Social risks of the genetic revolution: from the standpoint of the legal approach

 
PIIS102694520024856-2-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520024856-2
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Chief Researcher, Sector of Philosophy of Law, History and Theory and of the State and Law of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Affiliation: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 4
Pages100-110
Abstract

Technological progress and law development until recently were different facets of one common process of mankind progressive advancement towards asserting greater independence from the natural elements and expanding the scope of human freedom. At the same time, law, on the one hand, was the most important incentive for the development of the creative potential of mankind as a source of scientific and technical innovations, and on the other hand, it was an effective way to correct deformations within the system of techno-humanitarian balance, guaranteeing against the most dangerous manifestations of technological power. However, with the advent of the 21st century convergent NBIC-technologies, the law increasingly demonstrates its inability to reduce the technological development risks to an acceptable level. The novelty of the situation is that social risks come to the fore. This trend is most clearly manifested in the field of legal regulation of the processes of creating and applying technologies for editing the human genome. A whole series of breakthroughs in the field of studying the human genome, carried out in recent decades, has opened up huge prospects not only for the development of medicine, but also for changing the natural qualities of a person, up to the possibility (so far theoretical) to control the mankind biological evolution. These new opportunities lead to entail proportionate social risks, connected primarily with the danger of an irreconcilable split of humanity into different socio-biological groups. In the current conditions law is not able to cope with the threat of humanity losing its biosocial unity. The hopes expressed in the public space for moral and religious factors to counteract the dangers of technological dehumanization, fraught with a surge of social injustice, seem to be greatly overestimated. There is even less reason to count on the so-called “moral bioimprovement” of mankind. In the current situation, apparently, there is no other way than a difficult creative search, focused on improving social, economic and political relations in line with an equitable legal approach. Successes along this path would provide the conditions under which the human community would be able to preserve the law vector of biotechnological development and, at the same time, avoid its catastrophic consequences.

Keywordsgenetic revolution, editing of the inherited human genome, socionormative regulation, law, morality, religion, humanity, biosocial split
AcknowledgmentThe study was carried out with a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 19-18-00422)
Received02.08.2022
Publication date28.04.2023
Number of characters37830
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 127

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Belyaletdinov R.R. Biocultural theory and the problem of human editing // Human. 2021. Vol. 32. No. 6. P. 29–41 (in Russ.).

2. Belyaletdtnov R.R., Popova O.V. Editing a person // Human. 2021. No. 6. P. 7 (in Russ.).

3. Berdyaev N.A. Man and machine (The problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology). URL: http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/bogoslov/Berd/_ChelMash.php (accessed: 17.02.2022) (in Russ.).

4. Guardini R. The end of the new time // Questions of philosophy. 1990. No. 4. P. 156, 163 (in Russ.).

5. Daudna J., Stenberg S. A crack in the universe. M., 2019. P. 22, 220, 282, 327, 334 (in Russ.).

6. Zuboff Sh. The era of supervisory capitalism. The battle for the human future. URL: https://www.litmir.me "br/?b=747251&p=1 (accessed: 07.11.2021) (in Russ.).

7. Ivanishkina Yu. V. Bioconservatism and bioliberalism: a look at anthropology// Social and humanitarian knowledge. 2020. No. 4. P. 304–314 (in Russ.).

8. Jonas G. The principle of responsibility. The experience of ethics for technological civilization. M., 2004. P. 37, 58, 127 (in Russ.).

9. Katerny I.V. Conceptualization of the social ontology of posthumanism: sociological implications // Monitoring of public opinion: economic and social changes. 2019. No. 6. P. 16 (in Russ.).

10. Lapaeva V.V. The idea of unconditional basic income and the concept of civilization: differences in philosophical and legal foundations // State and Law. 2021. No. 6. P. 99–113 (in Russ.).

11. Lapaeva V.V. The right of technogenic civilization before the challenges of technological dehumanization // Law. HSE Journal. 2021. No. 3. P. 4–35 (in Russ.).

12. Lorenz K. The eight deadly sins of civilized humanity. URL: http://www.modernproblems.org.ru›sience/111-faults.html ... (accessed: 12.03.2022) (in Russ.).

13. Milanovich B. Global income inequality in numbers: throughout history and at the present time. M., 2014. P. 11 (in Russ.).

14. Reliable M. Trend: investments in biotechnology. Where to invest... URL: https://www.rb.ru"Author columns"...-v-biotehnologii ... (accessed: 03.11.2021) (in Russ.).

15. Nazaretyan A.P. Nonlinear future. M., 2015. P. 388 (in Russ.).

16. Nersesyants V.S. Philosophy of Law: textbook for universities. M., 2006. P. 44 (in Russ.).

17. Morality, morality, ethics: what happens in theory and social practice? (Round Table of the journal “Socis”). 2021. No. 3. P. 28 - 43 (in Russ.).

18. Pinker S. The best in us. Why there is less violence in the world. M., 2021. P. 864 (in Russ.).

19. Stepin V.S. A turning point in civilizational development. Points of growth of new values // Global future–2045. Convergent Technologies (NBICS) and transhumanistic evolution. M., 2013. P. 19 (in Russ.).

20. Watson J., Berry E., Davis K. DNA. The History of the genetic revolution. SPb., 2019. P. 13, 497. 502 (in Russ.).

21. Harari Yu. Homo Deus: a brief history of the future / transl. from English by A. Andreev. M., 2019. P. 408 (in Russ.).

22. Bostrom N. Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective//The Journal of Value Inquiry 37, 2003. Р. 493–506. URL: http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/1504/pdfs/bostrom_2003.pdf (accessed: 01.11.2021).

23. Buchanan A., Powell R. The evolution of moral progress: A biocultural theory. Oxford, 2018. P. 35, 40.

24. Dickenson D. Me medicine vs. We medicine. Reclaiming biotechnology for the common good. New York, 2013. Р. 140.

25. Lander E., Baylis F., Zhang F. et. al. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing // Nature. 14 March 2019. P. 165 - 168.

26. Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing: Continuing the Global Discussion: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief (2019). URL: http://www.nationalacademies.org/event/11-27-2018/second-international-summit-on-human-gene-editing ((speech by Feng Zhang from the Broad Institute) (accessed: 01.02.2022).

27. Vinge V. The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era. URL: https://www. semanticscholar.org›…coming…singularity…to…Vinge/… (1993) (accessed: 22.12.2021).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up