Once could consider the species being as a sort of aggregation of human natures within a particular society. With this in mind it easy is to understand why Marx believed humans were capable of making or shaping their own nature. An important question is whether we sacrifice the integrity of the species-being if we consider only genetic intervention in terms of individual reproductive liberties?
Ethical questions therefore focused on considerations of who we are as human beings and how we define our lives and ourselves. What science does today is by its very nature, a social activity. What they discover and what they conclude is subject to the social constructions that they inhabit. Now reconsider the question of whether we sacrifice the integrity of the species-being if we consider genetic intervention only in terms of individual reproductive liberties? Therefore we are not satisfying the true scope of the species-being if we narrow our consideration to the individual reproductive liberties of an individual over that of the society at large.
Reconsider previous points made about the affects on those who intervene and the effects on those who are genetically altered; it seems that these consequences arise when considerations of the community of individuals are relegated behind the considerations of individual reproductive liberties.
This holds especially true when considering the third consequence discussed earlier, the degradation of the liberal morality of the society as a result of normalizing something like genetic intervention practices. The fourth mechanism of Marxian alienation is that from other human beings. The alienation that results from the labour and production of material items essentially subordinates human interaction to the relationship between things.
Human interaction becomes impersonal to the individuals involved. Therefore, this alienation converts the social relationships of men into relationships between property owners. The true conscious existence of man is social activity and social satisfaction, since man himself is a social being. Is then the geneticization of the human individual simply reinforcing the alienation of man from man?
Is not the reduction of men to genes in essence substantiating the inequalities present within society, especially in genetic intervention presents a clear choice for individuals to make. Richard C. Lewontin, a prominent American scientist who pioneered in modern genetic analysis and fathered the field of molecular evolution, also established himself in the field of social biology and evolutionary psychology. Lewontin has repeatedly voiced his concerns about the modern trend towards the oversimplification of genetics. How can we so easily reduce the most complex of human traits and characteristics to the scope of gene sequences in our DNA.
In his book Biology as Ideology , Lewontin counters mainstream arguments for genetic determinism by explaining that much of the variation observed in nature is neither genetic nor environmental bur rather attributable to random variable growth, something he calls developmental noise. Attributing variation to developmental noise is not, he argues, the same as saying the differences were coded in genes.
Another determinist idea is that of individual capacities. Certain proponents of genetic determinism argue that every organism is the coupled result of both environmental and genetic factors; however, natural variation is a sign that organisms may have varying capacities of development.
Lewontin not only counters that there is no substantial biology to back this theory but also explains the dangerous potential of such ignorantly based ideologies about an individual. Genetic variations exist everywhere in nature and as often is the case, no single variation can be said to be absolutely superior to another. Certainly particular genetic variations display greater success in specific environments, but that cannot posit a clearly superior or inferior trait. Therefore organismal capacity is insufficient in accounting for variation. In Not in Our Genes , Lewontin along with fellow colleagues question much of the claimed heritability of human behavioral traits such as intelligence as measured by IQ tests.
Lewontin even disregarded some of the lofty claims of the Human Genome Project under the premise that much that the HGP claimed simply assumed too much in the promise of the gene code. Chapter 5 of this book begins with Lewontin defining fetish: an inanimate object worshipped by savages on account of its supposed inherent magical powers, or as being animated by a spirit.
Lewontin makes some very good points in this analysis. Certainly, there have been cases through the development of the genetic field where individuals have taken genes beyond the scope of their potential, in the attempts to substantiate certain social agendas with apparent scientific backing. When we reexamine the fourth mechanism of alienation that Marx details, it is possible to consider serious social ramification of allowing genetic intervention to become a commonplace practice.
An inevitable consequence would be the geneticization of inequality within social systems. It is fundamentally evident that as people begin developing preferential selectivity for genetic character traits, there must also be some implicit selection against certain traits.
In an equitable liberal system this imbalance in individual standards is impermissible in order to maintain stability. In this case, genetic intervention not only reinforces the alienation between men but also seems to scientifically substantiate the claim that genetic variability may indicate superior and inferior genes. There is a strong modern trend towards providing individuals a choice when dealing with genetic intervention, or what some term procreative liberty.
Proponents argue that the freedom to deal with cases of genetic intervention should be counted among the several other liberties that democratic constitutions entitle to individuals today. Robertson makes a lengthy case on the side of an individuals right to choose how to deal with genetic intervention on a case-by-case basis. Finally, in accordance with his claim of procreative beneficence, Robertson indicates that in cases of genetic intervention, the parents have a moral obligation to ensure the best chance for their offspring. Marxian social philosophy is aged and storied yet it still presents solid principles that have strong modern applications.
The theory of alienated labour can be used to describe the modern debates about the roles of genetic science in a very modern liberal society. The fundamental idea that is conveyed today through the Marxist tradition as it pertains to this genomic era is a call for caution and moderation. The social consequences of not showing restraint as the field of modern molecular genetics develops are important to assess and be aware of. Although proponents of genetic intervention argue on behalf of procreative beneficence and procreative liberties, the Marxist intellectual would advise to err on the side of caution and restraint.
Lewontin, Richard C. Not in Our Genes. Simon ed. Shannon, Thomas A. Lost your password? Print Print See all. August 15, Online See all. Law and Neuroscience December 17, Plague Outbreaks in Madagascar December 16, Events See all. Dinner with Professor Hecht March 28, Introduction Science and technology are at the forefront of our society today.
His precautionary principle mandates "reasonable" measures against "nonnegligible " threats. Technological maintenance-ensuring normal operation and safety of workers in accordance with the processes cleaning, inspection, washing, interoperative surveillance, etc. As will be developed in greater detail below, they must learn to be agile, take risks, fail fast, and apply lessons. Principles of Nanomagnetism NanoScience and Technology. Large companies, the authors write, have, in the past, "hardened themselves against failure. In particular, how would agents adjudicate intuitions that do not presuppose the same moral-similarity concept? To make this goal a reality, teacher preparation programs, school systems, state and local policymakers, and educators should come together in the interest of designing pre- and in-service professional learning opportunities that are aligned specifically with technology expectations outlined within state standards and that are reflective of the increased connectivity of and access to devices in schools.
The four principle mechanisms of human alienation discussed by Marx are: Alienation from product Alienation from the act of production Alienation from the species-being Alienation from other human beings Marxian Alienation: A Modern Context The First Mechanism of Alienation Marx argued that to achieve true human flourishing, we as individuals must first overcome the different mechanisms of alienation in order to express our full humanity in relation both to nature and one another, and framed this argument within the subtext of alienated labour.
Not Enabled. No customer reviews. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a product review. Back to top.
Principles of Modern Technology [Adrian C. Melissinos] on ykoketomel.ml *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Based on a course taught at the University of. Principles of Modern Communications Technology (Artech House Telecommunications Library) [A. Michael Noll] on ykoketomel.ml *FREE* shipping on.
Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Length: pages. Language: English. Audible Download Audio Books. DPReview Digital Photography. Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands.