Fukyama's best since End of History
|
Our Post human Future is Fukuyamas best book since the End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama revises the argument that History has ended because he thinks that future technologies, like genetic engineering and neuropharmacology, have the potential to change human nature thereby ushering in a post-human phase of history.
Fukuyama is worried that a race of post-humans will have devastating consequences. For example it could lead to humans becoming the post-humans slaves. Unlike previous forms of slavery, which were based on mistaken beliefs of superiority, this form would be based on real genetic differences: the post-humans being not just a different race but a different species altogether. Fukuyama, consequently, argues for the creation of an international regulatory framework to control and prevent human bioengineering.
Whilst I agree with a lot of this book I am unconvinced about two major points, hence four stars instead of five. Firstly I am not sure that genetic engineering of human beings will lead to undesirable results. Secondly I doubt that sciences progress can be stopped.
Much of this book is a philosophical argument against the naturalistic fallacy (the idea that morals are derived from human nature). Some reviewers think that Fukuyama is simply not strong enough at philosophy to undermine the naturalistic fallacy, but I found the argument convincing. In fact sometimes I think it could be too convincing for I was left wondering whether "human rights" exist at all!
Some of the best assertions are in the first part of the book. I particularly enjoyed Fukuyamas lucidity with regards to homosexuality. Today people argue that homosexuality is natural because it has genetic causes, the so-called gay gene. Fukuyama, firstly, points out that, in the great nature/nurture debate of the 20th century, left wingers inconsistently believed homosexuality to be nature and everything else to be nurture and that the (Christian) right were just as bad as they thought the opposite. Secondly Fukuyama has the wisdom to point out that because homosexuality is genetic perhaps anti-homosexual sentiments are caused by genetic factors too. It is known that people want to have children and their children to have children and so on in order for their line of genes to continue. Therefore parents will be disappointed with homosexual children as they are less likely to procreate. And this sentiment combined with genetic technology could lead to parents choosing not to have homosexual children in the future!
All in all, despite not being entirely convinced by some of the books key arguments there were numerous insights into human nature and technology which made me think and re-evaluate my opinions. I highly recommend it.
|
|
Readable summary of biotech implications loses its way
|
I was really looking forward to reading this book, and thoroughly enjoyed the first half. It is probably the best summary of current trends in biotechnology that I have read, and unlike many popular science books on the subject the author extends his discussion to the societal impacts but still remains succint and very readable. And I was intrigued by the premise of the second and third sections of the book - to develop an argument that there is a concept of intrinsic human nature and that the idea of human diginity is based on it, then to show how various biotech advances could threaten this human dignity and finally discuss ways to create a framework to prevent this happening. Sadly, I feel most of this was not achieved. The discussion of human nature was interesting but in many areas showed a lack of fundamental understanding of the issues, especally on conciousness; the author does not appear to understand the Turing Test for example, nor the deep problems of zombies as discussed in Dennetts 'Conciousness Explained'. No conclusion is reached on what human nature may be.
Even more troubling was the final section. As a summary of the existing regulatory frameworks for biotechnology it may suffice, but it is only in the final page of the book that any reference is made to the human dignity arguements of the second section. There's very little to tie the sections of the book together.
Ultimately, after a brilliant start I found the book a bit of a let down, but thought provoking and I would still recommend it.
|
|
Shallow argument
|
|
The preceding review captures the essence of the book very well. In addition, I found important parts of its argument to be shallow and not well justified at all. For instance, Fukuyama is content with presuming that basic human differences, e.g. in terms of gender, are to a large extent biologically shaped without ever thoroughly justifying this contention. On the contrary, he declares already in an early section of the book that this insight belongs to contemporary commom-sense and has been 'proven' beyond doubt. While it might be common sense among natural scientists and sociobiologists, it remains highly contentious in the social sciences in general. In this sense, Fukuyama's argument is either based on deficient knowledge on the part of the author, or it is preposterous in so far as he consciously chose to ignore important aspects of contemporary intellectual debates.
|
|
|
An unspeakable future, or business as usual?
|
|
If you are a balanced individual of the Western consensus, and you want a book that crystallises your ideas and provides intellectual justification for your prejudices, if you believe with a sinking heart that much of modern philosophy and social science is no more than the raucous parroting of evident untruths, then this is the book for you. If, however, you look for prediction, new insights or full explanations, then you will finish this book with a sense of disappointment. But you will finish it, because it is very well written, with a profound understanding of, and love of humanity and all its foibles. And it does put a new spin on old insights. Fukuyama’s thesis is that brain science, neuropharmacology, research on ageing, and genetic engineering threaten the very nature of our humanity. He begins by discussing current and expected developments in these fields, and goes on to explore the issues of human rights, human nature and human dignity. The chapter on human dignity is particularly thought-provoking. He concludes by discussing and exploring current controls on applications of knowledge in these fields. I find two basic problems with the book. I guess it began with horror inspired by the hype of the more extremely optimistic proponents of the sciences mentioned above. But the author’s examination of what these sciences can actually achieve shows that really, there isn’t much to worry about. Prozac and Ritalin are quoted as agents for modifying consciousness by suppressing undesirable but ‘normal’ behaviour. But as the author himself says, consciousness remains as much a mystery as it ever was. And while he abhors germ-line therapy, he shows that it is unlikely ever to be used except for correcting discreet and demonstrable genetic defects like haemophilia. After all, the broad principles of selective breeding have been known for millennia, but apart from the practice of arranged marriages, and a strange experiment by one of the da Vincis, selective breeding of humans has not, to my knowledge, been practised. The other problem is the moral basis for the author’s view of humanity. He seeks to establish a viewpoint that is modern, but essentially Christian, without accepting the Christian thesis. In his rationale for this, he agrees with Locke that the faithful disagree so much and often so violently, that they cannot form a consensus on morality. But Locke, unlike Fukuyama, never knew the horrors that can be spawned by humanist, atheist moral reasoning. I suppose it is all much simpler if you believe that Man is the high point of creation, and made in the image of a law-giving God. But if you believe that we are but trivial sparks of awareness in a dark, disinterested universe, where do you start? I don’t know, but Francis Fukuyama has made a brave and engaging attempt.
|
|
Good, focussed analysis of problem
|
|
This book presents a good general analysis of the social and ethical problems associated with the possibility of human genetic engineering. The author contends that our current political and social institutions are based on the notion of a shared humanity. However, with changes to humanity as profound as the possibility of mixing of our DNA with that of other creatures, to what extent will it be possible to speak of a shared humanity? What will it mean to be human? Will it not be that the definitions with which we are currently familiar will become so overstretched that they will be meaningless? In attempting to address this problem he proposes that the major characteristic we might use to identify human-ness is human emotionality. In the same way that we treat people who are not physically perfect as human, so we might also treat future generations as human by virtue of their emotional makeup. The book is sensibily divided up into three sections, each one dealing with different aspects of the issue. The first presents us with the general context of human intervention in our health and well-being, the second our current philosophical and legal understanding of the issues, and then finally some ideas as to how we might control the future use of these potentially transfiguring technologies. The metaphor I kept coming up with was that this is the same sort of problem that affects countries enduring large-scale immigration. How does one manage that process while still retaining control of the identity of your nationality? In the same way, the changes in the human genetic future will be profound, but we will still have to retain some sense of what it means to be human.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada