Granted the information contained in the human genetic code is treated and expressed like a language, but that is because as human beings language is our only means of communication. The transferral of knowledge or information of any kind is impossible or nearly so, without some kind of language, even if it is a primitive sign language of grunts, pointing and head nods. So the identification of the language like qualities and the rhetorical elements of genetic code seem trivial to me. I hardly feel that I would be qualified as an expert in any way, even if I were pursue a terminal degree in exactly the areas of compositional studies that Dr. Sidler promotes as the source of our field's expertise.
This seems a much more basic human question. Certainly the tie to the humanities, where we are studying mankind's efforts to create and preserve meaning throughout our existance, the study of what it means to be human must be far more relevant to this question than our knowledge of intellecual property and copyright issues. As Sidler so thoroughly points out we are moving into a time where the idea of a cyborg is not so strange, and where some thinkers are apparently already publishing and referring to certain elements of humanity as such. A new thing, a combination of technology (in whichever form it may take, biological or otherwise) and, for lack of a better term, natural humanity.
I have to admit skepticism about her time table as well. While we have progressed to a level of technology that would befuddle and bewilder our ancestors, these changes have not equalled what was hoped for or predicted even fifty years ago when we were also "on the verge." There will always be a new technology which promises that we are "on the verge" of something. We have not developed the technology they predicted in the ways they predicted nor do I expect these things being predicted here will play out so thoroughly as to make this article or anything written today a cogent guide to this biotechnological wonderland of the future.
The impact on the classroom and on pedagogical practice of such developments, were they to occur in the fashion she is describing, are of real concerns, but certainly must be extended to the field of educators in general, with no special bearing upon us as composition scholars/educators any more than any other educator. But to an extent, the acceptance of such a regime of enhancements means a reinforcing of the haves and have nots as is always the case. Those with the means to be "early adopters" will gain an advantage they will never relinquish to the mere mortals, the mere humans they leave behind. The concerns about equality and political correctness that now concern classroom rhetoric and our studies and pedagogy to such an extent will be rendered irrelevant by the massive inequities raised by such technologies.
Perhaps I am a cave man. Certainly as a father, if such a situation arose while I was still in the situation to be having children, I would have to consider what would provide the best possible future for my children. At the same time, I can say with thorough going confidence that I will never of my own free will accept any mechanical or biological enhancements. Medical treatments or prosthetics in the result of some horrible accident is one thing, but enhancements? No thank you. Simplify, Simplify! No matter how much more day there is to dawn that is one day that will never dawn for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment