suffering technology

articolo

Suffering, in the ideology of contemporary medicine,is an evil, a fate worse than death; and it is perhapsan unmitigated evil, whose presence in human expe-rience is a symbol of failure, and thus is not to be tol-erated but conquered through technology1.

Introduction

t hree-year old mallory zuidema wassuffering from a rare kidney cancercalled Wilms’ nephroblastoma. Her

distraught parents sought to understand howthis could happen to their innocent child.While people in the past would have raisedtheir fists to god, this couple pointed theirfingers at the mass of power lines hanging afew meters from their home. After extensiveresearch, they concluded that the electromag-netic field generated by the high voltage wirescan increase the incidence of certain types ofcancer, including the one that afflicted thegirl. ted and michelle zuidema eventuallysued the electric company but lost the case2.

Even though the relationship between elec-tromagnetic field exposure and carcinogeniceffects remain highly controversial, this inci-dent illustrates an irony that we face today.Science and technology has eliminated manymiseries and discomforts, but at a cost.thanks to technical advances, we now livelonger, healthier lives, travel with relative ease,and communicate with family or friends onthe other side of the globe touching a fewbuttons. most of us cannot live without thesemodern comforts—just imagine living with-out electricity or hot showers. At the sametime, we are plagued by the fact that technol-ogy can sometimes harm us, especially when

we hear about the plane crashes and cancerscaused by the modern lifestyle.the binomial of suffering and technology isthe key to deciphering many current culturaldebates. in our globalized world of high-speed internet, stem cell research, space shut-tles and instant text messaging, we are at oncedazzled by these technical possibilities andterrorized by their harmful potentials. thispaper will examine the reasons for this am-bivalence, tracing the historical developmentof thoughts regarding the subject. technol-ogy and science has replaced religion in pro-viding the answer to human suffering. Yetsecular answers seem woefully inadequate tosatisfy our deepest needs. it is therefore nec-essary to reconsider the theological perspec-tives on hope, false expectations, sufferingand mortality that are constant themes on theroles and limits of technical progress.

Transcendent and immanent responses to suffering

Suffering is a ubiquitous human experience.From the moment we are born to the mo-ment of our death, we learn to live with it—some minor, others grave, some physical andmental, others spiritual and emotional. ittouches our profoundest sensibilities andprovokes in us a yearning for answers aboutour origin, purpose and end. death is the ul-timate affliction, where there will be annihi-lation of all fond memories of our earthlyexistence—pleasures, friendship, and love—especially poignant in a world which has lostits faith in the afterlife. Humans are the only species aware of life’sfleeting passage. literary, religious, philo-

55

Medico, dottore di

ricerca e docente

di Bioetica, Ateneo

Pontificio Regina

Apostolorum,

Roma.

Stu

dia

Bio

eth

ica -

vo

l. 7

(2014

) n

.1,

pp

. 55-6

1

Suffering technology (Part 1)

Joseph Tham, L.C.

Bozza SB 19 (2014 1) Corretta:Layout 1 12/05/2014 10:03 Pagina 55

56

sophical and historical works of every raceand culture have recorded the tragedy of ourephemeral existence. in his Pensées, Blaise Pas-cal eloquently captures this enigma of humangreatness and misery:man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, buthe is a thinking reed. there is no need for thewhole universe to take up arms to crush him:a vapor, a drop of water is enough to kill him.But even if the universe were to crush him,man would still be nobler than his slayer, be-cause he is able to know that he is dying andthe advantage the universe has over him. theuniverse, however, knows nothing of this…the greatness of man is great in that heknows himself to be miserable. A tree doesnot know itself to be miserable. it is thenbeing miserable to know oneself to be mis-erable; but it is also being great to know thatone is miserable3.the struggle to understand and defeat suf-fering is the golden thread that runs throughhistory. the attempts can be grouped intotwo categories—one religious and the othertechnological. different religions have of-fered solace to distressed humanity with tran-scendence. Buddhism, for instance, explainshuman woes in terms of unfulfilled desiresor the need for enlightenment. in the JewishBible, the Book of Job stands out as a classicreligious response to the mystery of suffer-ing. interestingly, the biblical author did notseek to explain it away; god’s presence andomnipotence are sufficiently eloquent. chris-tian revelation understands suffering throughthe lens of the economy of salvation; it is nolonger solitary and purposeless, but a sharingwith christ’s passion. “in my flesh i completewhat is lacking in christ’s afflictions for thesake of his body, that is, the church” (Col.1:24). Beginning with this quote, Pope JohnPaul ii offers the christian believers a deepreflection in the apostolic letter Salvifici Do-loris4.Prominent thinkers of antiquity, fromSocrates and the Stoics up to thomas ofAquinas, have tackled the mystery of pain,often with nuanced responses. However, theproblem of evil became acute in the modernera, which concurrently challenged the me-

