Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view









Personhood Beyond the Human Conference whats new at ieet
Backing into Eden: Chapter 1 &2 – We are Responsible / The Beasts of the Field

Futurist Jamais Cascio envisions a sustainable, resilient world

What’s the Rational Choice? Risk, Values and the Politics of Geoengineering

Prison Industrial Complex in America

Engineering the Future: Geoengineering

The American prison system

Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People’s Terms of Service

Imagination Experiment: Visualizing Transformative Tech

From Mars to the Multiverse

The singularity: merging human/machine to achieve immortality


ieet books

eGods: Faith versus Fantasy in Computer Gaming
Author
by William Sims Bainbridge


comments

Henry Bowers on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 23, 2013)

Dick Pelletier on 'The singularity: merging human/machine to achieve immortality' (May 23, 2013)

dobermanmac on 'The singularity: merging human/machine to achieve immortality' (May 23, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 23, 2013)

SHaGGGz on 'Prison Industrial Complex in America' (May 23, 2013)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Life in the 2040s: nanofactories, flying cars, household robots, more
by Dick Pelletier
Apr 30, 2013
(6469) Hits
(1) Comments

Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem
by Jon Perry
May 1, 2013
(5493) Hits
(2) Comments

Organ, tissue replacement could end aging by mid-2020s
by Dick Pelletier
May 14, 2013
(3266) Hits
(1) Comments

Noam Chomsky on Libertarians
Andy80o
Apr 27, 2013
(3195) Hits
(15) Comments

Radical life extension: living a 1,000 year lifespan
by Dick Pelletier
May 7, 2013
(2770) Hits
(0) Comments

Imagine No Religion. On Facebook.
by Valerie Tarico
May 4, 2013
(2702) Hits
(150) Comments



IEET > Rights > FreeThought > Privacy > PostGender > ReproRights > Directors > George Dvorsky

Print Email permalink (32) Comments (5435) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


It’s a control thing: Religion and human reproduction


George Dvorsky
George Dvorsky
Sentient Developments

Posted: Oct 19, 2010

Christianity is, like many other religions, a reproduction control system.

Its various sects take great pains to enforce a sexual code of conduct-and for very good reason. There’s no better way for churches to control group behavior and ensure the growth of their flock than through the control of human reproduction. This explains why many Christians find it so important to get involved in biotechnological and bioethical discourse; it’s crucial for Christian leaders to show their followers that they have authority over these areas, as authority imbues a sense of ownership.
im1
Catholicism is a prime example. The Vatican’s uncompromising stance on virtually all facets of reproduction shows how integral it is to the faith. Birth control, abortion, homosexuality and recreational sex (including sexual acts and positions that cannot lead to procreation) are considered taboos as each of these things represent a kind of subversion. And as far as health science is concerned, procedures like in vitro fertilization (IVF) are shunned upon as such practices wrest control away from the Church and towards individual couples and doctors. The injunction to ‘not play God’ is a memetic trick which convinces the faithful to avoid certain areas of inquiry traditionally reserved for the Church.

At the same time, Christians work to uphold so-called family values, knowing full well that the family unit is unquestioningly the most important vector for the entrenchment and spread of religious values.

Religious leaders and ideologues may argue that the reasons for their interest in human biology extend beyond mere reproduction. Instead, they argue that their domain extends into the realm of morality and spirituality, and that ‘reproductive control’ is a trite interpretation of their motives.

Now, I’m sure many of them are sincere when they make this case. That’s how memes work, with hosts convinced that they’re acting rationally and in the collective best interest. Memetics is, at its core, a study of the tendencies and vulnerabilities in human psychology.

In the case of human reproduction, Christians make the case for such things as embryonic personhood (or ensoulment) and espouse a strong interpretation of naturalism (i.e. humans were created in God’s image). The problem with these arguments, however, is that they are rooted in fictions. The subsequent rationalizations and injunctions that emerge from these premises are thus intrinsically flawed.

Ultimately, once the arguments are stripped down and exposed for what they are, it’s painfully obvious that the Christian memeplex is merely working to control human reproduction and the makeup of family units for the purpose of producing more willing hosts. One merely needs to stand back and look at the world’s most successful religions as proof; those faiths that work to control human reproduction, namely Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (though Islam and Hinduism less so than Christianity) are undeniably the ones who have fared the best over the ages. It’s the killer memetic adaptation.

As an example of the opposite effect, take the Shaker movement. It’s a 250 year-old Christian sect that acquired a rather disadvantageous characteristic-call it a maladaptive trait. According to Shaker law, all members of the faith are forbidden to engage in sexual activity. Reproduction is completely prohibited. The only way for Shakers to have children is through adoption, but even that was rejected in 1960. The only way new members could be acquired was from outside the community, which happened with great infrequency.

Today, the Shakers are all but finished. Their communities started to dwindle in the late 1800s. Although there were 6,000 believers at the peak of the Shaker movement, there were only twelve Shaker communities left by 1920. As of today, they are down to their last three members.

While most Christian sects have avoided this particular problem, they’re not immune to changing social patterns and mores. The Vatican is having fits over the whole birth control thing. When it comes to family planning and recreational sex, Catholics and Christians alike are increasingly turning a blind eye to scripture. Couples want to continue engaging in sexual activity without having to have eight children. Additionally, infertile couples are choosing to have babies through IVF despite the Church’s admonition against it.

The decline of Christian influence in much of the developed world (especially in Europe, but except, quite perplexingly, the USA) can be attributed to higher living standards and improved education-factors that lead couples to want smaller families and less to do with organized religion. Meanwhile, Christianity and Islam continues to spread in developing nations whose populations are still primed for religious memes.

But given the speed with which the developing world is catching up to the rest, it will only be a matter of time before they too start to shun religious laws that govern sexual activities and reproduction. Mark this as yet another reason to bring everyone up to first world standards.


George Dvorsky serves as Chair of the IEET Board of Directors and also heads our Rights of Non-Human Persons program. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.
Print Email permalink (32) Comments (5436) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


Considering that the US was founded by religious extremists seeking to escape the tolerance and lack of persecution they were forced to cope with in Europe, I’m really not surprised that religion has lingered so long in the “American Ideal”





Hmm. I have a hard time with this post. I think that it reflects something that is—IMHO—a fundamental detriment in the movement: namely, a default devaluation of human spiritual aesthetics. Ultimately I fear that this constitutes—like the Shakers’ memeplex—a maladaptive feature of transhuman memes. I’ve articulated my perceptions here:

http://loverev.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/transhumanism-the-meme-that-defeats-itself/





George, what are your thoughts on Nick Bostrom’s argument that “. . . under certain conditions the only possible remedy [to catastrophic evolutionary outcomes] would be a globally coordinated policy to control human evolution . . .”? http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html





I find it ironic that you construct your argument almost entirely on the allegation that Christian moral ethics are based on fictions.

First of all, to which Christian moral ethics are you referring? If it’s just Catholicism, you should clarify your statement. It is of some significance to note that not all Christians have the same view of the eternal nature of mankind, the origins of spiritual knowledge, or even the character and attributes of God for that matter, let alone what constitutes morality.

Secondly, you have no evidence to support your position as to the lack of validity behind “Christian morality”. Your claim is pure conjecture. Your own observation then becomes an appropriate summation of your piece: “The subsequent rationalizations and injunctions that emerge from these premises are thus intrinsically flawed.”





How do we ensure that there is a continued respect for humanity even as we move past biologically determined humanity? How do we build benevolence into transhumanism?

One way may be not to assume causation when discussing correlation.  Control is related to dogma, whether it is religious or scientific. Each of us individually and collectively needs to question where we react rather than explore, where we assert rather than learn.

Some theologians such as Ted Peters have provided very good reasoning in favor of issues such as IVF, stem cell research, etc. Spirituality is not monolithic. To embrace spirit is not to also deny science.

You are right that one goal may be for faith communities to engage in conversations about the beliefs underlying the dogma. Adherence to human-created rules or beliefs may sometimes drive us away from embracing the promise of radical love that spirit has the potential to drive us towards.

Bringing everyone up to “first world” standards in terms of health and sanitation is an excellent goal, but we also have much to learn from developing indigenous populations in terms of community, respect for the environment and flat, participative decision-making. 

The standard then, perhaps, should be creating an atmosphere of respect and inclusiveness that can help us get to the root causes of the dangerous memes.





Agreed, George.
However, academia can be thought of as religious in its hierarchical nature: the university president as Pope; university presidents’ immediate underlings as cardinals; deans of the schools as bishops; professors as priests; student bodies as the congregations; tuition as that which is deposited in the offering basket smile





“[The] memeplex is merely working to control human reproduction and the makeup of family units for the purpose of producing more willing hosts.”

Hear hear.





So you are not really after the truth of things, but rather want to try and create a reality that suits your ends, because the Church you describe does not actually exist.

You paint religion as about control as if your science is about freedom. Like it’s not about control, too. It’s been about control since the time of Bacon.

It’s actually a little ironic.  The Church, if anything, doesn’t want people to control reproduction at all but rather let nature take its course, provided that they act responsibly to the children they have and that they can also control themselves. That’s a huge simplification, but pertinent. Virtue drives doctrine.

It’s the non-religious science types that want to control reproduction: Make it happen, prevent it, stop it midstream, outsource gestation, mix-n-match, pick-n-choose, improve, thwart, alter, modify, experiment. All words meaning “control.” Meanwhile, they want affirmation that their irresponsibility and lack of self control are good, and so bristle at anyone saying otherwise.

Surely the first thing trans/post-humanists will make is a “better” sex partner, which might be for the scientists’ freedom but for the sex partner’s slavery. You talk about super intelligence and indestructible bodies, but the money is gonna come from trans/post-humanist porn by creating beings who are good for nothing else.





Mr. Dvorsky should perhaps read some Catholic doctrine, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available at WalMart).

The primary driver behind sexual ethics is the rights of the child. 

Philosophically speaking, a child has the right to be born and raised by its own married parents.  Fornication and IVF jeopardize these fundamental rights of the child.

Why a blind eye towards the sexually immature, Mr. Dvorsky?





In all honesty, this discussion will be resolved when GOD does return and leaves no doubt about his existence, his desire for his creation and our future, until then there will be incessant dialogue populated by adherants of both religious experience and secular persuasions.





This is probably the most intellectually dishonest article I have ever encountered. No more needs to be said.





“Philosophically speaking, a child has the right to be born and raised by its own married parents. “

A whole bunch of assumption.

A child, a new instance of a process called “life” is the result of the laws of nature acting over billions of years - exploding stars, and trillions of previous instances during evolution. It has no inherent “right” to exist. Talking about a right makes no sense. The assertion that a particular instance of life has a “right” to exist is not even absurd.

Neither does it have a “right” to be “raised” by its own “married” parents.

Marriage is a concept belonging to a particular memeplex. It’s a nonsensical ancient rite to those who aren’t infected and controlled by that memeplex. In the natural world there is no “marriage”.

“Raising” means different things to different species, cultures, and individuals. Raising children just happens to be what we tend to do, because of our genes and the memeplex we adhere to.

Some species “raise” their offspring by leaving them on their own. You could as well say that they have the “right” to be “raised” that way. Many humans especially in the developing nations, leave their children to be taken care of by others. Some parents in the developed nations do this too, because they feel they’re unfit to raise them or just couldn’t care less.

Almost everyone commenting here seems totally oblivious to what this article is about. The memes call the shots. Got it? No? Why not? Perhaps because the memes won’t let you.





Memester, maybe the meme wants you to think it’s calling the shots? wink





Memester, thank you for your comments, but one will notice I agree with you in not claiming anyone has a right to “exist”.  I claimed the existing child has the right to continue his life.  Science tells us that would include birth.

Since the child had no say whatsoever in his creation, but his parents did, do not the parents hold the primary responsibility of providing basic needs, even should that entail adoption?  Thus my definition of “raise” is “provide basic needs for childhood”—I could define childhood elsewhere, if necessary.

Finally, marriage is the most reasonable way to ensure (1) a child knows his identity, to which he has a right, since his existence is non-trivial, but actual (2) the spouses can depend on one another (each contributing 23 of the 46 chromosomes of their child) for the monumental task of raising the child and its demands on them emotionally, financially, logistically, and physically.  The child has a right to fatherly guidance primarily from its father, and motherly likewise.

These observations of natural law are impervious to, sustained by, and acknowledged by any and all cultures at some level, regardless of apparent mental pre-conditionings.





Once again, people get religion and spirituality mixed up.

Concerning religion (an institution, not a particular belief about reality) George is absolutely, 100%, hands down correct.

In fact, this extends to all institutions, not just religions, it’s in the nature of collectivism, and ‘estrangement from the self’ (being imprinted by the memeplex). It’s just that religion is one of the oldest, most pervasive, and least logical (as in it’s actual claims are nearly total insanity) institutions.

