We are assailed by expressed concerns in the media regarding the ethics and morality of evolutionary genetic engineering for humans and other animals. I hope that Destiny made clear the point that it is how we use evolutionary genetic engineering for Humanity that matters, not that we use it. We are, unfortunately, still left with a most difficult consideration. We know that the ability to evolve humans implies a corresponding ability to evolve different members of the rest of the animal kingdom, including non-mammal life forms. This appendix article is an attempt to deal with that most difficult subject.

The best starting place is found in Buddhism. I recall a prayer said before dinner in the home of Buddhist friends. The prayer contained thanks for the food and the wish for a better life for all sentient beings. Sentient beings are those who are responsive to or conscious of sense impressions. In short, sentient beings have some level of awareness of life. To our best understanding, we might classify all forms of life that we know about as being sentient or not. However, it is troublesome to realize that our understanding may be too limited.

With our limited understanding in mind, one practical approach is to identify all life forms that we believe to be sentient and to treat them as a group that includes humans. At the same time, we must avoid defining other life forms as non-sentient until we do have the knowledge to know that definitively. This is the basis for deciding, by two major groupings, possible early candidates for the use of evolutionary genetic engineering on behalf of Progress.

It is essential to understand that our primary interest in moving Humanity ahead on the evolutionary scale is limited to primary only. It is thus valid to consider, for example, other mammals. Indeed, Destiny identifies a future for Humanity that will likely result in our becoming non-human life forms. It must be understood that our initial focus on humans is valid and incomplete. We must open our minds to grasp the Buddhist understanding of the inherent value of other life forms.

We are immediately faced with the reality that we eat many of those other life forms, and that if we value them in relation to their sentient characteristic we are, in fact, killing other sentient beings. We thus proceed to a forward thinking approach to Progress. Science fiction writers have stimulated our imagination and fear about possible future foodstuffs for human consumption, e.g., the movie Soylent Green™, or the short story about an artificially made popular food product, Ambrosia Plus, that was identical to human flesh. An early evolutionary step for us will be the creation of food from simple molecules, using genetic engineering. We likely will grow flesh without the formation of a brain, which is our best guess as to the location of the sentient function. We will also create non-flesh food purely because of being able to do so more efficiently than growing that food via conventional agriculture. However, some sentient life forms will likely continue to eat each other as before.

Having disposed of our fundamental horror of existence through the death of other sentient beings, however limited that solution may be, allows us to proceed with the central topic of this article. I can best pose the problem and the opportunity by asking what purpose is served by turning our cats, dogs, cows and other creatures into comparative geniuses that readily, effectively and completely communicate with us one on one? I will also identify yet a deeper question, which is what purpose do those life forms serve if we do not need them later as food, genetic material or emotional support companions, i.e. friends?

The answer is found in the Buddhist approach to life. We are all one in the universe or cosmos. We do not know the purpose of life even for ourselves, except as it was defined in Destiny. The one thing we do know is that life certainly appears better or more meaningful than the alternative. There is no fundamental purpose in having one thousand or one million times as many living, sentient beings as we have now. Nor is there any reason not to have that many living, sentient beings unless we hit the problem of environmental limits diminishing our capability to promote Progress. Thus, if we individually appreciate the experience of life, then we can understand that more life might be viewed as more enjoyment, appreciation and potential happiness in total.

The implication is that we should proceed to advance the capabilities of other sentient life forms. That is completely consistent with the goals of Destiny. It is then the timing of that process that needs to be fit into the overall plan for human progress. At this time, i.e. the present, I would be derelict in making specific predictions about timing or about potential value in having, for instance, an intelligent horse. But it is fundamental to recognize the fact that humans are not the only present or future valuable sentient life form.