dieval belief of the existence of an all-pow-erful and all-loving god. Kant, Hume, Hegeland marx proposed some variegated re-sponses to the purpose of suffering. Feuer-bach and durkheim reduced the problem tomaterial and Freud posited it in psychology.the nihilism of nietzsche and existentialismof Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre weremore recent attempts. in the last century, cel-ebrated classics such as dostoevsky’s TheBrothers Karamazov, dickens’ A Tales of TwoCites, Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and camus’The Plague etched in ink their poignant cryagainst the injustices of suffering, and not afew of them grumbled against god. twowritings of the christian apologist c.S. lewisdisplayed the enormity of this task. The Prob-lem of Pain was a philosophical endeavor toprovide a classic answer for his contempo-raries. But with the death of his dear wife, herecognized the futility of intellectual solu-tions in A Grief Observed5.unsatisfied with finding abstract responses ingod, others have sought to defeat the woesof suffering with immanent and practicalremedies. technical advances allow humanityto construct such an earthly kingdom. i havechosen two accounts, one ancient and onecontemporary, to illustrate this enterprise.greek mythology hails Prometheus as thesavior of humankind because he stole the se-cret of fire from the gods. the deities en-trusted Epimetheus, whose name meansafterthought, the task of bestowing differentgifts on the creatures. He handed outstrength, swiftness, fur, wings, and shells todifferent animals but when he came tohuman beings, he had exhausted all the gifts.So he asked his brother for help andPrometheus lit a torch of fire from the sunand gave it to the mortals, “And now, thoughfeeble and short-lived, mankind has flamingfire and therefrom learns many crafts”6. un-luckily, the jealous gods punishedPrometheus for this theft. Fire is an apt sym-bol of technology which humans with theirintelligence can use to tap into the forces ofnature, transforming it for their benefit. theire of the gods is a premonition that this giftcan be a blessing and a curse.


many centuries later, the science fiction filmgAttAcA portrays a futuristic struggle withbiotechnology. the initial letters of the fourdnA bases (Adenine, cytosine, guanine,and thymine) forms the title of this cine-matographic drama. in this society driven byliberal eugenics, there was a lot of pressurefor parents to use preimplantation genetic di-agnosis (Pgd) to create children selectivelywith the best hereditary traits. in this way, so-ciety differentiated its members according totheir genetic makeup which predicts theirpersonality traits, physical prowess, diseaserisks and lifespan. thus, only those who havesuperior genomes and enhanced traits quali-fied for the best jobs, whereas the disease-prone and mentally inferior members wereconsigned to menialjobs. the plot re-volves around one ofthese inferiors whomanaged to beat thesystem by his ingenu-ity, hard work, sacri-fice, courage, andindomitable spirit thatwere ironically missing in his genetically su-perior counterparts. the last scene is evoca-tively religious. the genetically defectiveprotagonist managed to reach the heavens ina space shuttle. As the fire of the rocketblasted, the scene shifted to the fire of thefurnace where his genetically perfect alias in-cinerated himself for failing to live up to hisdestiny7.these two accounts illustrate the ambiguitiesof technological solution(s) to human suffer-ing. As a protest against the gods, we havemanaged to minimize human misery with ourtalents and determination. technical progresshas certainly brought many advantages andeliminated many ravages. We seem to farequite well in escaping pain and death, or delaythem as much as possible. nevertheless, havewe purchased this at the high price of our hu-manity? leon Kass notes, as:Aldous Huxley prophetically warned us, inhis dystopian novel Brave New World, the un-bridled yet well-meaning pursuit of the mas-tery of human nature and human troubles

through technology can issue in a world peo-pled by creatures of human shape but ofshrunken humanity—engaged in trivial pur-suits; lacking science, art, religion, and self-government; missing love, friendship, or anytrue human attachments; and getting theirjollies from high-tech amusements and a bot-tle of soma8. the great divide between the transcendentand the immanent solution in resolving suf-fering is the main cause of cultural debateson many life issues today. Sociologist JohnEvans surveyed how religious and secular co-horts differ in their opinions regarding theuse of genetic reproductive technologies torelieve suffering. those with very loose or noreligious affiliations view suffering as totally

meaningless, to be elim-inated with all availablemeans. At one point inthe survey, when askedwhy it is necessary toeliminate suffering, theywere flabbergasted bythe question itself be-cause it appeared self-

evident to their secular mindset. on the otherhand, those with religious sensibilities do notsee suffering as necessarily negative. they be-lieve that there are important values we canlearn from it and (that) technical solutions arenot absolute9. in spite of the mind-bogglingdevelopment of modern technology, there isa palpable unease.

Ambivalence of Technology

the man of today seems ever to be underthreat from what he produces, that is to sayfrom the result of the work of his hands and,even more so, of the work of his intellect andthe tendencies of his will… man thereforelives increasingly in fear. He is afraid thatwhat he produces—not all of it, of course,or even most of it, but part of it and preciselythat part that contains a special share of hisgenius and initiative—can radically turnagainst himself; he is afraid that it can be-come the means and instrument for anunimaginable self-destruction, compared

57

The great divide between

the transcendent and the

immanent solution in resolving

suffering is the main cause of

cultural debates on many

life issues today


58

with which all the cataclysms and catastro-phes of history known to us seem to fadeaway10.We can see this ambivalence toward technol-ogy from this passage of John Paul ii in Re-demptor Hominis. A cursory examination ofthe impact of technology in the areas ofecology, information and communication,military and medicine could be helpful.industrialization has undoubtedly improvedthe quality of life, but we are just beginningto recognize many ecological disasters thatcame with it. the nightmare of chernobyl,acid rain from electric plants, air pollutionfrom automobiles, oil spillage and water pol-lution, ozone depletion, animal extinction,the problem with waste disposal and climatechange are examples of damages done to theenvironment11. While genetically modifiedfoods promise to alleviate world hunger,there are those who are worried of “Franken-food” and the seeds that will destroy the nat-ural food chain12. unfortunately, someecological extremists have so exalted thevalue of the environment that they tended todiminish human dignity. For instance, Alangregg exclaims, “the world has cancer andthe cancer is man”13.information technology, abbreviated and bet-ter known as it, has undergone a real revo-lution in the last thirty years. i have fondmemories of the day when my father tookme to his company to show me the hugecomputers with flickering lights and switchesthat occupied several rooms, yet the laptopwith which i am typing now probably hasmore memory than those colossal machines.i still remember my first computer scienceclass in high school when i had to enter pro-grams by feeding in punched cards. i recallthe days, not so long ago, when floppy diskswere actually floppy. today, it has blos-somed in other areas, affecting not onlytelecommunication but invading the spheresof social relationships, education and re-search, commerce and politics, religion andculture. the digital world has considerablyshrunk our planet. We can access and shareinformation, images and music, chat withstrangers, shop, get a degree, find a spouse,

