Dire developments

The recent announcement by Colossal Biosciences that the company had brought an extinct species, the dire wolf, back into existence predictably brought to mind Jurassic Park. At a more sophisticated philosophical level, debates swirl about whether the three wolf cubs are really dire wolves or whether they are simply modified forms of the gray wolf that just happen to be genetically closer to their extinct cousins. Regardless of the answer to that question, a further issue connects to how the retrieval of dead species, the modification of living species, or the creation of new species will affect the broader ecosystem.

For example, will the arrival of a new type of predator have unintended consequences for the environment? I am old enough to remember red squirrels being common in the England of my early childhood. They are today rare indeed since the arrival and spread of the larger grey squirrel, now officially listed in Europe as an invasive species. Perhaps bringing back to life one long-gone animal might lead to the extinction of others? It is hard to predict, but the equilibrium of ecosystems is easy to disturb, as the case of the grey squirrel indicates.

But for Christians there is a deeper and even more disturbing question here than simply the disturbance of the natural ecosystem. There are deep philosophical implications to this as well. Gene editing of the kind that produces the alleged dire wolf is indicative of the godlike powers that human beings no longer simply aspire to but which we now actually possess. On one level, this kind of genetic engineering seems to offer tremendous opportunities for good. If the tweak of a gene can mean that the baby in the womb is born without some terrible genetic syndrome, who would hesitate to do it? There are some tricky questions here, given that in history evil has often been the cause of greater good, whether acts of heroism or altruism or the like. But few if any of us would say that the elimination of a terminal disease or syndrome is not a desirable and good thing. Yet it is not easy to see where to draw the line between procedures that restore a normative human existence and those that transcend or transform what such a normative existence is.

This is where our godlike powers threaten to undo us. We are developing and exercising them without regard to any broader moral understanding of the universe or what it means to be human. In fact, important aspects of what it has traditionally meant to be human are becoming the very things that the transhumanists and the tech bros now regard as problems: our limits, our finitude, our mortality. And as we imagine technology as placing godlike power to overcome these within our grasp, so we do not hesitate to move forward with them. If we can do it, why should we not do it? The masters of tech aspire to be the masters of the universe—a universe where traditional limits are problems to be overcome, not the sinews of a larger moral structure.

We had a taste of this scientific universe during the days of the COVID crisis. The phrase “the experts say” was very much in vogue but only ever used with reference to medical doctors who could tell us how to save lives but never really elaborated on why lives were worth saving. That question requires more than a mastery of medical technique. It requires a moral or even theological view of reality, and yet neither philosophers nor theologians appeared on prime-time TV. The cultural assumption seemed to be that the scientist was also fully adequate to serve as moral guide.

All of this might seem a long way from the dire wolf, but this most recent development is a reminder that the tech bros are reshaping the world with no real accountability and little idea of where that will take us all. Perhaps that was relatively harmless in times past, when scientists focused on improving the world within its given limits. Now that they seek mastery over the very building blocks of human life, the results could be far more serious than a new predator on the block.