by Ulla Sarja

Created on: May 29, 2009

What we need to take into account ....

The idea that we should only take account of conscious beings who are able to have feelings has its origin in the dualism (and Descartes) that gives humans and other creatures with the mind a right to stand outside the nature. To be or to not be a part of the nature is depending on that mind and/or soul are not thought to be a part of nature because they are made of something else. The fact that human beings have consciousness can also be seen as a duty to use it.

The whole issue would have a different character if consciousness suddenly became unnecessary or even harmful. If all people, and just people, were to have such absolutely terrible agony (I mean anxiety not being of this world) because they are able to think and this would lead to that the only way to escape is to commit suicide, I think that many of us would be willing to switch places with a non-conscious animal (now, I of course do not mean that it would be good or a solution at all if we are all affected by this misfortune, life feeling like Pr Lagerkvists poem ). Furthermore, there are some philosophers (one anyway) who have said that nature is a stage in the process leading to the existence of mind and if it is so, it would probably make sense that it happened; we developed a mind. According to this theory man would not be able to stand outside nature.

But that is something nobody knows if it is the meaning of life, it might as well be we who are supposed to be the "higher" creature. Heidegger has in Letter on humanism said: "Man as ex-sisting has to guard the truth of Being." It is not clear (at least not for me) what exactly he meant with Being or Da-sein, or what he meant with talking about the whole existence. Did he mean that the nature is included in the concept?


But to be the guard does mean that you have some duties against those who you have to care of . This would indicate that it is our duty to take care of those who are less able to take care of themselves (but did Heidegger actually understand anything at all? Did he understand more than I do? ). But if he did, you can use this as an argument for surrender to not wipe out the unconscious life. Moreover, we actually do not know how the earth will develop if it will exist a few thousand years. If one compares the cycle of society with the second option (to make us less dependent on the unconscious part of nature), the first option seems to be better.

The cycle of society do least damage, and this applies to all parts. If we were somehow able to make us independent of the rest of nature, I believe it would be we ourselves who were injured most (but you can not completely exclude that this could be positive). We can not be sure that we would feel good living on another planet or that the genetically modified human beings would enjoy of their lives. Moreover, we need to properly apply the same ethical rules even on people, i.e.if you think that you should not genetically modify plants or animals you should not be able to do it with people, either. Even if every single person would think that it is permissible to change ourselves with the help of genetic techniques, the issue of possible future human existence is acting as a barrier: we can not ask for their opinion. If we would implement this change, we have simultaneously answered at least partly on the question of whether we have any responsibility for possible future subjects. The rest of nature, apart from the domesticated animals, would probably not take much damage that we are not dependent on it.

Learn more about this author, Ulla Sarja.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.