• Sources
• Essay
• Discussion Questions
• Notes
• Related References

---

---

Sources

This essay comes about in response to postings on the Habermas list to discussions of Habermas' position on biotechnology and cloning.

• Who's afraid of the Big Bad Clone? Slavoj Zizek.

  This is advanced research discussion. You may need to join the Habermas list to access the archives for this list. You should join if you want to go on to advanced study of Habermas. Spoon Lists Scroll down to Habermas and link to Info for instructions on joining the mailing list.

---

---

Essay

Zizek says in the archive listed above that Habermas has published some reservations about cloning. He then goes on to argue that if we truly believe that the human is more than just a collection of genetic material acting interdependently with the structural context, that the human has the freedom and dignity of self-determination, then clones would not threaten us. The control and the threat to human dignity represented by clones represents, according to Zizek, a technological selection of the genetic composition that is brought to life. That can only threaten us if we believe that we would then be always controlled and determined by that genetic composition. But Zizek points out that once we learn the biotechnology ourselves, we can then alter that genetic composition to meet our own ends, and are not permanently enslaved by the control of an Other.

There's more on this issue in the archives, and I'll be writing more on Habermas and biotechnology. But meanwhile, search the archives if you wish to follow these philosophical arguments:

---

---

Discussion Questions

1. What leads Zizek to conclude that the indivduals cloned are not enslaved by cloning?

   jeanne's notes:

   Zizek says that the individual, once educated enough to learn biotechnology could change the genetic structure to satisfy herself. That means that she would no longer be bound by the genetic structure given her in cloning. There is, of course, an assumption here that the cloning would not preclude such education by its choice of genes controlling intellect and social access would not preclude the requisite education.

2. How are genetic decisions now made?

   jeanne's notes:

   Genetic decisions are shrouded in a mystery, and that mystery is considered sacred. No human intelligence selects which eggs and which sperm shall be fertilized and reproduce.

   It is this mystery which Bush chooses to cloak in secrecy and in the sacred. So apparently, has Habermas, at some point. But Zizek says that to refuse to see the process is not to make that process any less random, any more sacred. If you scan the link to the archive record above, you'll see this argument developed extensively.

   ---

   ---

   Notes

   • Humans have generally feared discovering that processes they believed controlled by the gods, Deux ex Machina, are in fact controlled by recognizable phenomena. At some point the mystery itself seems powerful, and to acknowledge the mystery as one more fathomable piece of the puzzle of life is less romantic than to cloak it in sacred mystery. Somehow allowing "fate" to control seems less manipulative, less fearsome.

     Zizek, it seems to me, is right to wonder at the wisdom of preferring mystery to knowledge. But many, including Horkheimer and Adorno, have warned that the Enlightenment is a two-edged sword. Knowledge is not value-free.

     Add a discussion question on the appeal of mystery vs. demystification and knowledge. Does mystery guarantee that there will be no evil manipulation by those who have demystified the process? Knowledge is difficult to censor, even if we are agreed that it should be. There's always a Dr. Frankenstein.

     ---

     ---

     Related References

     The Erosion of our Value Spheres? The ways in which society copes with scientific, moral and ethical uncertainty by Ren‚ von Schomberg, Tilburg University, Posbox 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.

---

---