A New Bill of Rights for Americans

Review by Michael Marien
Constitutional protections authored centuries ago can hardly be expected to protect citizens coping with the massive changes wrought by technological progress and other trends, according to futurist Joseph F. Coates.

Businesses constantly revise their rules to stay competitive and to enhance productivity and long-term success, so why shouldn't nation-states? The basic rules governing the United States are, for the most part, more than 200 years old. Is it time to seriously consider an update?

Futures consultant Joseph F. Coates has issued a blunt warning in a short book entitled A Bill of Rights for 21st Century America:

Many, if not most, of our problems of governance have their source in the two hundred year old Constitution and Bill of Rights, framed for their time but which, despite incremental evolution, misfit our present and our foreseeable future.

Rethinking the U.S. Constitution is a huge job, but, as a start, this fearless, fresh, and thoughtful "monograph" considers the Bill of Rights—the 10 amendments added to the Constitution in 1791 and extended in subsequent amendments. America's Bill of Rights is seen by Coates as a cornerstone of democratic thinking, a success in growing the nation, and a world model for human rights.

But times have changed, and we must consider America's new context. As enumerated by Coates, issues requiring a new or radically modified Bill of Rights include economic globalization, the changing nature of war, massive worldwide migration, changes in health and health care, the growth of intellectual property, new technologies, new crimes, new family structures and sexual norms, urbanization, and more. He also stresses the need for international cooperation on many issues such as global warming and terrorism.

Coates considers the relevance of the current Bill of Rights in light of these trends, and today's fast-paced, technology-dominated society. The First Amendment, on freedom of speech, the press, and religion, still stands as a strong safeguard of American liberty. The Third Amendment, on quartering soldiers in time of peace, is obviously no longer relevant.

Other amendments need rethinking and refinement in light of new technologies: The Second, on the right to bear arms (in light of new weapons technologies); the Fourth, on unreasonable searches and seizures (in light of the information age and our computerized society); the Sixth, on the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury (in light of complex cases involving technology); and the Eighth, on cruel and unusual punishments (in light of new techniques for more intimate invasions of the mind).

Revision of existing amendments, however, is a relatively small part of this discussion-starter. The main part of the wide-ranging monograph offers extensive discussion of 10 potential candidates for addition to the Bill of Rights.

1. Family Structure and Composition acknowledges the family in both its traditional form and in recently evolving forms as legitimate, thus giving fair and equal access to benefits extended to the nuclear family.

2. Assured Employment. As automation decreases the number of jobs, every American up to age 70 would be entitled to employment commensurate with his or her skills. This amendment also guarantees the unrestricted right to form labor unions.

3. Useful Education. Because education is increasingly key to employability, every citizen and resident would be entitled to an education commensurate with his or her abilities.

4. Universal Health Care. Everyone from birth to death would be entitled to a baseline of reasonable quality care. This measure should restructure the medical system and greatly lower costs.

5. Privacy in the Information Technology Age deals with 11 areas of contemporary privacy abuse in our infotech age of abundant information gathering and storage.

6. Equality of Voters eliminates the archaic Electoral College and replaces it with direct voting for president.

7. A Reformed Judicial System replaces the adversarial system of justice with nonadversarial processes, so as to "grossly simplify vast areas of law and especially of regulation."

8. Unimpeded International Travel gives all citizens the right to freely move to or return from any other country.

9. Open Government makes all information about all meetings fully public in terms of attendees, notes, commentary, and input, thus allowing citizens to see that a wide range of ideas have been heard in regard to potential plans.

10. Freedom from Torture assures that no citizen or visitor is subjected to any form of torture, including degradation or humiliation. Anyone involved in committing an abusive act will have the next two levels of command held equally responsible.

Is Coates's proposed Bill of Rights utopian? Revolutionary? Or merely a liberal/progressive wish list? Arguably, any or all of these dismissive (or flattering) labels might apply. But this is not the hot and hyperbolic manifesto so often issued by would-be world changers or society changers. One might object to one or more of the proposed new amendments, or quibble with certain phrasings, but such objections are beside the point. Rather, this monograph is primarily a call for deliberation, for considering the changed and changing societal context.

