruct. Once the technology passes into the realm of enhancement of the otherwise healthy, it is no longer medicine and becomes something else entirely. Tuesday, January 31. 2012Newt Gingrich on Transhumanism
Many people who read my work elsewhere think transhumanism movement is not an important pro-life issue. It is so abstract an idea to them that they regularly wonder why I bother writing about it. I think it is simply because they don't realize how much transhumanism is already in our consciousness. Artificial human enhancements are depicted everywhere from TV (Chuck) to movies (Captain America and Limitless) to video games (Deus Ex.)
And whether parents realize it or not, transhumansim is especially in the consciousness of our children. In a recent conversation, my own son asked me why I don't like human enhancements. He was distressed and asked, "Then how can I become a super hero?" My husband commented that he wanted to be a super hero too when he was nine and every boy in the world wants to be a super hero. I responded that our son's generation may actually be able to fulfill those childhood and childish "dreams" of becoming enhanced. This is the first time in history technology may make it possible for people to be able to chase those fantastical "super-hero" dreams of their youth with cognitive enhancing drugs, genetic engineering or artificial intelligence. The problem with childhood fantasies is that children often cannot see the possible devastating effects of drugs or invasive procedures on their otherwise healthy bodies. I fear without bringing transhumanism out of the shadows and into the light for scrutiny, an entire generation may not be equipped with enough insight to resist the overwhelming pressure to enhance simply because everyone else is doing it. Even if your everyday person is not aware of transhumanism, our leaders are aware, or should be. Transhumanism was even a subject in the Republican Presidential debates. Newt Gingrich was asked by Wolf Blitzer about genetic engineering and human enhancement. Mother Jones reports Gingrich's reply: "These are at the heart of the next 40 years. And we've got to understand: Somewhere on this planet there will be a dictatorship that uses science in a way that is truly grotesque. And then you're gonna have, for example, a decision to make, if someone can participate in the Olympics who's been genetically engineered. I mean you're gonna have, there's an array of different countries out there, some of which have values so lacking to any of us that you're gonna have these kinds of things." Wednesday, January 25. 2012How will I become a super hero? A kid conversation about enhancements
Overheard in the Taylor house:
Son: (with grumpy face) Mom you don't like human enhancements do you? Me: No, I don't Son: (with even grumpier face) Then how will I become a super hero? Me: You don't need to be enhanced to be a super hero. God loves you just the way you are. It is wrong to take drugs or do other stuff to make yourself super human, especially if you are already healthy. What if someone bad gets enhanced and hurts a lot of people? Or what if only rich people can get enhanced and then make life harder for everyone else? What if it gets so that you need lots of drugs or artificial limbs to play sports because talent and hard work aren't good enough to compete anymore? Or if you need a cyber-brain to go to college or be a doctor? What happens if normal people want to be part animal or glow-in-the-dark or just a brain walking around in a robot? What if parents enhance their children and the children don't like their enhancements? Son: (Long pause) But I want to be a super hero, Mom. Husband: Every kid wants to be a super hero when they are 9. I wanted to be one too when I was his age. Me: True. But this generation could actually use technology to fulfill their childhood fantasies of becoming super human making the "haves" have even more and the "have nots" have even less. Once we allow healthy people to make themselves super human, a society with the enhanced ruling over the unenhanced is inevitable. Son: What about Spiderman? Me: His enhancements were an accident. Son: What about the Hulk? Me: Again an accident. Son: The Fantastic 4? Me: Terrible space accident. I mean look what happened to the Thing. Son: The X Men? Me: They were born that way and some of them hate it. Imagine if your parents did that to you on purpose and you hated it. Son: Chuck? Me: CIA experiment on a normal guy. Wrong. Remember the Intersect hurt both Chuck and Morgan's brains. Son: Captain America and Wolverine? Me: Healthy men (small and mutant, but healthy) experimented on by the military. Very wrong thing to do. Son: (sad face) Mom, you don't like human enhancements. Me: No I don't. I think they are wrong and bad for everyone. We need to love ourselves and each other just the way we are. That is the way to be happy and to be a real hero. Son: I bet you Satan likes human enhancements. Me: Yes, son, I believe he does. I believe he does. Tuesday, December 27. 2011Transhumanism: the pitch and the reality
The gaming industry is into transhumanism. The idea of removing a perfectly good limb and replacing it with one that has super human abilities is the stuff of video games, for now. Deus Ex is a game about transhumanism. Part of the hype for Deus Ex was the creation of a fictitious corporation, Sarif Industries that specializes in human augmentation using artificial body parts. Here is Sarif Industries' perfect pitch for transhumanism. This is the hard sell for using technology to replace normal body parts augmenting healthy humans beyond normal human abilities:
Sounds fantastic doesn't it? Transhumanism is super seductive. And yet the reality will be far from what is depicted above. Once people begin to augment, others will feel compelled to do the same, removing perfectly good eyes, ears, limbs and replacing them just to be able to keep up. At this point transhumanism will make man a slave to the technology he creates. In the fictitious Deus Ex world, Purity First, an anti-transhumanism group shows us the reality behind Sarif Industries' pitch: The Purity First video is in the extreme, but once we have replaced our working parts with artificial ones it is very possible that companies will have the power to turn them off or control them. Many transhumanists do not consider that artificial limbs will not work as well as promised in the long term and then the enhanced will forever be beholden to the company that made their augmentation. Even artificial intelligence may be used against the user, altering his or her conscious without consent. I envision this transhumanist utopia as man's ultimate enslavement. The above video depicts just this future. I want to applaud the behind-the-scenes creators of these make-believe jaunts into the future of human enhancements. They really do understand what is at stake: our humanity. We can use technology to heal and fix what is broken, returning individuals to normal functioning or, we can use it to alter our nature beyond recognition. The former allows us to master technology. Choose the latter and technology will be our master. Wednesday, December 7. 2011More great Catholic fiction in Childless![]() Gail focuses Childless on the coming trials that mankind will have to face before the second coming of Christ. We are all very familiar with the specter of persecution of Catholics at the hands of the state and Gail explores this theme to its bloody conclusion. But Gail also has the wisdom to include transhumanism in his novel. The rich and powerful are not satisfied with natural man and his limitations. They pour billions into research that will create a "posthuman." A human made not in God's image, but in man's arrogant, selfish, and shortsighted image. Gail writes: He strode purposefully to the podium and settled in behind it. “Genesis 1: God creates man in His image and likeness.” He paused dramatically and swept the room with an undisguised air of triumph. “Genesis 2: Man creates man in his own image and likeness.”I don't want to give too much away but that as transhumanists succeed creating their Homo Evolutis and a time of great death and destruction falls on the earth. This is always the way I have viewed transhumanism. This movement to use technology not to help the sick or injured but to transform man into the "trans" or "post" human is the ultimate affront to our nature. An affront to God's design and ultimately, his image and likeness. Transhumanism is a philosophy that cannot end in anything but human suffering and despair just the eugenics movement, where transhumanism has its origins, ended in the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. A point another great writer you made have heard of, Dean Koontz, makes in the introduction to his series Frankenstein: "We live in hubristic age, when politicians imagine themselves to be messiahs and when many in the sciences frankly discuss their dreams of creating a “post-human” civilization of genetically engineered supermen, ignorant of the fact that like minds have often come before them and have left no legacy but death, destruction, and despair."Childless is ultimately a cautionary tale about how the errors of the last 50 years will eventually engulf mankind. I highly recommend the entire trilogy for its depiction of the Church as a stronghold of Truth in a sea of relativism that threatens the fabric of our society. From abortion to contraception to transhumanism, Gail touches on them all. If nothing else Childless will certainly inspire you to get on your knees and pray. Thursday, November 3. 2011Transhumanism's roots in eugenicsI have been talking about transhumanism a lot lately because I believe it is the greatest threat to humanity that no one knows about. Transhumansim is a philosophy that wants to use technology to surpass treating or preventing disease and use it to enhance otherwise healthy humans beyond natural capabilities. They envision a world where you can leave your pathetic, ignorant, weak existence behind and enhance your way to being super-smart, super-strong, super-happy, basically super-human. Transhumanists want to take man's evolution into their own hands creating a race of "post-humans." There are many flaws in transhumanist utopian ideas, most notably their refusal to acknowledge that transhumanism will result in a world where the enhanced super-humans will naturally rule over the stupid, weak and miserable unenhanced. Those that can afford or have access to enhancements will be the elite and those who do not or cannot be enhanced will be second class citizens. In studying the roots of transhumanism I found that the term