Customer Reviews
Timely and Provocative
This is an exploration on several levels -- advances in biotechnology and where they are headed, and what it means to be human. While occasionally tedious, overall Fukuyama has an excellent writing style and coveys information well.
He starts by briefly examining George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. He then explains, "The aim of [this] book is to argue that Huxley was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a "posthuman" stage of history." (7)
For all of our diversity, humans share fundamental qualities. Aristotle and his students began the dialog about "the nature of human nature [which has continued] in the Western philosophical tradition right up to the early modern period, when liberal democracy was born." (13). The Declaration of Independence captured the concept of shared human equality (albeit the concept was imperfectly applied in the Constitution). Fukuyama picks up the dialog, going beyond medical ethics to how advances in biotechnology may affect what it means to be human -- our humanness.
The book is in three parts. In the first part he runs the spectrum of biotechnology issues facing humanity, asking many intriguing questions along the way. He categorizes these issues as "the increasing knowledge about the brain and the biological sources of human behavior, neuropharmacology and the manipulation of emotions and behavior, the prolongation of life, and finally, genetic engineering." (16). It is the latter that raises the most concern, that has huge moral implications, since it has the most potential to change human nature and brings with it the specter of eugenics -- originally a neutral term, but since the 1930s one that has taken on a dark, foreboding connotation.
He explains (101) the cause for worry. "It is...a fear that, in the end, biotechnology will cause us in some way to lose our humanity -- that is, some essential quality that has always underpinned our sense of who we are and where we are going ...And what is that human essence that we might be in danger of losing? 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."
The second part of the book "deals with the philosophical issues raised by an ability to manipulate human nature. It argues for the centrality of human nature to our understanding of right and wrong -- that is, human rights -- and how we can develop a concept of human dignity that does not depend on religious assumptions about the origins of man" (16). He discusses at length (chapter 7) Western humanistic philosophies and social theories about the nature of man that presuppose more versatility with these ideas than I possess. Noticeably, he puts less emphasis on the spiritual aspects of being human (in contrast, for example, to Dr. Martin Luther King in his meditations on "What is Man" and "Dimensions of a Complete Life.") In chapter 8 he defines what he means by human nature and in chapter 9, human dignity. The latter is "the idea there is something unique about the human race that entitles every member of the species to a higher moral status than the rest of the natural world" (160).
"We are thus brought back to the question of politics and political strategies. For if there is a viable concept of human dignity out there, it needs to be defended, not just in philosophical tracts but in the real world of politics, and protected by viable political institutions" (177). This is the topic of the third part of his book - how and where we decide to draw the line. He argues that this decision can only be made by "the democratically constituted political community, acting chiefly through their elected representatives" (186).
The scope of his research is enormous (much of it building on his previous work), and he has excellent insights. For example,
·"If people get upset enough about genetic inequality, there will be two alternative courses of action. The first and most sensible would simply be to forbid the use of biotechnology to enhance human characteristics and decline to compete in this dimension. But the notion of enhancement may become too powerfully attractive to forego...At this point a second possibility opens up, which is to use that same technology to raise up the bottom" (158-159).
·In his discussion of reductionism vs. complex systems theory (162-164) he explains how cosmology and particle physics, even the eventual discovery of a Grand Unified Theory, likely will be unable to predict with certitude how the known universe will continue to evolve.
·He says (28), "Attacking the methodological credentials of people whose views one doesn't like and dismissing their work as "pseudoscience" is a convenient shortcut around arguing over substance." Interesting comment in light of the current controversy surrounding the Raelian claim of having cloned humans for the first time.
·"Human nature also serves to provide us with guidance as to what political orders won't work. Proper understanding of the contemporary evolutionary theory of kin selection, or inclusive fitness, for example, would have led us to predict the bankruptcy and ultimate failure of communism, due to the latter's failure to respect the natural inclination to favor kin and private property" (127).
In the end this is not only a primer on biotech issues, but a philosophical discussion of what it means to be human as well. While it's an evenhanded exploration, he shows a preference for caution and control. "...[I]t is time to move from thinking to acting, from recommending to legislating. We need institutions with real enforcement powers" (204). It's a complex book that is rewarding even if difficult to fully absorb (for me, in one reading anyway).
Technophobic, but slightly redeeming
Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis has struck many as manifestly falsified by the terrorist attacks on New York. In the light of this, he has revised this thesis substantially in his newest work, "Our Posthuman Future."
Fukuyama's argument runs as follows: liberal democracy and market capitalism are rooted in the notion of human rights. Human rights are derivative from the requirements of life and human nature. The exponential progress in neuropharamacology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, etc. is fundamentally changing the requirements of human existence. The notion of human rights will be obsolete since we have become "posthuman." Therefore, Fukuyama's central thesis states, unless we closely regulate technological advances, the ethical foundations of democracy and capitalism shall be undermined.
Some reviewers have correctly nailed Fukuyama's on his adherance to the "naturalistic fallacy." (which, in all fairness, Fukuyama explictly tries to rebuff) However, his biggest failing stems from his inability to address why "posthumanity" is intrinsically inferior to humanity. Indeed, any attempt to answer that normative question would involve either a human or posthuman frame-of-reference, the latter of which we do not currently possess. In other words, Fukuyama tries to argue against the prospect of posthumanity from a distinctly human ethics.
For some ethical theories, (e.g. Kantianism) criticizing the prospect of posthumanity may not be a problem, since the theory should apply to all rational beings. Fukuyama, however, explicitly states his allegiance to Aristotlean ethics, which constructs value judgments from the requirements of human nature. In other words, Aristotlean ethics only applies to human beings, not posthumans. Thus, Fukuyama has no right to criticize the prospect of posthumanity.
Fukuyama uses this faulty reasoning to urge legislators to clamp down on science and progress through massive regulations. Rather unconcerned with the plethora of benefits that these technologies may bring to humanity, Fukuyama's remains paranoid of entering a Huxleyan brave new world.
In the light of these flaw, why 3 stars? Fukuyama's catalogue of advancements in neuropharmacology, genetic engineering, etc. is really the only redeeming aspect of his work. As one who read this book primarily for its philosophical and political implications, Fukuyama's extensive and accessible discussion of the biotech revolution provides a value-added advantage for those who wish to learn about it. Recommended with reservations.
Thoughtful and interesting
There is no great revolutionary thesis here of the kind that Fukuyama astonished the world with in his previous work, claiming that the end of history had come and it is the triumph of liberal democracy. But there is the same kind of reasoned and measured thought, this time about the very nature of what it means to be human, and the threats to our humanity posed by our own technological innovations.
It seems to me that Fukuyama touches on only a share of the problems involved with the question. And I believe he could be helped had he relied on the Jewish conception , that human beings are creators creating in the image of the Creator and therefore constantly recreating themselves. i.e. by the conception that the essence of Mankind is in transcending our past humanity to create our next stage of development. In any case this is an important book for anyone who would understand the problems Humanity is facing today in regard to its own essence and future.