Coates ends his reflections with several recommendations, including creating a Web page devoted to changing the Bill of Rights, as well as a series of blogs and an ongoing dialogue in the media; forming a National Commission on the Bill of Rights; encouraging state legislatures to organize committees; and getting support from 10 or 20 large foundations to facilitate understanding and discussion.

To put it another way, what would the Founding Fathers do if they were to reappear among us in the early twenty-first century? As reasonable and thoughtful leaders concerned about the common good, they would surely encourage a movement for updating their Bill of Rights (and perhaps the Constitution) for our times. And they would thank Joe Coates for initiating a long-overdue discussion based on today's emerging realities—a process that would serve the long-term national interest.

About the Reviewer

Michael Marien is editor of Future Survey. In the interests of full disclosure, author Joe Coates is a Future Survey Advisor. Also see "Updating the Ten Commandments" by Joseph F. Coates (THE FUTURIST, May-June 2003).

A New Bill of Rights for Americans

January-February 2008 Vol. 42. No. 1

A Bill of Rights for 21st Century America by Joseph F. Coates. Kanawha Institute for the Study of the Future (www.kanawhainstitute.com ). 2007. 93 pages. Paperback. $12.99. Available from the Kanawha Institute or the Futurist Bookshelf, www.wfs.org/bkshelf.htm.

Genetic Ethics and Superbabies

Drawing the line between preventing ailments and bestowing genetic advantage.

Genomic research has been on a sprint since 2003, when researchers with the International Human Genome Project completed their map the nucleotides that form human DNA. Some researchers believe that in the next few years, science will be able to recognize and possibly eliminate a most of the world’s congenital diseases (through a process called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD) and better treat many other diseases at the cellular level.

Genomics may also enable otherwise healthy individuals to change their own DNA to improve athletic prowess or brain power, or allow the wealthy to artificially conceive genetically "superior" offspring. As new gene treatment options spring into existence, many people are seeking the line between legitimate gene therapy and superhuman enhancement.

“The conceptual problem arises the moment we consider that some of our most valuable medical interventions are enhancements,” writes bioethicist Ronald M. Green in Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice. “Vaccines are a leading example. Almost no one is naturally immune to smallpox, polio, measles, whooping cough, or any of the other diseases that we vaccinate against.

"When we are inoculated, the DNA in our white blood cells undergoes irreversible genetic changes, initiating the synthesis of antibodies to many viruses and bacteria. Vaccinations make us superhumans, but no one ridicules enhancements of this sort. In most places in the United States and other industrialized countries, a child cannot enter school unless he or she is vaccinated,” Green points out.

There are several types of genetic enhancement, each with its own ethical, and practical, strengths and weaknesses.

Somatic gene modification involves treating or changing the adult genes in a patient. A hypothetical example of somatic enhancement would be gene doping, in which an athlete takes a substance to “trick” his DNA into producing more testosterone on a regular basis.

Alternatively, germline gene modification is done before birth, usually during the embryo stage. A Germline therapy for immunodeficiency could involve removing the sickle cell anemia gene from a developing embryo. One example of germline enhancement would be imbuing a developing embryo with certain characteristics seen as desirable, thus "designing a baby."

Somatic therapy is the less controversial of the two. Many researchers believe it holds the most promise, though meaningful breakthroughs in somatic therapy are still several years away.

Germline therapy may be more practically achievable. According to the Johns Hopkins Genetics and Public Policy Center, PGD has been used to screen for 1,000 genetic disorders. The therapy is also more provocative.

“I have been in the gene therapy field since 1987,” says Dr. Markus Grompe, a fellow at the conservative Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. “It was very clear from day one that [genomics] could be used to change our species genetically by manipulating the germ line, i.e. making transgenic humans. There has been a consensus from day one that this would be off limits, ethically." Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics has likewise argued against tampering with the human genome.

Inoculating children in the womb against serious diseases or disorders is not, on its face, controversial. But is manipulating cells to guard against traits that are merely undesirable ethical or unethical? Who gets to draw the boundary? As Green points out in his book, physical unattractiveness, or even plainness, can have real consequences over the course of human lifetime in terms of lost status and earning power. Is homeliness a disorder that should be treated genetically? What about being of a certain sex? The Mastertons, a British family, made headlines in the United Kingdom when they appealed to the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for the right to determine the sex of their offspring by screening the fertilized eggs to be implanted. The Authority denied the request. Couples in the United States can use PGD to screen their baby's sex without restriction.

Babies by Design suggests four basic principles for distinguishing between gene manipulation that is ethical and that which is somewhat less than scrupulous.

1. Genetic interventions should always be aimed at what is reasonably in the child’s best interests. “A child’s likely consent is a rough-and-ready first test," writes Green, "but it should always be measured against the broader standard of what the larger community regards as being reasonably in the child’s best interests."

2. Genetic interventions should be almost as safe as natural reproduction. According to Green, parents' wishes are an important part of the moral equation in determining what is ethical and what isn't. These wishes, he says, "have weight and should be respected so long as the child is not likely to be seriously harmed. . . . Where enhancement is concerned, we should factor into our thinking the prospect of added benefit for the child. If rational adults can invite some risks in undergoing cosmetic plastic surgery or a laser eye procedure, parents can also accept some added risk for their future child to give these benefits.”

3. We should avoid and discourage interventions that confer only “positional” advantage. “Some requests for gene enhancements, like sports doping, could produce a tragedy of the commons," argues Green. "Parents seeking a sports champion might try to have a child with an elevated red blood cell function. At its extreme, this request could significantly increase the child’s risk of heart disease. Once many other parents started doing the same thing, the result would be no competitive advantage for anyone—bought at the price of increased health risks for all."

4. Genetic interventions should not reinforce or increase unjust inequality and discrimination, economic inequality, or racism. “Gene enhancements could widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots,” Green points out. “We should think of effective ways or either controlling or increasing access to them.”

Regardless of whatever guidelines governments enact, individuals frightened by the potential of gene science—or offended by the mere notion of it—will surely persist in the belief that the human genome is too precious to be tampered with. Yet, millions of others will likely turn to genetic science to help safeguard their children against disease, confer desired traits, or even imbue their offspring with physical or mental advantages. Just as the science of genetic manipulation is only in its infancy today, so the debate about what constitutes ethical genetic enhancement has barely begun. —Patrick Tucker

Source: Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice by Ronald M. Green. Yale University Press. 2007. 270 pages. $26.
Society
January-February 2008 Vol. 42. No 1.

Genetic Ethics and Superbabies

Money from Trees

Rising support for carbon caps means new choices for farmers and landowners.

Growing food and raising livestock contribute more carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere than does transportation, according to the United Nations. Agriculture is one of the leading causes of deforestation, a key global warming contributor. By some estimates, 35% of the Earth's surface (not under ice) is devoted to food production, primarily to livestock cultivation. Bio-waste from cows, goats, pigs and other livestock accounts for roughly 37% of the methane in the atmosphere. Yet, farmers and ranchers will probably be among the first to profit from tomorrow's low-carbon economy.

In a new Duke University report titled Harnessing Farms and Forests in the Low-Carbon Economy, scientists from universities across the United States provide a guide to help farmers and landowners tap into and trade their lands' precious carbon-storing properties.

"Farmers can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it as soil carbon by changing tillage practices," the editors write in the introduction. "If farmers and forest landowners can be compensated for their actions to reduce emissions or sequester greenhouse gases, they can benefit economically from these efforts."

Using low-till or no-till farming practices and raising smaller animals that produce less waste (such as sheep instead of cows) have measurable impacts on reducing carbon output. Today's farmers and ranchers also have the option of converting their land to carbon depositories or "sinks," by allowing trees to grow larger before logging or by replanting grasslands and forests.

But is there any money in it?

"Recent studies by Kansas State University and others have indicated that carbon [offsets] could be an $8 billion market for agriculture," reports Dick Wittman, a member of the Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group.

The Low-Carbon Economy

However slowly or subtlety, the transition toward a low-carbon economy is already underway. Some 35 developed countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, vowing to reduce their carbon output by 5 % to 8% below 1990 levels. One of the most popular methods for meeting reduction goals is the cap-and-trade system, wherein regulators set a total carbon allowance or "cap" for carbon emitters such as electric utilities, factories, or, in the case of the Kyoto Protocol, entire nations. The carbon emitters can then turn to the free market to meet their cap by:

• Investing in cleaner technology or more-efficient business practices to reduce their emissions.

