Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution

Author - Francis Fukuyama ... [Goo?] [Posters]

This Paperback Book item from Picador was reviewed on 4-Nov-2008.

Search ISBN:0312421710 offer from Abebooks or used books from Alibris. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution Reference Book. Classifications : General AAS Science & Mathematics New & Used Textbooks Custom Stores Specialty Stores Books General AAS Social Sciences New & Used Textbooks Custom Stores Specialty Stores Books General AAS New & Used . Click the following link to view the cover of Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution.

Related topics: General AAS. Custom Stores. Specialty Stores. Books. General AAS. Social Sciences. Custom Stores. Specialty Stores. Books. General AAS.

1) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador. Perhaps it is useful that Professor Fukuyama is again obsessed with "ends" rather than with "means." Inasmuch as it seems that speculations about "ends" is easier to write about. They allow us to "play out" often unpleasant, but easy and morally neutral "What if" mind games about possible future alternatives to existing paradigms of reality. The one Fukuyama has fixated on here is the implications of biotechnical developments ability to extend longevity well beyond normal limits. By anticipating the likely consequences, Fukuyama is allowed to play out various easy political and moral scenarios to "his hearts content." Like in his last book, he is able to do so without getting his hands dirty by grasping the larger more important problem of how to address the "means" which will ultimately dictate where these "ends" will lead and how they will be managed morally and politically.

At this stage, it is worthwhile to recall that Professor Fukuyama´s previous controversial book entitled "The End of History," was basically a political metaphor suggesting that since democracy had won the competition with communism, it (democracy) represented the end of history. It was an unfortunate metaphor for many reasons, the least of which was not that there are still resonances from the critics, being felt reverberating across the academic landscape even almost fifteen years later. Yet, if one followed his thesis carefully, it seems to me that what Mr. Fukuyama was really trying to say was a bit more subtle than simply calling for an abrupt end to history: It was NOT that history had actually ended, but that as a paradigm of governmental evolution, democracy is probably the last "known," or the end stage of the present paradigm. In other words, if we expect to advance beyond democracy, then we may well have to "go back to the drawing board" and invent a better form of government upon which political evolution may then be allowed to continue. There, as here, Mr. Fukuyama did not see a need to go beyond his own self-conceived theoretical model.

Now, in this, his latest book, Professor Fukuyama, begins by surveying the state of the art in three major biotech fields: cloning; genetic engineering; and psycho-pharmacology. It is his belief that among these, psychopharmacology, with its ability to alter brain chemistry, is the most likely to have large-scale effects on American society, and civilization more generally. In siding with Aldus Huxley´s "Brave New World," Mr. Fukuyama leaves more "food for thought" on the intellectual table, as well as more grist for the political and scientific, mills. Yet in his careful weaving together of several independent biotech threads, he is again primarily concerned with the easier problem of "ends" rather than with the more difficult one of "means."

His main thread, psychopharmacology, has been the subject of a great deal of intellectual, if not scientific curiosity for at least the better part of the latter half of the 20th Century -- both by science fiction writers as well as by such Gurus as already mentioned Aldous Huxley, plus, Timonthy Leary, and Arthur Koestler, among many others.

The other strain, genetics, is finally emerging into the light of day as "start-up" entities scramble, falling all over each other to get ahead of the competition. The "ends" are easy to predict. It is the "means" where all of the sticky problems lie. One could argue that the consequences of increasing longevity, while it may be the most proximate of possibilities, is far from being the potentially greatest challenge for humankind that these technologies offer in the future.

That real challenge, as Professor Fukuyama well knows has less to do with the kinds of technologies will inhabit the future, than with the age old problem of what kind of moral and political institutions will be available to deal with them. That of course is where the rubber meets the road. And just as the development of nuclear weapons exposed the poverty of man´s social and political development up through the present decade, biotechnologies will simply point a further accusatory finger in the same direction. [Who are we kidding here?]

To his credit, Professor Fukuyama makes a feeble hand-waving attempt to raise this issue, but he does so in the classical and socially permitted way: as if the problem reduces to one between the morality of religion versus the morality science? (Ha!, that dog will no longer hunt!) Surely if that had been true, if it were just a question of choosing the correct morality, then we would have solved this dilemma when humanity was on the brink of disaster during the standoff of the Cold War? That we did not, impeaches that approach altogether, as well it should. For the real truth is, and the real poverty of our existence, is that religion has failed us much more than science has, and now it seeks thorough its apologists, to maintain its defrocked throne via fiat.

Mr. Fukuyama knows as well as anyone that there is no such thing as a "post human" future, whatever the state of humanity in the future, it will still be human, whether we wish to own up to it or not. This metaphor of a "post human future" is just a coward´s way out of suggesting that, as we did doing the nuclear era, man will lack the courage to face the moral questions his technology will raise. And as they keep coming, we keep backing away. I am afraid that this is the very behavior that defines what "post humanity" is.

Four Stars.¤

2) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador. This book is full of things like "human dignity" that the author can´t define properly. Building an argument on vague terms is not convincing. It pains me that this man thinks he is a bioethicist... He´s a fundamentalist neocon who is not interested in logic. A waste of time.¤

3) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador. About fifteen years ago Francis Fukuyama, professor of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, published a controversial book in which he argued that humanity had made no significant political progress since the French Revolution and that the collapse of communism in 1989 signaled the "end" of history. By "end" Fukuyama meant that western, liberal democracy had triumphed over all political options.

