Bioethics: Attack of the Clones

No, I'm not writing about Star Wars; if I did, I wouldn't write about Episode II, because it sucked. Instead, rather, in the near recent news there was a report that some team of brilliant scientists, after 15 years of work, synthesized the first artificial bacterial cell. This is a big step for us. We have created a life whose mother is a computer. There are some obvious and subtle ethical considerations to be taken into account.

Firstly, I won't be going into any sanctity of life stuff. Whether you believe some god personal made all life or that creation of life is the sole domain of "nature" (have fun defining that one), I'm just not going to dive into that mess. It would take too long unraveling those types of belief and, most times, even when one is shown the insoluble problems with those views, they still cling to it out of nostalgia and denial.

What I'm concerned with is the fact that it is INEVITABLE that we will, in the not so distant future, create some form of intelligent, organic, and wholly "artificial" (in the sense that WE created it) life and after much thought, I believe that if this life comes about, it will nearly inevitably destroy us or at least try really hard to.

I'll argue for this by making a rather sweeping generalization: all forms of life have interests, in the loose sense of the word. From bacteria to elephants to humans all living things have some recognizable set of interests. Nearly all sets of interests that come from living things include the interest to live, continue living, and procreate. Take the set of all living humans, for example. Cross culturally there are likely myriad interests that are identifiable, such as wanting to live, taking care of children, procreation, eating, and etc.

Now, the reason I chose to describe this set of motivations as "interests" is because, while some interests are ubiquitous between cultures and perhaps species, the aim of the interests are not. For instance, both pigs and humans have the same interest to live, but pigs are not humans, therefore pigs don't share in the human interest's aim of living, hence we violate their interest for our own. If some group, despite have identical interests, doesn't fall under the aim of our interests, then that group, essentially, is usable and dispensable if it will satisfy our interests.

The narrow scope of the aim of human interest doesn't stop at speciesism, but extends to racism and sexism. Surely I don't need to enumerate examples where one culture declares some other culture as being outside their interests' aims and thereby subjects that culture to some form of horrible treatment. Our history is rife with those examples. In fact, the aim of our interests shifts depending on circumstance, in a more primitive and desperate world the aims would only include one's tribe, or family, or ,in most desperate of situations, oneself.

So, many interests are ubiquitous, but certain groups only count the interests of other members of that group. If group A and B have an identical set of interests but neither A or B count members of the other group as falling within the aim of their own interest, then there is ethical problem in destroying the other group.

I am reminded of the time I sat down and watched Pokemon the 1st Movie with my kids a long time ago. The basic story was that some guy, using the genetic material of an extinct but powerful pokemon to create a new and improved version of it. But, this new test tube pokemon revolted, destroyed his creators and fled. He went on to recreate the cloning procedure, made his own batch of cloned pokemon, and set out to destroy the world. Why? During his villainous monologue he revealed that because he was a clone, he had no attachments to the world, thus he wanted to create a race of clones like him and take over the world.

So this evil cloned pokemon had a set of interests, then created a group of pokemon that he could include in the aims of his interests and set about attempting to destroy all the other groups he could find in order to further his group's interests.

We will create artificial life. But no matter how similar it is to us, even if it's genetically identical to us and indistinguishable in every way, this artificial life will exclude us from its interests. Conflict is inevitable.

So forget about questions like, "Is cloning/creating artificial life morally right?" and "Does cloning/creating artificial life violate god/nature?", but rather ask yourself "Is cloning/creating artificial life safe?" I would have to answer, "No, it is most definitely not safe."

But... let's face it, our species will die, our planet will grow cold and blink out of the cosmos. I wonder then, is it not the preferred form of destruction to be had at the hands of our prodigies? If we contribute nothing to this planet but take everything, is it not a matter of karmic balance that if we create a life form, if we as a species gestate and give birth, should not our children, our unique contribution to the variety and diversity this planet hosts, end our cancerous existence?

Existentialism: What's in a game?

Howdy! It's summer time, my grueling semester is over so I thought now would be an appropriate time to resume writing. Hopefully you'll forgive me for such a long hiatus, but grad school sucks and is really, really hard.

Today, though, I want to talk about games (one of my favorite subjects). Really, what I want to investigate is the question of what, exactly, is a game? There are some very obvious candidates for things that are games out there. You plug an expensive box into your TV, put in a DVD, and beat up hookers, that's a game, obviously. But, I'm concerned with the less obvious games and to that extent what do games mean to us. I have a suspicion that games are a lot more important to us ("us" as in the universal species "us") than we think, I think games are taken for granted.