• Purchasing allowances from other emitters that have reduced their CO2 output.

• Buying carbon "offsets," which remove carbon from the air from individuals or entities such as forest owners and carbon-sink operators.

The potential profit for landowners from cap-and-trade may be big. In 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency found that, as the price of offsets rose, the number of farmers and landowners who expressed interest in participating in the offset market grew steadily. But for a trade system to work, governments must enact and enforce CO2 caps. While several individual U.S. (e.g., California, Maryland, and New York) have adopted mandatory carbon reduction goals, neither China nor the United States, the world's two largest emitters of CO2 respectively, has yet adopted caps on carbon emissions at the national level. Observers believe that mandatory emissions caps are a near certainty in the future. In a recent Stanford University poll, 85% of Americans surveyed said that they believed global warming was probably happening, and 73% favored mandatory restrictions on power generators, even if those restrictions resulted in a $10 rise in their monthly electric bill. Only 47% supported the somewhat more lenient cap-and-trade solution. The Duke researchers suggest that, if cap-and-trade were better understood and more rigorously enforced, carbon markets would realize greater public support.

"A comprehensive cap on carbon will guarantee reductions in global warming pollution while stimulating new technologies. Designed well, it will move people to sequester in carbon in the ground and in forests," they conclude.—Patrick Tucker

Source: Harnessing Farms and Forests in the Low-Carbon Economy: How to Create, Measure, and Verify Greenhouse Gas Offsets, edited by Zach Willey and Bill Chameides. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental and Policy Solutions. Duke University Press. 2007. Web site www.dukeupress.edu

Environment
January-February 2008. Vol 42. No. 1

Money from Trees

Poetry in the Digital Age

Poetry is arguably one of the most intimate and spiritually connecting forms of public communication that humanity has yet devised, an art that speaks from one heart to another. Is there any place for a computer in this relationship?

To judge from the crude verse-generating programs one might typically stumble across on the Internet ("Poetry CreatOR" or "RoboPoem," for instance)—which spew programmed textual nonsense—the answer is a resounding No. But there are many ways in which the computer has succeeded in bringing new inspiration to writers and new ways to connect with audiences.

The computer enables the artist (poet) to communicate with more than text, adding images, movement, and sound; this capability is affecting both writing and the reader's experience, argues literary scholar Maria Engberg of Uppsala University in Sweden.

"The way digital poetry experiments with language raises questions and challenges conceptions of literature that were formed by printed books," she says.

Experimentation is not new to poets: Even the constraints of the printed page permitted visual enhancements through the arrangement of words on a page and the additions of illustrations; adding music to words creates songs. The multimedia age permits and encourages new ways of approaching poetic communication, such as three-dimensional installations in virtual reality, which invite direct participation of the reader/viewer.

English-speaking poets John Cayley, Stephanie Strickland, and Thomas Swiss are among those whose work Engberg has analyzed. Cayley's multimedia piece "riverIsland" uses video editing to morph words and letters, creating what he calls "a navigable text movie with sound."

"Reading becomes one way to use the poem," says Engberg, "and the reader becomes an active do-player. But the poems can also eliminate that possibility, leaving the reader to be a viewer looking at the digital poem."

Similarly, the interactive poem "City of Bits" by Thomas Swiss incorporates vibrant graphics mimic an urban landscape that invites the reader/participant to "stroll" from one page to the next by clicking on an icon of a walking man.

Traditionalists may be intimidated by Cayley's detailed instructions for navigating the digital poem, but others may appreciate the opportunity to experience a poetic grace in a digital environment too often dominated by the more violent sensibilities of gaming. —Cynthia G. Wagner

Sources: Uppsala University, P.O. Box 256, SE-751 05 Uppsala, Sweden. Web site www.uu.se ."riverIsland" by John Cayley, http://homepage.mac/com/shadoof/net/in/riverisland.html. "City of Bits" by Thomas Swiss, http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/swiss/cob/index.html#

January-February 2008. Vol. 42. No. 1