and the beginnings of the movement are attributed to one Julian Huxley. Huxley wrote the following in his 1957 piece, "Transhumanism:" We are already justified in the conviction that human life as we know it in history is a wretched makeshift, rooted in ignorance; and that it could be transcended by a state of existence based on the illumination of knowledge and comprehension, just as our modern control of physical nature based on science transcends the tentative fumblings of our ancestors, that were rooted in superstition and professional secrecy. ![]() "No-one doubts the wisdom of managing the germ-plasm of agricultural stocks, so why not apply the same concept to human stocks?"The American Eugenics movement resulted in the forced sterilization of over 60,000 Americans in 33 states. And eugenics did not stop there. Adolf Hitler was a huge fan of eugenics and brought it to its natural conclusion: the Holocaust of World War II where millions of the "genetically unfit" were exterminated in an effort to create a master race. Those considered unfit were not just Jews, but the also the criminal, weak, feeble-minded, insane, and disabled. Huxley wasn't just any eugenicist either. He was president of the British Eugenics Society from 1959-1962, more than a decade AFTER the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed. He coined the term transhumanism right before his tenure as president of the British Eugenics Society. I don't believe modern transhumanists have any idea where their ideology originated, but it is still instructive toward what will lie ahead if they get their way. We have tried transhumanism already, only it was called eugenics then. Eugenics, in its attempt to control the direction of human evolution, did in fact create a world where the lesser humans were second-class citizens whose rights and lives were forfeit to the "greater good" determined by the elite. I will quote my favorite modern fiction writer, Dean Koontz, who truly understands transhumanism and its ramifications: "We live in hubristic age, when politicians imagine themselves to be messiahs and when many in the sciences frankly discuss their dreams of creating a “post-human” civilization of genetically engineered supermen, ignorant of the fact that like minds have often come before them and have left no legacy but death, destruction, and despair." Monday, October 31. 2011Why I am not a fan of Captain AmericaMy son is dressing as Captain America this year for Halloween. Despite the fact that he looks fantastic with his homemade shield, I am not too crazy about it. Why? Is it because I am a closet America-hater that despises all things patriotic? No. It's because I am a total buzz kill that cannot get past Captain America's transhumanist underpinnings. And here I go ruining an awesome super hero for Catholic parents and their sons everywhere. Captain America is the only super hero that I know where the enhancements are a choice. The Hulk and Spiderman were accidents. The X Men were born that way and Superman is from another planet. The Green Lantern has a ring that he can take on and off, so his enhancements aren't permanent. But everyday American Steve Rodgers was experimented on to make a better soldier to help win a war. He was healthy and underwent potentially fatal procedures to make him Captain America. Totally unethical. In fact I had to sit my son down and explain to him that even though he loves Captain America, experimenting and enhancing a perfectly normal, albeit small, human being is wrong, no matter how well-intentioned the goal. The Catholic Church is clear that any human engineering has to have a therapeutic purpose. Tinkering with humans to enhance an otherwise healthy person is totally unethical. On a broader level, this is how I believe transhumanism will get a foothold in society: with the military permanently enhancing its soldiers in an increasingly hostile world. Unfortunately, Captain America glorifies a dubious practice and prays on our patriotism to make us feel good about it. I am sure I have lost many a reader, but I have to call em like I see em! Wednesday, October 19. 2011Transhumanist refers to natural man as "incompetent," "unproductive," and "stupid"![]() The hatred for humanity is easy to see in the radical environmentalism movement because some call for a global one-child policy and secretly hope for a virus that will wipe out the majority of mankind. But what about transhumanism? If they want us to live forever how can that be misanthropic? Because the transhumanist hates man's limitations. He hates our weakness, our limited intellect and our mortality. Precisely the things that make us human. Transhumanists don't want to be human and live forever. They want to be "post-human." The assumption is that we are pathetic beings that desperately need an upgrade. Case in point, transhumanist Ronald Bailey's response to bioconservative Philip Lawler's very correct assertion that once we start enhancing humans, those that are unenhanced will be compelled to enhance as well. Bailey writes: Lawler argued that if, say, Mormons and Roman Catholics wanted to have babies the old-fashioned, unenhanced way, “we won’t let them do it.” Why not? Because enhanced people would regard “the stupid and disease-ridden Catholic babies as a risk to their own well-being.”Bailey goes onto say: What about