I was recently contacted by the Gale Group who asked to re-publish an old article of mine for an undergraduate ethics text. The column is "The Separation of Church and Bioethics," in which I call for the secularization of bioethics and describe how Christian bioethics can be problematic.
Also, Beliefnet asked me to offer an opposing viewpoint to their interview of bioconservative Nigel Cameron. I asked for the same Q&A format and I am now finalizing the final version. Here are the questions I was asked:
I am very pleased with my answers and am looking forward to seeing this published. I'll post a link once it's posted on Beliefnet.
What advantages or benefits do you see coming from nanotechnology in the future? What problems, crimes, or disadvantages do you foresee? How would you answer critics concerned about a surveillance society—constant monitoring and tracking? How can society minimize crimes committed via nanotechnology? How do you envision people might be able to “upgrade” their brains by using chips, etc.? There are concerns that “cosmetic neurology” and related things will make us less than human. How do you respond? How do you react to fears that nano-enhanced humans will become supercomputing brains with powerful machine-enhanced bodies, lording it over the plebes who can’t afford chips? Will art really be art if the artist’s brain is enhanced by technology? For example, a painter or musician? Some people feel that certain types of suffering or “malfunctioning,” while unpleasant, can make us more human and more empathetic: for example, living with mild memory loss. Will we be less human if everything about us—our minds, our memories, our bodies—is “fixed”?