Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology …

I was very impressed with the depth and scope of Fukuyama's examination of the call to regulate biotechnology and especially with the fairness of his presentation and tone. His subject is a particularly contentious one, and one of enormous importance for all of us since the effect of biotechnology on human beings includes the possibility of not only changing our very nature, but of an actual step-by-step termination of humans as we are now constituted.

Ultimately this is what Professor Fukuyama is worried about and why he argues so strongly for the regulation of the biotech industry regardless of the effect such regulation might have on scientific progress and even at the risk of creating a biotech gap between the United States and other nations actively pursuing such research.

However, I don't think Fukuyama was completely successful in making his case; indeed I am not worried about "us" becoming something else or losing what he refers to as our "human essence."

"And what is that human essence that we might be in danger of losing?" he asks on page 101. "For a religious person, it might have to do with the divine gift or spark that all human beings are born with. From a secular perspective, it would have to do with human nature: the species-typical characteristics shared by all human beings qua human beings. That is ultimately what is at stake in the biotech revolution."

He doesn't define these "species-typical characteristics." Instead he goes on to say that there is "an intimate connection between human nature and human notions of rights, justice, and morality." He then argues the case for basing human rights on human nature, sometimes called the "naturalistic fallacy," thereby putting himself in the hands of those who would know what human nature is. Alas, there is no agreement on that subject, which is why, as Fukuyama notes, the term "natural rights" has been replaced with "human rights whose provenance does not depend on a theory of nature." (p. 101)

On page149 he changes his tack somewhat and argues that the biotechnological revolution is a threat to our sense of "dignity and recognition." He says this "is not economic: what we desire is not money but that other human beings respect us in the way we think we deserve."

Here I would point out that "recognition" and having "dignity" in the eyes of others is adaptive in a Darwinian sense. People that the tribe regard as lacking dignity and recognition get fewer reproductive tries and have a tough time of it socially and economically. Having dignity is like saving face: something we must do to maintain psychological equilibrium and our position in society.

On page 218 he comes around to concluding that "human nature is very plastic... But it is not infinitely malleable, and the elements that remain constant--particularly our species-typical gamut of emotional responses--constitute a safe harbor that allows us to connect, potentially, with all other human beings."

This seems to imply that what he has finally found as our "essence" is our emotional nature. He might be right (heaven help us if he is) but I think our ability to adapt to change and to order our environment to our advantage through our culture and technology is really the essence of what it means to be human.

The curious thing about this book is how really persuasive, reasonable and informative Fukuyama is when he is NOT arguing for the regulation of biotechnology. Here are some interesting observations:

Read this article:
Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology ...