As technology advances and researchers develop new applications for technological discoveries, they may open Pandora’s Box by giving consumers too much freedom to try, and very difficult choices to make. In her article, “The Made-To-Order Savior”, Lisa Belkin shows how the modern technology involved in human reproduction can be used in order to save a child’s life. The author compares the story of two children, of whom one had the chance of being able to use this technology, and this saved her life. However, for this to happen, her parents needed to have a perfectly matching sibling whose blood cells could be used for a transplant. The ethical controversy surrounding this issue is compared to the benefits. On the other hand, in Sherry Tuckle’s article, the problem of replacing living creatures with robots, in the midst of humanity’s increasing dependence on technology is discussed. The author fears the day when robot companionship will replace family members, because this would mean the end of intimacy and true human experience. In both these articles, the individual consumer’s capacity to take a reasonable decision with regards to technological promises is questioned. Human beings can rarely take objective decisions because these decisions must be filtered through the very core of our humanity, namely human emotion. To a great extent technological advancements are involved in making life easier or even saving it, but these benefits may sometimes not be enough to justify the use of certain technological procedures, simply because they can be made. In biomedical cases, where a parent is left with the choice of using an unborn child in order to save the life of a one who already lives, he or she may make the wrong choice because of too much love and desperation. On the other hand, negative feelings of loneliness, desperation, or fear, may cause people to reject having an emotional life altogether, and choose technology as a replacement. While technological advancement is necessary and useful, ordinary people cannot be trusted to make objective decisions in regards to its potential uses, because our emotions make us vulnerable to ethical mistakes.
Human beings should be saved by means of science whenever this is possible, and whenever this does not hurt another human being. In Belkin’s article, the case of two children sick with Fanconi anemia shows how modern technology can represent a vital instrument in saving human lives. Molly’s life was saved because her parents were able to have a perfectly matching sibling, whose umbilical cord blood could be used for a life-saving transplant (Belkin). However, on the other hand, Henry’s fate was different, because he had to rely on an unrelated donor, and this reduced his chances of survival to a minimum (Belkin). In this case, the parents’ struggle to save their children is determined by their strong love, but that does not mean that the sibling would not be loved in turn, or that he would suffer knowing that his birth meant the salvation of his sister. Even if in this case, scientists selected an embryo who would be both healthy and a perfect match, it does not represent a crossing of the line. Parents have the right to try everything that technology is able to provide, because they are led by their positive feelings of love for the sick child. Saving a human life can only be wrong if it means killing another instead, and this was a choice that these parents did not have to make. On the other hand, in discussing human authenticity, Tuckle showed that the loss of value of human life, in favor of technological simulation of life, which offers humans the possibility to blunt their feelings, and to favor robot companionship. As Tuckle (9) showed, humanity faces a dangerous moment when we are very close of replacing real connection with the simulation of connection. In this case, where humans seem not to realize the importance and value of living companionship, a line must be drawn at what human beings should be allowed to do with technology.
Thus, people should not be allowed to use technology at will because human emotions such as too much love, or too much loneliness, can determine people to take very subjective and wrong decisions, which can throw humanity into a crisis. In Belkin’s article, the author shows that parents feel that doing everything possible to save a child is never wrong. Lisa Nash, Molly’s mother says, “we did what we needed to do to keep our daughter from dying,'' . ''That is what any parent would do. Isn't this what parents are supposed to do? How can anything be wrong with that?”(Belkin). This shows that parents would stop at nothing when it comes to their children’s health. Indeed, in most cases, nothing is wrong with it. However, if Molly’s health would have deteriorated to the point that she needed a transplant urgently, the mother could have decided to interrupt her pregnancy in order to use stem cells from Adam’s fetal liver to save Molly. This decision, which would have meant putting an end to the unborn child’s life, has many more ethical implications, because it means using Adam for his organs alone, without concern or respect for his life. From this point of view, the statement that one parent made, namely that she believed in love and science alone (Belkin), is problematic, because love and science, when combined, can lead to disastrous decisions. This is linked to Tuckle’s work. Here, the author fears that, being programmed to love what we nurture, we can reach the point of loving a robot, and replacing him for human life (Turckle 11). In both these readings, while technology gives people an escape, it also represents a dangerous route towards the loss of humanity.
In both articles, the loss of humanity occurs due to an abuse of evolving technology. If no limit exists to the use of technology, then this can lead to unimaginable choices. For example, in her article, Belkin shows that ethicists fear that the same technology which was used to create a perfect donor for Molly could be used to select perfectly healthy children, from ones with the potential of developing diseases, or even to choose a child’s appearance before conception. Also, Belkin wonders how far would parents be ready to take their desire to see their child safe. The author asks, “what would prevent couples whose child needed a new kidney from waiting until the fetal kidney was large enough, then terminating the pregnancy and salvaging the organs? What would stop those same couples from waiting until the child was born and subjecting it to surgery to remove one kidney? Once the technology exists, who decides how to use it?” (Belkin). This image supposes a parent deliberately mutilating his child, to save another one. Ethically, this is a wrong decision, but desperation may determine parents to take this decision instead of their infant child. On the other hand, in Tuckle’s article, it is shown that, in what human connectivity is concerned, humanity has already started the path towards loss of authenticity, and consequences towards abusing technology. The author shows that “the blurring of intimacy and solitude may reach its starkest expression when a robot is proposed as a romantic partner” (Tuckle 12). The author, fears that someday, people would love robots, and may marry them, as they would lose the will to associate with human beings, for fear of having their feelings hurt. While Belkin showed that these ideas represent the ethicists’ tendency to think in terms of a slippery slope, there is much more to it, because the technology keeps advancing and the society continues to make more and more concessions to what is ethically acceptable and what is not. Slowly but surely as technology will tempt human beings with more and more possibilities, and promises to offer solutions to difficult problems, people may stop being concerned about the larger implications of their acts.
Therefore, while technology should advance and should provide more options for saving lives whenever possible, and meeting parents’ greatest hopes of recovery for their children, the society should never allow technology to threaten human experience, to replace life with a simulation of life, or to use one unborn child’s organs in order to save another child. Ethicists should continue to question the use of technology, when there is a risk that new tools can be used in ways that endanger the society’s humanity. People cannot be always trusted to take the correct ethical decision, because the same humanity which needs to be protected, sometimes makes people take decisions based on their feelings of love, loneliness, despair, or fear of being hurt. Belkin, Lisa. Parental love, the greatest feeling a human being could have, can become a weakness because parents cannot be expected to take objective decisions when the lives of their children is at stake. Furthermore, when it feels more comfortable loving a robot, than a human beings who may not love one back, people can become confuse as to which is better. However, people may forget that while a human being may offer emotional comfort, the robot would never love them back, even if it may be able to simulate love. For this reason, regulations should be put in place in order to protect human beings from themselves, and from their own feelings. Human beings’ right to self-determination should not be violated, as long as it does not harm themselves, or others.
Works Cited
Belkin, Lisa. “The Made-to-Order Savior”. The New York Times. 2001.Web.
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less for Each Other. New York: Basic Books. 2011. Print.