perform virtual surgery, and tour places thou-sand of miles away without leaving ourrooms. However, the negative impact of cy-bernetics is just around the corner—onlinegambling, pornography not to speak of childporn, plagiarism and illegal trading, invasionof privacy, spam and virus attacks are promi-nent examples. i notice this paradox in two pieces of newsthat automatically arrived in my inbox. A cou-ple of years ago, the Vatican launched a Face-book portal called “pope2you” withapplications for iPhone and iPod touch andconnected to Youtube channel that allowsWeb surfers to send virtual postcards ofPope Benedict XVi or the latest papal mes-sages to their social network. in the sameweek, a Scottish bishop sent a letter to beread at 500 catholic parishes warning againstcyberbullying and the danger of “inane chat-ter” with social networking websites such asFacebook and twitter14.one must not forget that many innovations,including internet, gPS and certain surgicaltechniques were ironically spin-offs from mil-itary technology. like it or not, war has spedup discoveries of nuclear power and peni-cillin, while nazi experiments providedknowledge on basic human physiology.Enormous military budgets today continueto stimulate research that may one day beavailable for civilian use. Experiments on thehuman body and improvement of solders’performance with drugs or bionic devicesmay contribute to medical advances. like-wise, the continual search for perfection inespionage, satellites, ballistics, antimissile de-fense, biosecurity, fighter jets and submarineswill have definite impact on the advancementof communication, energy supply, electron-ics, robotics, architecture, pharmaceutics andtransportation. the ambivalent attitude toward technology ismost acute in medicine because it affects theperson more deeply than other advances,providing cures and extending lives. Some au-thors situate the origin of the bioethicsmovement in America precisely in the con-text of diffidence toward medical advances.many early bioethicists share this hesitancy,


and bioethics becomes a discipline that actsas a buffer between the physicians and scien-tists who push for unrestricted research anda public that is fearful of abuses15. medicine has undertaken breathtaking stridesin the past century. the end of the 19th cen-tury sees the beginning of anesthesia, anti-septic practices and X-Rays. We tend toforget that scientists discovered the first ef-fective antibiotics during the Second WorldWar. After that, medical science explodedwith an armamentarium of life-saving proce-dures—blood grouping, open heart surgery,mechanical ventilation, dialysis, organ trans-plants, and chemotherapy to name a handful.unprecedented choices have fostered falsehopes that medicine can do the impossible,not only radically reduce human suffering,but enhance human performance and makeallowance for new and better lifestyles16.the undesired effectsof these advances arebecoming apparentnow. contraceptionand assisted reproduc-tive technology havepromised couples con-trol over their fertilitypotential, but they can also affect the maritalbond with grave societal consequences17. in-terestingly, even secularists are attributing therapid deterioration of the Western societiesin the last thirty years—increasing crime rate,decreasing trust, changes in family structure,and the triumph of individualism over com-munity—with the advance of fertility con-trol18. the demographic winter is an all tooevident a byproduct of the contraceptivementality, with significant social, economicand political impact19. the identity crises ofchildren conceived by procreative technolo-gies are increasingly raising concerns. Whileprenatal diagnosis or Pgd can eliminate thesupposed “burden” of unhealthy offspring,they open the way to manufacture of “de-signer babies” and gender discrimination, aslippery slope toward the eugenic discrimina-tion of gAttAcA20.In vitro fertilization provides the “raw mate-rial” of a large quantity of human embryos

for commercialization, experimentation anddestruction. Stem cells and cloning jumpedon to this bandwagon of regenerative medi-cine, which together with nanotechnology,cybernetics, and genetic engineering promiseto cure the incurable and indefinitely prolonglife. modern day transhumanists advocate theemployment of the latest gizmos to reengi-neer the human race. they argue that thesetechniques will radically enhance human lifeand expand the boundaries of humanness.As an inevitable coda to evolution and scien-tific progress, modern democracies mustmake these technologies available to every-one21. in this vein, geneticist lee Silver writes: Why not seize this power? Why not controlwhat has been left to chance in the past? in-deed, we control all other aspects of our chil-dren’s lives and identities through powerfulsocial and environmental influences and, in

some cases, with theuse of powerful drugslike Ritalin and Prozac.on what basis can wereject positive geneticinfluences on a per-son’s essence when weaccept the rights of

parents to benefit their children in everyother way?22

transhumanism may seem extreme, butcloser is the optimism expressed by Presidentobama as he recently signed an Executiveorder to lift a ban on federal funding for em-bryonic stem cell research. towards the endof his speech he said, “there is no finish linein the work of science. the race is alwayswith us—the urgent work of giving sub-stance to hope and answering those manybedside prayers, of seeking a day when wordslike ‘terminal’ and ‘incurable’ are finally re-tired from our vocabulary.” certainly, he hasbanked his expectations on a utopian dreamof a world free of disease and suffering.At the other end of the spectrum, lifesavingtechniques make it possible to resuscitate bi-ological life, but at the expense of uncon-scious existence sustained by inhumanmachines. Euthanasia and assisted suicide arerelatively recent issues that have arisen as pos-

59

Either as elixir of immortality

or potion of death, medical

science is offering an

everlasting kingdom here

on earth


60

sible responses to the dread of projected suf-fering in a meaningless existence, as we haveseen in the heated polemics surroundingterri Schiavo, Ramón Sanpedro, PiergiorgioWelby and Eluana Englaro. Without enteringinto the morality of these cases, these exam-ples serve to point out the undesired effectslonger lives can bring. the fear of death has become the commonvalue of liberal modern societies which turnto medicine for salvation. thus, healthcareoften becomes the most important issue, andcorrespondingly trillions of dollars are in-jected into the health care industry to pro-duce new medications, hi-tech surgical andmedical treatments, and research to extendthe natural lifespan. As a result, most modernsocieties are facing spiraling healthcare costswithout the political strength to begin a rea-sonable discussion on healthcare budgets23. Either as elixir of immortality or potion ofdeath, medical science is offering an everlast-ing kingdom here on earth. in spite of greatpromises, there are correspondingly great un-certainties on the role of technology in alle-viating the human condition. this power canbe misused, turn against us and deprive us ofour humanity. the paradise that science andtechnology promise is not only fleeting, butcan be disastrous in the long run. ultimatelythe question is, can a technological kingdomof man truly replace the eschatological king-dom of god, where every tear will be wipedaway?in the second part of this article, we willmake an attempt to look at the answers pro-vided by philosophers and theologians on thesubject.

notE

1 c. S. cAmPBEll, “the ordeal and meaning of Suf-fering,” Sunstone 18/3 (1995), 37.2 See P. HAFFnER, Towards a Theology of the Environment,gracewing, leominster 2008, 4-5.3 B. PAScAl, Pensées, # 347, 397, in www.guten-berg.org/etext/18269 (accessed June 1, 2009).4 JoHn PAul ii, Apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris, 11 Fe-bruary 1984, AAS 76. 5 See c.S. lEWiS, The Problem of Pain, centenary Press,london 1940; n.W. clERK (pseudonym for c.S.

lEWiS), A Grief Observed, Faber and Faber, london1961.6 E. HAmilton, Mythology: Timeless Tales of gods and he-roes, mentor, new York 1969, 69.7 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gattaca (accessedJune 1, 2009).8 l. KASS, “defending Human dignity,” in Human Dig-nity and Bioethics, VV.AA., President’s council on Bioe-thics, Washington dc 2008, 303.9 See J. H. EVAnS, “Religious Belief, Perceptions ofHuman Suffering and Support for Reproductive ge-netic technology,” Paper presented at the annual me-eting of the American Sociological Association,Philadelphia, PA, may 25, 2009, in http://www.allaca-demic.com/meta/p19964_index.html (accessed June1, 2009).10 JoHn PAul ii, Encyclical Redemptor hominis, march 4,1979, n. 15.11 See P. HAFFnER, Towards a Theology of the Environment.12 See for example, F. W. EngdAHl, Seeds of Destruction:The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, global Re-search, montreal 2007.13 A. gREgg, “A medical Aspect of the PopulationProblem,” Science, 3150/121 (1955), 682, cited in c.RuBin, “Human dignity and the Future of man,” inVV.AA., Human Dignity and Bioethics, 162.14 See A. dAVid, “Pope 2.0: Vatican launches Facebookapplication,” The Associated Press, may 22, 2009,http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/Eu_VAti-cAn_FAcEBooK?SitE=WcmHtV&SEc-tion=uS&tEmPlAtE=dEFAult&ctimE=2009-05-22-13-50-00 (accessed June 1, 2009); J. Bing-HAm, “Bishop warns Roman catholics against ‘inane’internet twitterings,” The Telegraph, may 19, 2009,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/twitter/5351212/Bishop-warns-Roman-catholics-against-inane-internet-twitterings.html (ac-cessed June 1, 2009).15 See m. l. t. StEVEnS, Bioethics in America: Origins andCultural Politics, Johns Hopkins university Press, Balti-more 2000; J. H. EVAnS, Playing God? Human GeneticEngineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical De-bate, university of chicago Press, chicago 2002.16 See d. cAllAHAn, False hopes: overcoming the obstaclesto a sustainable, affordable medicine, Rutgers universityPress, new Brunswick, nJ 1999.17 See W. B. WilcoX, “the Facts of life & marriage:Social Science & the Vindication of christian moralteaching,” Touchstone, (Jan/Feb 2005), www.touch-stonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-038-f(accessed June 1, 2009); m. EBERStAdt, “the Vindi-cation of Humanae Vitae,” First Things, (August/Sep-tember, 2008),www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1133 (accessedJune 1, 2009).18 See F. FuKuYAmA, The Great Disruption: Human Na-ture and the Reconstitution of Social Order, the Free Press,new York 1999, 101-103.19 See P. longmAn, The Empty Cradle: How FallingBirthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to do about


it, Basic Books, new York 2004; B. J. WAttEnBERg,Fewer: How the new demography of depopulation will shapeour future, ivan R. dee, chicago 2004.20 See for instance, g. c. mEilAEndER, Body, Soul, andBioethics, university of notre dame Press, notredame 1995, 61-88; l. R. KASS, “making Babies: thenew Biology and the ‘old’ morality”, in id., Toward aMore Natural Science: Biology and Human Affairs, the FreePress, new York 1985, 43-79.21 See J. H. HugHES, Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic So-cieties Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future,

Westview Press, cambridge, mA 2004; id., “Embra-cing change with All Four Arms: A Post-Humanistdefense of genetic Engineering”, Eubios Journal ofAsian and International Bioethics, 6/4 (1996), 94-101; g.StocK, Redesigning Humans: choosing our genes, changing ourfuture, Houghton mifflin, Boston 2003.22 l. SilVER, Remaking Eden. Cloning and Beyond in a BraveNew World, Avon, new York 1998, 277.23 See d. cAllAHAn, Setting Limits: Medical Goals inAging Society, georgetown university Press, Washing-ton dc 1987.

61


Stu

dia

Bio

eth

ica -

vo

l. 7

(2014

) n

. 2,

pp

. 50-5

6

50

articolo

Medico, dottore di

ricerca e docente

di Bioetica, Ateneo

Pontificio Regina

Apostolorum

i n part one of this article, we delineatedthe difficulties that we confront todaywith the rapid advances of technology.

While technology seems to provide the an-swer to suffering humanity, there are also am-biguities and a suspicion that it cannotprovide all the answers. the noble goal ofusing technology to alleviate alleviating suf-fering must also include the ethical dimen-sions that are often blurred. this article looksat some of the philosophical and theologicalresponses to this vexing problem, especiallyfrom the perspective of the Encyclical SpeSalvi.

Different images of techne

in order to answer these interrogatives, weneed to delve into the historic understandingof technology1. Plato, as we have seen in themyth of Prometheus, sees techne as a secretof the gods because humans, no longerbound to specific specializations found in theanimal kingdom, can invent different tools toadapt to their environment. Aristotle andAquinas see the uniqueness of human inge-nuity through its employment of the handand the mind, allowing the invention of infi-nite arrays of instruments for different pur-poses. According to Stanley Jaki, sciencearose in the West precisely because christianrevelation supplanted the mythical conceptof time which was cyclical. he argues thatlinear time is the condition that allowed forprojection into the future and therefore sci-entific inquiry2. thus, technical progresshelps humanity to break away from a prede-termined world toward a greater freedom. At

this early stage, nature is a resource which hu-mans can explore and use to reach a specificend. during the medieval period, there was aharmonious synthesis of humanity, natureand god3. the image of techne in this periodis a tool taken from nature which we can takeadvantage of but not totally dominate, nordoes it determine or control us.modernity entered with heavy industrializa-tion and the Enlightenment ideal of ground-ing all truths in human reason alone. Arnoldgehlen observes that humans have two defi-ciencies that form the basis of technology.their lack of morphological specializationthat animals enjoy makes them manufacturersof tools. they are also devoid of animal in-stincts, making the formation of cultural in-stitutions necessary. these essentially human“defects” propelled them to found culturesand conquer nature with technology4. in thisphase, humans no longer conceive nature asinert essence but as matter or energy sourceswhich they can exploit, manipulate or trans-form.At the beginning of modern age, there was abuoyant optimism that science could resolveall human sorrows. the new humanity couldfinally triumph over nature. Bacon’s dictum,“Knowledge is power,” became the bannerof the insatiable scientific search for im-provement. in this view, technology can onlybe positive, progressive and benevolent. thispositivistic vision, which descartes, comte,hobbes and Bacon espoused, makes thequestion of direction irrelevant or impossi-ble. later on, evolutionary theories appliedthis concept of malleable nature to humansthemselves. hence, the image of techne in

Suffering technology:Philosophical overview and a theological

Response of Spe Salvi (Part 2)

Joseph Tham, L.C.

SB 20 (2014 2) Definitivo stampa:Layout 1 05/09/2014 09:17 Pagina 50

modernity is one of autonomy and progres-sion toward an unknown end. the next few centuries witnessed the vertig-inous metamorphosis of the world. Accord-ing to Romano guardini, these technologicaladvances allow modern men and women toprogram their future with technical precisionin almost every aspect of their economic, po-litical, and aesthetical lives. Even health, sick-ness and death become organized. the recentswine flu scare that reached worldwide alarmis an indication of thisobsession. this newtechnological culture re-ceives a quasi-religioussignificance, providing asense of security that re-places the traditionalneed for a providentialgod. At the same time, guardini notices ananguish of modernity, which in rejecting thesymbolic support of the medieval worldview,is unable to find any firm point of reference.When modernity denies god’s authority,everything including power is up for grabs.the technical culture of constant movementand renewal cannot satisfy the human spirit.Since nature has become an unknown,chaotic, and uncertain force, humans are nowengaged in a game of power struggle—im-posing force on culture, nature and on eachother—in order to survive. Risky behaviorsare a part of this gamble, since technologyhas made the world impersonal and cold. inthis scenario, where individuals can exercisepower without personal responsibilities, thetragic consequences of the Second WorldWar ensued5.the atom bomb, “an invention to end all in-ventions,” symbolically marks the end of themodern era and the beginning of postmoder-nity. this image of techne is one of great un-certainty. technology imposes upon us as anew way of life—it is as comprehensive asany cultic experience but one of which we arebarely aware. it is no longer neutral but con-tains and fosters a substantive value; it is nolonger a means but an end in itself. As tech-nology takes on a life of its own, it is notsomething that we can dominate but has the

potential to destroy everything we hold dear.nature or the world have lost their constantor objective values. nietzsche prophesizedthis nihilistic turn of events—everyone de-terminates for himself what are the true val-ues and what is reality. Baconian “knowledgeis power” becomes nietzchean “will topower” where truth is imposed on others byforce or even violence. ideological or reli-gious fundamentalisms are expressions of thepostmodern age. technologized societies

must operate accordingto values such as effi-ciency, programming andpower. however, asguardini observes, or-ganization and planningcannot fill the place ofethics6.

on the other hand, there is still a great dealof optimism about the potential of technol-ogy. the image of neil Armstrong walkingon the moon and his words, “one small stepfor man, one giant leap for mankind” areetched indelibly in the human consciousnessas one of its greatest achievements. Asobama’s dream to banish words like “termi-nal” and “incurable” from our vocabulary in-dicate, technological imperialism has nottotally disappeared with postmodernity. thisdisturbing poem Counting Sheep, written be-fore the successful cloning of dolly, perfectlycaptures this conflicted mood of the day:A scientist has a test tube full of sheep. He wondersif he should try to shrink a pasture for them. They are like grains of rice. He wonders if the sheep are aware of their tininess,if they have any sense of scale. Perhaps they justthink the test tube is a glass barn…He wonders what he should do with them; they cer-tainly have less meat and wool than ordinary sheep.Has he reduced their commercial value? He wonders if they could be used as a substitute forrice, a sort of wooly rice…He wonders if he just shouldn’t rub them into a redpaste between his fingers. He wonders if they are breeding, or if any of themhave died.He puts them under a microscope and falls asleepcounting them…7

51

At the beginning of

modern age, there was a

buoyant optimism that

science could resolve all

human sorrows


52

indeed, the biotech gamble has raised thestakes since it allows us to transform humannature itself. the transhumanist proposal toseize the power and take control of our evo-lutionary future can leave us either with ni-etzsche’s Übermensch or the Abolition of Manpredicted by c.S. lewis8. the indiscriminantuse of biotechnological powers has alarmednot only religious groups but also a numberof secularists who worry about uncheckedprofit-driven interests, the effect of an un-known post-human future, and generationalinequalities that would undermine the foun-dation of liberal democracies9. this post-modern challenge provokes two reactions,one calling for ethical responsibility as in thecase of hans Jonas, and the other the pes-simistic resignation of martin heidegger10.the catastrophic events of World War iigreatly influenced the german Jewishphilosopher Jonas, who called for responsibleethics in this hi-tech era11. traditional ethicsis no longer sufficient. We need to considerthe accumulative effects of human impact onthe world. he proposes an “imaginativeheuristic of fear” as the guiding principlewhich anticipates the issues in the balanceand their attendant perils. this precautionaryethical approach to anticipate all possible ill-effects on future generation and humanity isurgent since the velocity of technological ad-vances makes it difficult to exercise restraint.Against the temptation of “Promethean im-modesty,” like guardini Jonas calls for a“power over power” by seeking political andstructural responsibility to safeguard the fu-ture of humanity. interestingly, Jonas believesthat these policies would more likely be viablein classless marxist regimes than “bourgeois”capitalist societies which could easily resistthe establishment of an untrammeled tech-nological utopia. in this vision, marxist hu-manism would substitute decadent religioushopes with a secularized eschatology, and astate-controlled responsible and moderateduse of technology will effect this Kingdomon earth. Possibly, because of their different politicalsympathies, the other german philosophermartin heidegger offers a contrasting reflec-

tion. Even though his philosophy does notmake an easy read, his Question concerning Tech-nology provides a thought provoking analysisto this postmodern dilemma12. Techne in itsoriginal etymological sense is related to poiesisbecause they are both productive. the latterarises from awe with nature producing orbringing forth the arts and poetry. At thesame time, techne conceals and reveals to hu-manity something about Being, nature andtruth. however, modern technology haschanged this relationship with Being. We nolonger cooperate with or learn from naturebut challenge, assault and exploit it for ourown benefit. nevertheless, technology stillhas the ability to reveal and bring forth thetruths of Being and our destiny. this is moredifficult since our contact with nature is nolonger immediate but mediated by many un-known steps when we tap into technical pow-ers. thus, technology of our age isambiguous—it could be either “supremedanger” or “saving power.” i had a glimpse of what heidegger tries totell us from a personal experience. years ago,my aunt from hong Kong came to visit usand we took her to the niagara Falls. her firstreaction to the spectacular sight was, to myutter surprise, if the waterfall were manmade.Sky-scrappers fill the city in which she hadlived most of her life and the artificial is more“natural” to her. heidegger uses the germanword Gestell, which literally means en-fram-ing, to describe our present-day predicament.By this, he wishes to convey the disquietingreality that this all-encompassing frameworkof technology traps the postmodern soci-ety—technology is no longer a means to anend but a mode of human existence. thus we shall never experience our relation-ship to the essence of technology so long aswe merely conceive and push forward thetechnological, put up with it, or evade it.Everywhere we remain unfree and chained totechnology, whether we passionately affirmor deny it13. technology has become absolute. While wemay still live in the illusion that they are onlyinstruments, we are in fact slaves. it is nolonger neutral, but invades every aspect of


our globalized world. globalization is theprocess by which space and time is com-pressed, and this is only possible thanks tomodern technology14. in this Gestell, every so-lution we seek to resolve problems created bytechnology is itself technological. this servesonly to reaffirm the prison we are in. For ex-ample, we develop the cure for industrial pol-lutions by newer techniques to purify thepollutants, we advertise the harms of tV orinternet addiction through the same media,and we treat the ulcers, which are the side ef-fects of taking anti-inflammatory medica-tions, with more drugs.is there a way to escape this self-imposed in-carceration? heidegger is ambiguous aboutthe possible saving power of technology. hesuggests at the end of the essay ponderingthe mysteries revealed in the constellations.Unfortunately, poetry does not seem to indi-cate a clear way out. in the last interview onthe same question before his death, the ger-man philosopher uttered the now famous re-frain, “only a god can save us”15. of course,heidegger’s god is not the god of revelation.it consists once again in “thinking, poetizingor contemplating” rather than engaging intechnological pursuits. Possibly, the germanexistentialist is trying to remind us once moreon the kinship between techne and poiesis, andthe need to recuperate a sense of wonder andadmiration toward nature rather than just cal-lously exploiting it for utility.Perhaps the difference in approach betweenthese two contemporary authors Jonas andheidegger is indicative of the postmodernuncertainty regarding the role of technology.hiroshima and Auschwitz make the need forethical responsibility ever more urgent. Jonasapproached the urgency with a proposal ofincreased awareness and collective duty. hei-degger, however is silent on this subject,probably because he sees no solution in thisGestell since ethics implies the ability to freeoneself of this technological prison in orderto choose the right course of action from anoutsider perspective. his existential and indi-vidualistic philosophy would not permit himsuch a project. Jonas founded his globalethics aside from any religious perspectives.

heidegger, realizing the impossibility of sucha task, hinted with a note of irony that onlya god could provide us with such an externalperspective. neither of them, however, be-cause of their modern secular bias, was will-ing to serious commit themselves totheological ethics. however, it is precisely theplace we will visit in order to resolve theenigma of suffering technology.