those old-fashioned folks who want to make sure that their children are just like them, naturally stupid and disease-ridden?...In Bailey's assessment, natural unenhanced man is "incompetent," "unproductive," "stupid," "disease-ridden," and "unstable." So what happens when someone with this disparaging view of humanity becomes enhanced? Will the "post-human" naturally assume they are better than those "incompetent," "unproductive," "stupid," "disease-ridden," and "unstable" humans? I think it is a pretty sure bet. I disagree that transhumanism will "expand" liberty for mankind. I think it will naturally contract it because enhancements will become a necessity and no longer a choice. Those enhancements will eventually come in the form of germ-line genetic engineering where children and grandchildren are forced to endure the enhancements foisted upon them by the desires of the previous generations. That is not "expanding" liberty. I recently read Michael Vey: the Prisoner of Cell 25 by Richard Paul Evans. An excellent read for your middle schooler. Michael Vey is, at its root, a cautionary tale about transhumansim. In it a group of children are accidentally enhanced with the ability to control electricity. The company that created these post-humans is trying to recreate the "success." To accomplish this they have to have the electric children on board. The head of the project, Dr. Hatch convinces them that humans are just chickens pecking around in the yard while the enhanced are eagles that can soar. Of course the children are told that the eagles rule over the chickens and so can inflict any manner of evil on pathetic mankind without guilt or shame. One electric child explains it to another after using their powers on an innocent human: Tara looked into Taylor's eyes. "You, me, all of us electric children are those eagles... If you want to keep on pecking through life with the chickens it's up to you, sis. So what will it be, eagle or chicken?" Tuesday, September 27. 2011The dirty details behind genetically enhancing your offspringWhat always fascinates me about the transhumanist is that they are so blinded by their love of technology and their desire to change humanity that they always skip over the dirty details. In case you are unfamiliar with transhumansim, it is a philosophy that wants to use technology to surpass treating or preventing disease and use it to enhance otherwise healthy humans beyond natural capabilities. They envision a world where you can genetically enhancing your offspring to be smarter, faster, bigger and maybe even to glow-in-the-dark. They speak of this perfect world where man is no longer human, but "posthuman." And yet the details about how to achieve this technological utopia always seem to escape their notice. They assume that whatever genetic enhancement is inflicted on the next generation can be as easily removed as it was to introduce. In fact, I have argued repeatedly with transhumanists about their lack of attention to the mechanics of genetic engineering and their reply is almost invariably, "Well if we can put in genetic enhancements, we can take them out! Duh!" Except that anyone who knows anything about genetics and genetic engineering knows this is not true. Any genetic enhancement of offspring will likely be accomplished as it is done in animals now, by adding DNA to egg or sperm before fertilization or to a somatic cell before it is used in cloning a new embryo. The genetic engineering is accomplished so early in development that it will be incorporated into every cell in the body. Now fast forward that genetically enhanced embryo's life and she does not like her enhancement. She wants to get rid of it, except it is in everyone of her 50 trillion cells. Good luck trying to rid of that genetic enhancement. And that unfortunate former embryo will have no choice but to pass her enhancement onto her children and grandchildren. In reality, genetically altering any human embryos will have unintended consequences. Consequences we will be unable to just "take back." At least not until the whole process is perfected over many generations. To achieve that perfection many lives will have to be used as science experiments. Experiments to achieve not treatments or cures, but someone else's idea of a technological nirvana. I think this passage from Alex Knapp's Is Ethical Human Genetic Enhancement Possible? in Forbes relays the dirty details of genetic enhancement better than I ever could: The bottom line being, if we’re talking about significant genetic changes to human beings, whether it’s making people smarter or stronger or able to fly or whatever, we’re talking about making changes to extraordinarily complex systems – all at once. Those changes will almost certainly have to be made on the embryonic level, and those embryos will grow into babies. And only once they’re born will we even know if the “enhancement” actually worked as planned. Of course, as any engineer will tell you, the more complex the system, the more testing is required. The more testing required, the more prototypes are made. Most of them failures.And yet with these hard realities staring transhumanists in the face, they continue to gloss over the details and insist that they have every right to genetically enhance their offspring as they see fit and people who try to stop them are