But, regardless of your beliefs about the nature of reality, the fact is, is that religion, as an institution, is absolutely about reproduction: if it weren’t, it wouldn’t survive (i.e. Shakers).





“A child, a new instance of a process called “life” is the result of the laws of nature acting over billions of years - exploding stars, and trillions of previous instances during evolution. It has no inherent “right” to exist. Talking about a right makes no sense. The assertion that a particular instance of life has a “right” to exist is not even absurd.”

You got it just so. The above pro-faith arguments fail because:
A) If original sin means children are born outright evil (some thoroughly Evil) it means not all children have absolute ‘rights’. As the religious ought to know, ‘rights’ are imprecise if not downright fuzzy; rights are easily confused with privileges and prerogatives.
B) There is something to the charge that the pious care more about fetuses (or the ‘unborn’, if you wish) than the post-natal. Worst of all IMO, religious charity is often giving away what one doesn’t want in exchange for tax-deductions; more like garbage disposal than charity… you wouldn’t feed table scraps to your own children, would you?

As for h+ versus religion, I would want to be both a biologist and a theologian before even thinking about opening such a can of worms.





This guy has literally nothing, nada, to back up his claims. If he would look at Catholic Church teachings and read books such as Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, he would see that there are good reasons not to use contraception. The Catholic Church does not promote having a bunch of children. They advocate “natural” family planning. If this guy would move his mind away from conspiracy mode and look at the truth, then he would see how ridiculous his claims are.





What would be good is more articles concerning eastern religion & bioprogressivism.
Pieces written by PROUTists, and from Dr. Hughes on Buddhism, etc.

Virtually all at IEET live in the West; however the East deserves Equal Time.





Mr. Dvorsky writes: “Christianity(‘s) various sects take great pains to enforce a sexual code of conduct—and for very good reason. There’s no better way for churches to control group behavior and ensure the growth of their flock than through the control of human reproduction.”

I’m picturing a critic of China’s one-child system saying almost the same thing: “China takes great pains to enforce a sexual code of conduct—and for very good reason. There’s no better way for the government to control group behavior and ensure their power than through the control of human reproduction.”

What do we have here? One group enforcing a sexual code to maximize children and the other to minimize children. Since the argument can go either way, the claim in the article must be backed up by more evidence.





“Arguments rooted in fiction”. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. The truth is, you don’t know “The Truth”





This is kind of a ‘well duh’ article, but I present it to reinforce that what we’re really talking about is the drive of institutions to control reproduction, not any particular metaphysical belief in itself, and that religion is such an institution, and one of the most pervasive and oldest of them all.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-younger-brains-easier-rewire.html

Younger brains are easier to rewire

A new paper from MIT neuroscientists, in collaboration with Alvaro Pascual-Leone at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, offers evidence that it is easier to rewire the brain early in life.





“What do we have here? One group enforcing a sexual code to maximize children and the other to minimize children”

China and, say, America, are not comparable. Different demographics.





Memester writes: “Marriage is a concept belonging to a particular memeplex. It’s a nonsensical ancient rite…”

When religious folks appeal to things ancient, they can be accused of the logical fallacy of “Appeal to Tradition.” But “Appeal to Novelty” is no less a logical fallacy.





“But ‘Appeal to Novelty’ is no less a logical fallacy.”

That doesn’t say anything positive about marriage, though.

 





Please forgive this question (I’m fairly new to this forum), but what is the purpose here? Is it to simply express our opinions or are we trying to collectively understand the issue with a hope that we may be able to influence the meme or replace it with one that is more benevolent/beneficent? If it is the former, then I’ve nothing to add.

If it is the latter, let’s consider that we’ve been talking apples and oranges, goal and tactic.  For religion, the goal (as the religions most likely see it and as Henry Bowers pointed out) is protection of life / the child. The tactic is the dogma/controlling behavior as George points out. And, are we trying to address the birth control/population growth meme or the “don’t tamper with Mother Nature meme”? They’re related but not the same.

Some faiths see children as a person’s wealth.  The reasons are numerous and include personal beliefs and logistical, health and political motives.

What is the transhumanist POV? Was it Michael Vassar or Eliezer Yudkowsky who talked about transhumanist technologies (e.g. genetic interventions, cloning) being able to eradicate diseases in the 21st century as we did with small pox in the last century? Theologian Ted Peters talks about freeing people from biological determinism. How can we communicate respect for life and the individual?

What can we offer as an alternative, equally powerful meme?