Only a God can save us

Philosophy cannot exhaust all there is toknow on these troubling matters. in fact, suf-fering, death and the quest for immortalityare preeminently religious questions. it seemsfoolhardy to ignore what theologians andtheir time-honored traditions have to say onthese issues. As i have said elsewhere, it isnecessary for theology to reengage secularethics on these subjects16. Besides, a charac-teristic of postmodernism is its distrust withthe overt rationalism of modernity, and it istherefore less antagonistic toward religion.With a decline in public confidence in scien-tific cure-all and political salvation, sociolo-gists have witnessed a resurgence of interestin the religious offering17.the theological discipline of eschatology isobscure to the modern mind but can revealsome important ideas on the relationship be-tween suffering and technology18. As we haveseen earlier, modern science rose in the Westby means of replacing the mythical conceptof cyclical time with that of a linear one. theJudeo-christian vision of creation, wheregod entered history and interacted with hu-manity, was a major factor in this develop-ment. the linearity of unlimited scientificprogress, however, is a product of the En-lightenment. christian time, although linear,is not infinite but with a definite end in sight,the eschaton. the former is chronological, et-ymologically derived from the mythologicaltitan Kronos who devours his children, sym-bolizing the tragic irreversibility of time suc-cession. in contrast, the christian time iskairos, the just moment or god’s timing19.in Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, the twoprotagonists wait for the coming of godot,

53


54

i.e. god, who never shows up. this is the ex-istential anguish of modernity, it is withouthope of a secure future. Eschatology looksat what happens after death—heaven, hell,judgment and the last day. According tochristian revelation, this ultimate reality in-terprets and judges all human history. in spiteof the modern prejudice against godot whonever came, the christian message is ulti-mately one of hope and eternal destiny.Pope Benedict XVi masterfully captures theinterplay between hopes and fears, sufferingand immortality, salvation and technology inthe encyclical Spe Salvi. he observes that peo-ple today are not inter-ested in eternal life butonly the present one.they have put their trustin technological and sci-entific progress, in theconstruction of “thekingdom of man” (n. 17).Reason and freedom arethe foundation of this faith in progress, andthe French Revolution and the marxist pro-letariat revolution are some of its historicalmanifestations. Both systems sought a utopiain politics rather than science, but paradoxi-cally brought about violent negations ofhuman rights and freedom. the last century saw the ambiguities of tech-nological power. technical progress needs tobe accompanied by ethical progress, guidednot only by reason but also by faith, for oth-erwise, “a ‘Kingdom of god’ accomplishedwithout god—a kingdom therefore of manalone—inevitably ends up as the ‘perverseend’ of all things” (n. 23). here, the germanpope makes a most profound observation.Ethical progress is essentially different frommaterial progress. Ethics must include humanfreedom, and because of this can never reacha static state of perfection here on earth.“the moral treasury of humanity is not read-ily at hand like tools that we use; it is presentas an appeal to freedom and a possibility forit” (n. 24). Freedom requires every generationto decide for itself the acceptance of goodand rejection of evil. this means that allhuman structures are transitory—they can-

not reach a final stage of perfection—be-cause any attainment of such a stage wouldimply a negation of freedom. Precisely, in gAttAcA or the Brave NewWorld, where society has supposedly reachedperfection, they achieved this at the expense offreedom. in order to avoid this Faustiantemptation in our real world, the words ofPope Benedict ring true:if there were structures which could irrevo-cably guarantee a determined—good—stateof the world, man’s freedom would be de-nied, and hence they would not be goodstructures at all… man can never be re-

deemed simply from out-side. Francis Bacon andthose who followed inthe intellectual current ofmodernity that he in-spired were wrong to be-lieve that man would beredeemed through sci-ence. Such an expecta-

tion asks too much of science; this kind ofhope is deceptive. Science can contributegreatly to making the world and mankindmore human. yet it can also destroy mankindand the world unless it is steered by forcesthat lie outside it.20

Echoing the skepticism of heidegger, withwhich the professor-pope is certainly familiar,the Pontiff acknowledges the insufficiencyof technology to redeem humankind and theneed of external forces. heidegger was un-able to resolve the dilemma—only a god cansave us! indeed, the pope rejoins, “it is notscience that redeems man: man is redeemedby love.” hence, christianity offers a re-sponse which existentialist philosophy couldnot. Salvation comes from god, the uncon-ditional love of god who has come from be-yond in the person of Jesus christ. only lovecan instill hope in spite of disappointments,in spite of suffering and death. Spe Salvi con-tinues, “if this absolute love exists, with itsabsolute certainty, then—only then—is manredeemed” (n. 26).here, guardini’s theological analysis ofpower is instructive.21 the Book of Genesisspeaks of powers given to humanity over the

The last century saw

the ambiguities of

technological power.