imposing their beliefs on others. Ronald Bailey sums up the transhumanist mantra in Reason Magazine: Biotechnology is one of a suite of new intimate technologies which are well on the way to empowering people to enhance themselves and their progeny by giving them stronger bodies, longer and healthier lives, and smarter brains. Certainly technologies dealing with birth, death, and the meaning and purpose of life need protection from meddling by others who, however democratically, would force their visions of the good on the rest of us.And yet, it is the transhumanist that would force their visions of good on future generations without their consent all the while calling it "progress." If you think that there is no way genetic enhancement will happen in the United States you would be wrong. While many other countries have laws preventing inheritable genetic modification, America is woefully behind. In fact, indications are that the United States scientific community does not want to make genetic enhancements illegal. Our own National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently awarded Maxwell Mehlman, director of the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, $773,000 to develop standards for tests on human subjects in genetic enhancement research. Research that would take otherwise normal healthy humans and make them smarter, stronger, or better-looking. If the existing standards cannot meet the ethical conditions needed for genetic enhancement research, Mehlman has been asked to recommend changes. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know I have been screaming about on transhumanism without so much as a breath between posts. But I hope you can see why it is so important to stop the enhancement train before it leaves the station and gains momentum. Because if it does, like any train traveling at lightning speed, genetic enhancement maybe impossible to stop. And in the case of transhumanism, the Devil is quite literally in the details. Sunday, August 28. 2011The Transhumanism TrapThe Transhumanism Trap is out there. I am seeing it more and more often. ![]() Splice If you do not know what transhumanism is let alone know that it has a logical trap into which the average person is likely to fall, don't worry. Most people don't. Transhumanism is a movement that wants to use technology to go beyond curing or preventing disease or disability. Transhumanists hunger for technology that will take an otherwise healthy individual and enhance him or her beyond normal human ability. Transhumanism seeks not just to cure disease but to change the very nature of man. To make him more than human, even immortal, with whatever means are available, whether it is with nanotechnology, artificial limbs, artificial intelligence, or genetic enhancement. Transhumanism is a insidious philosophy because it rejects the nature of humanity and our natural limitations. Rejecting the nature of man, it also rejects the inherent dignity of every human person in the process. In their imagined technological utopia, transhumanists often turn a blind eye to the medical realities of enhancement, genetic, pharmaceutical or otherwise and the possibility that without proper ethical guidance we may no longer control technology. Instead it may control us. You may think that transhumanism is just a fringe ideology but they have journals, societies and even conferences. ![]() Limitless So what is the Transhumanist Trap? It is the blurring of the line, intentional or otherwise, between therapy and enhancement. Therapy is aimed at curing or preventing disease or disability and returning a patient to a more normal state. Enhancement takes an otherwise healthy individual and makes them more than human in intelligence, strength or other desired characteristic. An example would be artificial limbs. In therapy, an artificial limb would be for a patient who is missing a limb. In enhancement, a perfectly good limb would be chopped off and replaced with an artificial one that functions better than the natural ever could. Therapy and enhancement may employ the same technology, but are two fundamentally different processes. And there in lies the trap. Transhumanists will insist that therapy is transhumanism because technology is involved. They argue if we embrace the use of technology for therapy, we automatically embrace transhumanist ideals as well. In any article that denounces transhumanism, even on this very blog, there is always a comment suggesting that rejecting transhumanism means rejecting the good use of technology for healing. Here is one example. On a post by Joseph Farrah on the dangers of transhumanism at World Net Daily, a commenter wrote the following:
Sounds good right? Now the trap is set. The average reader immediately takes the transhumanist side and says to themselves, "Well I am certainly not against defibrillators, or heart valves or hip replacements. This transhumanist thing must not be so bad." Trap sprung. The transhumanist always presents the scenario that in accepting medical progress for treating disease or disability, one must also accept technology to enhance man beyond what can be accomplished by nature. Opposing transhumanism means "opposing medical and scientific progress." That is the Transhumanist Trap: therapy equals enhancement and with one comes the other. Rejecting enhancement means taking away Grandma's hip and Grandpa's defibrillator and only the angry, hate-filled Luddites of the world would want that. In reality, technologies like genetic engineering, artificial limbs and pharmacology are not all or nothing. We can make the decision to limit technology for therapeutic uses only. Grandma can have her hip replacement and Grandpa can have his defibrillator without embracing a world where every human, not just ones in a deadly accident, has to become the Six Million Dollar Man. The Church draws a clear and convincing line between therapy and enhancement. That which brings man back to natural functioning is good. That which goes beyond therapy to reject the nature God gave is us bad. The only way to fight the logical fallacy of the Transhumanist Trap is to explain the difference between therapy and enhancement. Every time you see the trap being set in a com box, point it out. It becomes very obvious, very quickly, that the transhumanist philosophy has very little to do with healing. Think about it. If technology was limited to therapy in the movies, there would be no plot in Surrogates, or Splice or Limitless. Hollywood seems to get it. It is time for the real world to take a note. Saturday, July 16. 2011Watch out for the 7 ways to achieve transhumanismTranshumanism is a insidious philosophy that many people are simply unaware of. It is time to become aware. Transhumanism seeks not just to cure disease but to change the nature of man. To make him more than human with whatever means are available, whether it is with nanotechnology, artificial limbs, artificial intelligence, or genetic enhancement. Transhumanists have societies and magazines and conferences. They even argue that the writings of a Jesuit priest will convince Christians of their cause. It seems like benign science fiction, but transhumansim is far from it. It rejects the nature of humanity and the fundamental principles that have governed society for thousands of years. Transhumanists envision a world where man is a master of technology and wields it to his advantage. They do not realize that what they advocate will do the exact opposite. It will make man a slave to the technology he creates. If you want to understand transhumanism better you must read When Will We Be Transhuman? Seven Conditions for Attaining Transhumanism by Kyle Munkittrick on Discover Magazine's blogs. Kyle lists the seven conditions needed to make transhumanism a reality. The first condition is that prosthetics are not just for the disabled. When the average Joe considers chopping off a perfectly good limb to make way for an artificial one, then transhumansim is on the way. He writes about condition 1:
This is exactly the kind of enhancement that the Church rejects. There is a difference between using technology to restore normal human function and using technology to replace it. The latter rejects our nature with potentially dangerous consequences. Transhumanists either do not see or choose to ignore the idea that once artificial limbs and or bodies become common place among the healthy, such prosthetics will be required. Anyone who does not have access or cannot afford it will become the under class. Kyle does not envision a future where chopping off perfectly good limbs becomes a necessity to participate in society instead of just a luxury, but I certainly do. Condition 3 is that everyone is fine with enhancing the human brain with artificial intelligence. Whether it is cognitive enhancing drugs or a cyberbrain in your fanny pack, for transhumansim to become a reality, society has to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) for everyday life. Kyle writes:
Once again the transhumanist ignores the possibility that AI may just become a necessary upgrade to survive in an enhanced world which then makes man a slave to the technology instead of the other way around. Condition 5 is particularly illuminating. For transhumanism to flourish, procreation the old fashioned way needs to become, well, old-fashioned, for everyone. Only artificial technologies like IVF need to be the norm in bringing about the next generation. That way we can make sure the next generation is the best it can be:
Again transhumanism has no problem with ordering up children from a menu making them more commodities than precious gifts. And just like in GATTACA, having a child the old fashioned way will become a one way ticket to second class citizenship. Transhumanists cannot imagine a world where parents of "genetically defective" children who have decided to love their children despite their limitations will be branded "genetic outlaws." But I can, because it is already happening. Condition 6 has been in the making for decades already. Condition 6 is "My Body, My Choice." See Roe vs. Wade was not just about abortion. It was about inventing a constitutional right called "reproductive rights" which is more than just aborting your children for whatever reason. It is about having children anyway you see fit and doing with your body anything you like. "Reproductive rights" have morphed into "somatic rights" and for transhumanism to thrive the following must be embraced:
Condition 7 is the most insidious. Unfortunately it is the one that is gaining a lot of ground. In a transhumanist world, being human is not a condition for personhood. Only humans that have some arbitrary set of qualities will be considered persons. And any non-human species that shares those qualities will also be considered persons:
The transhumanist never imagines that they someday maybe considered a non-person at which point an African grey parrot will have rights when they do not. But of course rational, forward thinking people can see it. Rational people can also see that a toddler is nothing like a parrot. Transhumanists also ignore the possibility that at some point, under their arbitrary set of conditions needed for such a granting of rights, only enhanced humans will be considered "persons." So if you do not want to be enhanced or cannot afford it, you would no longer be considered a person. Meanwhile a chimp with a cyber-brain would be. The Catholic Church resoundingly rejects transhumanism. The Church instead embraces and loves mankind as it is without cyberbrains, artificial limbs, or genetic enhancement. It accepts and loves children who are begotten and not made no matter if they are considered "genetically defective" or not. While the Catholic Church embraces technology that returns man to his natural state, the transhumanist hates mankind's limitations and seeks to eliminate them with technology. In doing so, transhumanists will create a society where being human is not enough to have rights and participate in society. In their world, you must have the right qualities to be considered a person. You may even need to be enhanced to make sure you and yours are not second class citizens. I don't call that mastering technology. I call that ensuring that technology is our master. For an entertaining and I believe accurate look at transhumanism in action, read Dean Koontz's 5 book Frankenstein series. A bit gruesome and not for the faint at heart, but illuminating all the same. For those who are not readers, the movie Surrogates is a perfect depiction of what happens when technology that was meant to fix disability is used instead for enhancement and how man becomes a slave to technology in the process.
Friday, January 30. 2009Warning! Jesuit writings used to condone genetic enhancement
Personally, I cannot make head nor tails of Teilhard de Chardin and I do not want to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of his work here. What I do want to bring to my readers attention is the use of Teilhard de Chardin to argue for human genetic enhancement. I am certainly no theologian. But if there is one thing I have discovered shifting through Church teaching, is that the Catholic Church has wisdom well beyond her years. The Church warns us about things that can seem to make little sense until decades later when we are faced with a moral conundrum. A moral conundrum that could have been avoided if we had listened. I fear that this is the case with Teilhard de Chardin. I am here to warn you that Teilhard de Chardin is being used by transhumanists to argue for something the Church finds immoral. The Catholic Church teaching on genetic engineering can be summarized thus: Genetic engineering that seeks to cure disease in a single individual is morally acceptable. This is called gene therapy. As long as the genetic changes are not inheritable, the Catholic Church finds genetic engineering for therapeutic reasons morally acceptable. But, genetic engineering that seeks to take an otherwise healthy man and make him "better than human" by changing his genetic nature is immoral. This is genetic enhancement. From the Charter for Health Care Workers:
Transhumanists look forward to a day when genetic engineering can change the very nature of man making us "better than human" in intelligence, beauty and strength. They embrace human genetic enhancement which is clearly not morally acceptable. I recently found this paper that describes how Teilhard de Chardin fits into transhumanist philosophy:
Whether or not Eric Steinhart is correct is his interpretation of Teilhard de Chardin or not remains to be seen, preferably by someone else who has better theological chops than I have. What is vitally important is to understand that this priest's work is being suggested as a way to win over Christians to the transhumanist side. Please do not be fooled. It is clear that the transhumanists are considering strategy to bring about human genetic enhancement decades before it is even possible. Let us be wise like our Church and fight the transhumanist future well before its time. If we wait until the technology is upon us, it will be too late. Identify the rhetoric, understand your Church's teaching and keep your eyes open and and your ears sharp.
« previous page
(Page 2 of 2, totaling 48 entries)
|
Follow or Contact me![]() marymeetsdolly [dot] com Follow @MaryMeetsDolly QuicksearchRecent Entries
Blogs of Interest
Warning many of the following blogs are not Catholic or pro-life! My ears are burning...
"Cool blog! ...I like your honest and smart style..." -- Glenn McGee" "A must for every pro-lifer's bookmarks." -- Fr. Tim Finigan "really worth talking about" -- GOP Soccer Mom "She knows her stuff..." -- Spinal Confusion "a valuable resource" -- Amy Welborn "a must read for any Catholic or Medical Ethicist" -- Tomfoolery of a Seminarian "She's charitable AND loyal to the team. What a gal!" -- Amateur Catholics "For the love of little green apples!" -- Sailorette Categories |