Firstly, this is a philosophy blog, so I ought to introduce some technical, philosophical stuff in here and get it out of the way. Well, it just so happens that one of the more famous modern philosophers had a few interesting things to say about games. If you've never read Wittgenstein, you should, he's a bit complicated, but unlike most other philosophers he was a quirky and very engaging writer. He was also very interested names, wanting to know why certain things were named what they were. He used the term "game" as an example of a model of how we come to name things.

Here's the basic gist:
Take blankets and duvets, what's the difference? We tend to name things based on their intrinsic (yeah, this is a dangerous word to be using in this context but we'll just move on) and functional properties. So two objects, if they share enough properties, get put into the same category or family. Blankets and duvets both belong in the family of bedding. If we really want to get picky, we could enumerate all the properties that each have. Let's do that (since all philosophers are inanely picky) using single letters to represent generic properties.

A duvet has the properties: ABDEF
A blanket has the properties: ABCDE

Notice that the way I've constructed these, both have the properties ABDE having only one property difference. So they have enough common properties to lumped into the same family. This is all very arbitrary and oversimplified, but you get the basic gist. This is the general view on how objects get categorized into families. Now, Wittgenstein said this is all well and good, but there are serious problems, what about families in which the resemblance between members is ambiguous? He used the family of games as his example.


There are all types of games, competitive and non-competitive, team and individual, group or solitaire, analogue and digital, etc etc etc. There are too many different types of games with too many different and contrary properties to enumerate. We'll look at just a few examples to get an idea of the problem. Firstly, there are standard games like baseball and football with definite rules and teams, definite winners and losers. Then there's games like chess and go played between two and only two people with definite rules. Now there are video games mostly played by one person, alone, like some fancy game of solitaire. But further, there are other games like tag, played by a large group with no definite boundaries or rules, with no clear beginning or ending, winners or losers. Can you begin to see now how the concept of game is very loose and ambiguous? Unlike simple things like blankets and duvets, what counts as a game is nowhere near as clear cut.

Yet...it doesn't at all seem hard to identify what is or is not a game. Certainly, me sitting and typing is not a game, right? My kids would argue that cleaning up their room isn't a game, right? But... I could turn it into a game, couldn't I? I could set a timer, offer a reward of simple honor and praise or even a tangible reward. I could frame cleaning their room in terms of winners and losers, etc. etc. So, cleaning a bedroom can be a game.

This leads us to the main point of this post. Every activity, big or small, CAN be a game. Nothing about the activity itself need change, just the attitude towards that activity need change in order to magically transform it into a game.

I recently watched a lecture by Carnegie Mellon University Professor Jesse Schelle which had a big impact on me. He does an amazing job of pointing out that the recent trends in electronic gaming are breaking out of the box. Digital games are leaving the TV screen and creeping their way into the real world.

I'll pause at this point for a moment. I think I've made the point as clear as need be. Games are everywhere and can be everything. If you examine your life you will likely find that there are far more games that you think. Going to work and getting a paycheck (you put in X time and work and get a paycheck that represents your score) is like a game and so is office politics. Going to school is definitely a game, you get a score at the end of the semester for your work. Driving your car, with all of its structured rules and competitive attitudes is a game. Relationships and social interactions are like games. All of these simple activities are highly structured with implicit rules and, often times, winners and losers.

What I really want to talk and wonder about is: why do we, as a species, love games sooo much. We thrive on games, somehow games speak to our very nature. Honestly, I'm baffled and have nothing of an answer as to why this is. Take the example of getting my kids to clean their room. They hate doing it, of course, but if I turn it into a game they clean with vigor. Why? Nothing about the actual reality of cleaning has changed, but because the attitude is different, their actions are different. Why? Again, I'm totally baffled.

I do know this. We love games. As a species, games are a fundamental and integral part of our existential identity. We cannot do without games. Sure, I suppose I could be writing all of this in order to justify the fact that I consider an afternoon playing Super Mario Bros. well spent, or an evening playing Magic the Gathering a good one. But I think it goes deeper. Games are not just for children, we play them throughout our entire lives. As adults we disguise our games and take them very seriously, in fact the games of adults have the power to change the world, what is capitalism if not one of the most elaborate and most played games on the planet.

So the real message here is this: you play games, you play them all day long, and you will play games for the rest of your life one way or another. Keep this in mind as you navigate whatever path in life you choose, but try to keep in mind: it's just a game and there are many to choose from, you are free to choose the games that suit you best.

Best regards,
Andrew Hickman