Technical progress needs

to be accompanied by

ethical progress


rest of creation, to guard and care for it asstewards. Responsibility must accompany thispower, which implies service when properlyunderstood. however, as lord Acton used tosay, “Power tends to corrupts, and absolutepower corrupts absolutely.” thus, falling intothe temptation of hubris, the sin of humanityconsisted in the attempt to usurp a greaterpower and become like gods. As a correctiveresponse, christ entered the world not withpower but with humility. “Who, being in theform of god did not count equality withgod something to be grasped.” (Phil. 2:6)“Jealously guarded” is a better translation forthis last word.22 oddly enough, giving up hispower and becoming a slave showed god’sgreatness and reversed humanity’s arroganceand tendency of domination. Spe Salvi teaches another theological lessonabout suffering by offering hope. Suffering ispart of our human existence because of ourfinitude and because of the real presence ofevil and sin. hope is not fulfillment preciselybecause evil and sin continue to exist as longas human history continues. Rather, hopegives us the courage to be on the side ofgood even in seemingly hopeless situations.We are impotent before suffering and death,in spite of an apparent hubris to banish themwith technical advances. it is not within ourpower to banish suffering from the world:We can try to limit suffering, to fight againstit, but we cannot eliminate it. it is when weattempt to avoid suffering by withdrawingfrom anything that might involve hurt, whenwe try to spare ourselves the effort and painof pursuing truth, love, and goodness, thatwe drift into a life of emptiness, in whichthere may be almost no pain, but the darksensation of meaninglessness and abandon-ment is all the greater. it is not by sidestep-ping or fleeing from suffering that we arehealed, but rather by our capacity for accept-ing it, maturing through it and finding mean-ing through union with christ, who sufferedwith infinite love (n. 37).indeed, only a god can save us, “only a godwho personally enters history by making him-self man and suffering within history” (n.36). Suffering teaches us to be compassionate

because we no longer suffer alone. the pres-ence of god’s compassionate love becomesour hope. it helps us to console others whosuffer, both as individuals and as a society.the encyclical continues, “the true measureof humanity is essentially determined in re-lationship to suffering and to the sufferer” (n.38). compassion can also be a source of goodsuffering, because we are then propelled toleave our egoistic self in order to care forothers in need. in this way, service replacespower and hubris.these theological insights on hope, eschatol-ogy and suffering are more relevant todaythan ever. there is no way to stop human in-novations and technological progress. hu-mans have sought to defeat suffering withtechnology, but it turns out to be a double-edged sword. two contrasting images of thelast century remain in our minds—the mush-room cloud over Japan and the first image ofthe planet earth captured by the astronautsfrom space. As we contemplate the greatmysteries and challenges of suffering tech-nology, our attitude can only be that of hum-ble acknowledgment of our insignificance,patient hope, and why not, a silent prayer ofsolidarity.

notE

1 Some ideas of this section come from the 2006Bioethics Summer course at Regina ApostolorumUniversity, the conferences are published in J. thAm

and m. loSito (ed.), Bioetica al Futuro: Tecnolocizzarel’uomo o Umanizzare la tecnica, libreria Editrice Vaticana,Vatican 2009.2 See S. JAKi, Science and Creation, Scottish AcademicPress, Edinburgh 1974.3 See R. gUARdini, The End of the Modern World, Sheed& Ward, london 1957.4 See l. PRiEto, “Antropologia e tecnologia: naturaumana e cultura,” in Bioetica al Futuro, 81-99.5 See R. gUARdini, The End of the Modern World, cit.6 See id., Power and Responsibility: A Course of Action forthe New Age, henry Regnery co., chicago 1961.7 R. EdSon, The intuitive journey and other works, harperand Row, new york 1976.8 See c. S. lEWiS, The Abolition of Man, 6th ed., harper-collins, glasgow 1986; F. W. niEtzSchE, Thus SpakeZarathustra: A Book For All And None, 1891.9 See J. RiFKin, The Biotech Century, Penguin, london1998; F. FUKUyAmA, Our Posthuman future: Consequences

55


56

of the Biotechnology Revolution, Picador, new york 2002;J. hABERmAS, The Future of Human Nature, Polity, cam-bridge 2003.10 See m. RyAn, “tecnologia a servizio dell’uomo: ri-flessioni filosofiche ed etiche,” in Bioetica al Futuro, 65-76.11 See h. JonAS, The Imperative of Responsibility. In Searchof Ethics for the Technological Age, chicago UniversityPress, chicago / london 1984.12 m. hEidEggER, “the Question concerning tech-nology,” in Basic Writings, ed. d. KREll, harpercollins,new york 1993.13 Ibid, 287.14 See z. BAUmAn, Globalization: The Human Conse-quences, Polity, cambridge 1998.15 m. hEidEggER, “only a god can Save Us,” in TheHeidegger Controversy, ed. R. Wolin, mit Press, cam-bridge 1992, 91-116.

16 See S. J. thAm, “the Secularization of Bioethics,”National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 8/3 (2008), 443-454.17 See l. VoyE, “Secularization in a context of Ad-vanced modernity”, Sociology of Religion, 60/3 (1999),275-288.18 See A. nitRolA, Pensare l’attualità. Etica come riceradella casa comune, PUg, Roma 2005.19 See h. UR Von BAlthASAR, The Glory of the Lord: aTheological Aesthetics, Vol. I: Seeing the form, ignatius Press,San Francisco 1989, 618-683.20 BEnEdict XVi, Encyclical Spe Salvi, november 30,2007, n. 24-25.21 See R. gUARdini, Power and Responsibility, cit.22 See m. gAgliARdi, La Cristologia Adamitica, PUg,Rome 2002, 177-179.


suffering technology

Documents