The Myth of Technological Resolution to Social Problems

The present age already attests to the huge gap between the rich and the poor. What is unfortunate is that, such a phenomenon is growing. Nevertheless, the effort to adjudicate this problem by the different sectors in society has not wavered. The Church, the government, private organizations and groups have their own ideal plan in mind. At times, in the execution of their programs, they clash – a testament to their indifference if not total disregard in view of the other advocates.

Therefore, more than the vigorous will to resolve the gap, the Church sees it fit to primarily gather into one these promoters and come up with a cohesive and effective game plan. However with the advent of transhumanism, the convention is, once again, shaken, if not disentangled from the already thread-thin connection.

Science embraces, to a great extent, most aspect of human life. Hence, even the noble enterprise to put forward solutions for the gap is left at the mercy of science. The argument is, most, if not all, poor people are incompetent workers. This incompetency leaves them unemployed. What science via transhumanism advances is to altogether eliminate human weakness so that even the poor can be enhanced, maximized and made to work again for their own well-being. Indeed, this honorable project is very enticing, yet it is not without its consequences.

This generation is perceived to be immature before this breakthrough. The conditions do not simply accommodate abruptly a new kind of technology for people are preoccupied, and rightly so, with other matters more urgent than that of enhancing the body; they must, first and foremost, have a body to enhance. That is to say, everyone has to attend above all the bodily requirements. If they do not, who will? They cannot simply rely on the help of the government or even the Church, for that matter. If it be pushed, however, anyone will perceive that this will only increase the gap.

Any scientific discovery or invention is coupled with an investment and a considerable amount of money. To yield returns and profit from this mean commercialization and commodification, at a high price! If this is the case, the very argument – the preferential option for the poor – by this movement is completely defeated and illusory, for the main consumer targets are ultimately the rich. Of all peoples, they will inevitably be the first beneficiaries. By the time these technologies reach the lower strata of society, they would have become obsolete or useless before other forms which may only be starting to be incorporated in the market arena.

Another negative aspect in pursuing this advocacy is, without doubt, the creation of a new form of social discrimination. Society will be divided, now with a more heightened distinction. Those who are able to afford human enhancements will constitute one group, those who cannot will be another. Science and technology is creating a super race with whom those who cannot keep up will be perpetually subjected to, if not dispensed with. Is this still a rational solution to forego if it eventually purports injustice? In other words, is injustice rational? What is science for, really? Has it turned against the human it first-handedly attempts at redeeming?

by Reveille Domingo