IMHO, the goal isn’t to be right by making religion wrong.  The goal isn’t either Eastern or Western religion but how do we benefit from both.  It is how do we help those who are religious see the promise and potential that transhumanism has to offer.





dor, I agree: one of the goals of Transhumanism should be to help all, religious and otherwise, recognize the promise and peril of emerging tech.





As long as you fully comprehend they will attempt to monopolize everything they can for their families, their connections.
Chirpiness is for birds, not for humans and transhumans—
unless perhaps you think Jesus is going to Come Back and save us?





@ Dor…

Quote - “IMHO, the goal isn’t to be right by making religion wrong. The goal isn’t either Eastern or Western religion but how do we benefit from both. It is how do we help those who are religious see the promise and potential that transhumanism has to offer.”

Exactly, You nailed it!

This is precisely why Transhumanism, H+, should be promoted as philosophy in the same way as with existentialism, guided by the ethics of Self-understanding and personal responsibility. In this way Transhumanism is open and available to all belief systems that wish to embrace it, which builds towards connectedness of humanity and not towards division.

If you reason, there is not one human on earth that has not or is not benefiting from technology, this makes us all, religious or otherwise, already technoprogressives. Transhumanism is merely the extension of technoprogression towards even greater goals and aspirations.

The technological advancements and benefits of birth control, IVF for infertile couples, overcoming disease and disability, extension of life and longevity, and other, will show themselves of value to all of us, and even antiquated religious memes will not be able to hold back technological evolution.

For those that wish to follow non-reliance upon birth control, all well and fine, just realise that you must therefore abstain from sex. The Pope is required to abstain as a part of his venerable position, therefore he only naturally sees that all humans can and should follow his devotion to faith. Yet if all Catholics did abstain, there would be decrease in numbers. All religions naturally fear for their dwindling numbers and demise, and so accommodate and make allowances, (as far as tenets permit).

Yet we should indeed be more responsible where procreation and population growth is concerned, and examine the cultural memes and the “selfishness” behind the reasons that humans build families and have children. Do we have children to help the world, or to aspire to personal goals and expectations? Do couples need to have children to extend their love for each other, or towards God?

Here is a rational prognosis for population growth and where this is leading humanity.

Visualizing Global Population Growth

“The world’s population will grow to 9 billion over the next 50 years — and only by raising the living standards of the poorest can we check population growth.”

>> http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20101019





Apolologies..

This is the correct link for the IEET item..

Here is a rational prognosis for population growth and where this is leading humanity.

Visualizing Global Population Growth

“The world’s population will grow to 9 billion over the next 50 years — and only by raising the living standards of the poorest can we check population growth.”

>> http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4192





“Yet if all Catholics did abstain, there would be decrease in numbers. All religions naturally fear for their dwindling numbers and demise, and so accommodate and make allowances, (as far as tenets permit).”

No, Plenty of orphans for Catholics to adopt; for instance no shortage of third world children to adopt.
If we are going to be fair to Islam, we ought to be fair to Catholics. But do what you want—just don’t be surprised when others do the same.





PS:
” ‘Some men see things as they are and say, Why? I of dream things that never were, and say, Why not?’
George Bernard Shaw”

This Shaw quote from your site’s quotation-kiosk is illuminating, Robert Kennedy used to repeat it as it states what is correct concerning progressivism. What is not right concerning progressivism is the casualty rate: RFK himself was assassinated. Also his brother; Martin Luther King; even John Lennon. Today economic means are used to destroy others—every second of every day. Why am I so pessimistic? For starters, what do you think the GOP is going to do when they obtain more power next January?: not something we want to dwell on. Not to say YOU shouldn’t be optimistic, however there is no need for hype, the benefits of h+ can be recommended without any gloss.
As the stark but effective Alcor truism goes: “cryopreservation is the second worst thing that can happen to you.” We can tell the public the future might be quite ugly ethically & aesthetically, yet if they live very long lives the ugliness might eventually abate.
Why can’t we be more open about it? is there some reason? Is hype necessary after all?





Me, from before: “What do we have here? One group enforcing a sexual code to maximize children and the other to minimize children. Since the argument can go either way, the claim in the article must be backed up by more evidence.”

postfuturist responds: “China and, say, America, are not comparable. Different demographics.”

That’s fine, but my point still stands.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Surviving the Future

Previous entry: Terraforming the Earth, Taken Seriously

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376