Francis Fukuyama’s Our Posthuman Future fears that biotechnology will make monsters of us. Steven Rose weighs the evidence. The power to genetically enhance future generations could be a boon for humanity – or it could lead to an era of violent rebellion against the. Is a baby whose personality has been chosen from a gene supermarket still a human? If we choose what we create what happens to morality? Is this the end of .
|Published (Last):||1 April 2012|
|PDF File Size:||8.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The notions that women were too irrational or emotional to participate in politics, and that immigrants from southern Europe had smaller head sizes and futurr less intelligent than those from northern Europe, were overturned on the basis of sound, empirical science.
Fukuyama The End of History and the Last Man ; Trust is no stranger to controversial theses, and here he advances two: Since the novel”s publication, there have probably been several million high school essays written in futude to the question, “What”s wrong with this picture?
Huxley suggests that one source for a definition of what it meansto be a human being is religion. It was not some futuristic speculation, but an argument that the collapse of Soviet communism and the triumph of US-style liberal democracy meant that, effectively, the world was now under stable management. The aim of this book gukuyama to argue that Huxley was right, that the most significant thr.
Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Of the nightmares evoked by these postyuman books, Brave New World”s always struck me as more subtle and more challenging.
Don’t mess with human nature…
People were again quick to point out that these two events–the collapse of totalitarian empires and the emergence of the personal computer, as well as other forms of inexpensive information technology, from TVs and radios to faxes and e-mail–were not unrelated.
He begins by summarising what he sees as the current state of play in the science and technology of genetic and brain sciences, in terms of their capacity to extend healthy human life, to understand the roots of human behaviour intelligence, aggression, sexual orientationand to control and change that behaviour with drugs Prozac, Ritalin and so on.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. No one takes religion seriously any longer, no one is introspective or has unrequited longings, the biological family pozthuman been abolished, no one reads Shakespeare. Throughout, Fukuyama avoids ideological straitjackets and articulates a position that is neither Luddite nor laissez-faire.
Our Posthuman Future – Wikipedia
Fukuyama will be speaking at the Guardian Hay festival on Saturday June 1. Thank you for your feedback.
What the emergence of a genetic overclass will do to the idea of universal human dignity is something worth pondering. But this revolution has only just begun; the daily avalanche of announcements of new breakthroughs in biomedical technology and achievements such as the completion of the Human Genome Project in the year portend much fukuyaam serious changes to come. It is impossible to know which of these two scenarios – one of growing genetic inequality, the other of growing equality – will come to pass.
Review: Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama | Books | The Guardian
By this I mean not just fighting metaphorically, in the sense of shouting matches among talking heads on TV and debates in Congress, but actually fuhure up guns and bombs and using them on other people.
Lewis, called the “abolition of man” is thus a violation of God”s will.
The implicit message is that unfettered scientific inquiry will lead to developments we will come to deeply regret. Were a caveman to be plopped down in the late 20th Century and witness the first heart transplant, would he recoil in disgust and declare the practice inimical to the basic fabric of human existence?
The novel was about what we now call information technology: Fukuyama argues that the ability to manipulate the DNA of all of one person’s descendants will have profound, and potentially terrible, consequences for our political order, even if undertaken with the best of intentions. Instead we are treated to an unflinchingly conservative position that the only way to combat negative outcomes is to pass the burden of biotech research regulation to political bodies which will be successful in hedging these outcomes to the degree that they are successful in orchestrating global consensus to outlaw biotech research.
So what should we do about it? Many of the technologies that Huxley envisioned, like in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, psychotropic drugs, and genetic engineering for the manufacture of children, are already here or just over the horizon.
Get to Know Us. Check date values in: Occasional breaking of the law, cannot be used as an excuse not to pursue legislature at all.
Buy the selected items together This item: The two books were far more prescient than anyone realized at the time, because they were centered on two different technologies that would in fact emerge and shape the world over the next two generations. Most US free marketeers writing in this area take this view, in contrast to the European tradition of regulating in the public interest.
The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk raised a storm of protest in when he suggested that it will soon be impossible for people to refuse the power of selection that biotechnology provides, and that the questions of breeding something “beyond” man that were raised by Nietzsche and Plato could no longer be ignored.
But the situation is paradoxical, as US conservative religious views on, for instance, stem-cell research clash with an otherwise deregulatory agenda. Indeed, there is no such thing as the human race any longer, since they have been bred by the Controllers into separate castes of Alphas, Betas, Epsilons, and Gammas who are as distant from each other as humans are from animals.
Critics point out that human nature can be expressed only within the diverse and historically contingent societies that humans create, and therefore cannot be understood a priori. And insofar as human biotechnology threatens to interfere with that human nature, it is essential that it be regulated. Fukuyama looks almost enviously at the tighter regulatory structures in Europe as a harbinger of hope that biotechnology’s post-human world does not have to be competitive, hierarchical and full of social conflict – a future he sees as probable if unregulated biotechnology delivers on its promises.
Macmillan- Science – pages. Therefore, biotechnology targeting human nature will inevitably affect the discourse of values and politics. For one can then ask, What is so important about being a human being in the traditional way that Huxley defines it?
The political prescience of the other great dystopia, Brave New World, remains to be seen. In this world, disease and social conflict have been abolished, there is no depression, madness, loneliness, or emotional distress, sex is good and readily available. Partly it is the product of historical accident: And will failure to initiate widespread government oversight of scientific research that could change this definition open a Pandora’s Box of dire consequences?
And sometimes he is way off course, as when he repeats the once-fashionable 19th-century nostrum that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – ie, that fukuyamma human foetus relives its evolutionary history in the nine months prior to birth.