Now he has revised his thesis, not because he thinks it was wrong, but because he failed to factor in the role of science as perhaps the chief engine that drives human history. Science drives any number of interests---technological, economic, ethical, social, and so on, but Fukuyama´s concern is that it is increasingly driving our political life. If biotechnology alters human nature, then it will alter our political discourse and options.

How so? Consider the political ramifications of scientific conclusions about the heritability of intelligence, crime, sexuality, and aging. Are some races born more or less intelligent simply due to their genetics? If scientists discover a genetic marker for aggression, should society do anything about it (recall the movie Minority Report)? Already we have experienced the political fallout of the debate whether sexual orientation is the result of genetics or choice. Finally, if science continues to extend the average lifespan of people, what are the implications for increasingly scarce resources? To be sure, when science identifies what it thinks is a causative factor in any of these four examples, it will try to manipulate those same factors for what it thinks is the good.

Fukuyama most fears that when biotechnology alters human nature it alters our commonly accepted notions of human rights, justice and morality. Both human rights and human dignity are at stake. He rejects alarmist views that would over regulate or passively ignore biotechnology. He encourages political institutions to keep a wary eye on ostensible threats and benefits, and cautions about the commercial interests inherent for business and science. Finally, Fukuyama argues with a sense of urgency, saying we need to move now from talking to acting, from recommending to legislating.¤

4) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador. Fukuyama says that 1984 presaged the information society, but it has not lead to tyranny of surveillance and propaganda, but rather a decentralized political process in which the individual is empowered to hold the government more accountable. Brave New World presaged the biotech revolution and this concerns him more because it can change the very essence of human nature. The brave new world seeks to seduce us to give up our humanity as we know it for happiness and healthiness that can be brought about supposedly by biotechnology.

Fukuyama examines what will be the consequences of the biotech revolution. Drugs like Prozac and Ritalin can alter our moods to achieve better behavior, but there can also be unwanted side effects. Life extension technologies may lead to gray-haired societies in which older people rigidly rule over the younger ones with their outdated world view. What will happen to the concept of equality, if some are able to breed children with higher intelligence than others? Fukuyama thinks that international rules need to be made to ensure that biotechnology is implemented in an ethical way.

Changes in and explanations of human nature have been attempted or debated over throughout history, even before the biotech revolution. Governments with extreme ideological agendas have sought to modify human nature, but these were crude attempts to do so, considering what may be done with biotechnology in the future. Genetic explanations for human nature, ability, and differences have resurged in recent years, much to the chagrin of those who think that differences and inequality can be explained by environmental factors.

Fukuyama goes on to discuss the book The Bell Curve in which the authors used IQ tests scores to explain differences in average IQ among different races in one of the sections of the book. They also argued that intelligence is largely inherited and stable by adulthood. The book was approved by some conservatives because it explained social hierarchies and contradicted the liberals´ belief that equality could be achieved by social engineering. Liberals tend to maintain that intelligence is difficult to measure; conservatives tend to think that intelligence can be objectively measured. Fukuyama says that just because the findings are political incorrect, it doesn´t mean they are flawed, and they cannot be dismissed as pseudoscience. Liberals have accused Cyril Burt, a researcher of IQ of falsifying data on twin studies to make it look like that intelligence is largely inherited. In Cyril Burt´s case, it was proven that his research was solid, and not falsified. Other researchers in the field have reached a consensus that intelligence is 40 to 50 percent inherited with the rest being influenced by environmental factors such as good nutrition. They disagree with Burt, Hernstein, and Murray that the inheritable percentage is as high as 70 percent. Fukuyama warns us that the IQ and genes issues will not go away in the future as scientists learn more about the subject. Although Fukuyama claims that no one since the bad old days of scientific racism has claimed that blacks are genetically prone to crime, I think Hernstein and Murray argued this indirectly by saying that people with low IQ are more impulsive, less future-oriented, and cannot think out the consequences of their criminal actions as well. Then they claim their research shows that blacks are on the lower end of bell intelligence curve.

Genetic research has also stirred up more controversies about what causes other human differences. The left has argued that sex differences are totally socially constructed, but the research into genetics proves that there is biological differences between males and females. On homosexuality, the tables turn, the right claims it is a matter of lifestyle choice, and the left claims that there is gay gene that makes homosexuals gay. This shows that people will use or not use scientific research to bolster their arguments according to whether it confirms their political or religious beliefs.

Fukuyama describes how drugs to alter moods and behaviors are being pushed by pharmaceutical companies for profit and schools for ideological agendas. Drug companies like Eli Lily have spent millions trying to fend off bad stories about Prozac. ADHD is a problem for the students that is both biological and a controllable behavior problem. Teachers would rather subscribe Ritalin for hyperactive kids rather than discipline them the old fashioned way. Perhaps since corporeal punishment is out of fashion in the schools, medication has become the last resort to replace ineffective discipline. Prozac and Ritalin serve the purposes of androgyny: the former gives more confidence to girls and the latter makes boys more passive. Fukuyama worries about drugs being used to achieve political correct behaviors such these androgynous ones. But people seem to want some sort of happy pill to make them feel better whether it be legal like Prozac or illegal like Ecstasy. Drugs are being used to manipulate behavior just like the soma in Huxley´s Brave New World.

Fukuyama looks at the demographics of aging and sees that populations in countries of the south are remaining young, while populations in countries of the north are shrinking in number, growing older, and have a large number of older females. He wonders how this will affect politics for the northern countries. Will they be willing to go to war as much with a shrinking population of youths for fighting and a growing population of peace-minded older females? Fukuyama is worried that by extending life, we will run into problems of quantity over quality of life and the chances of diseases such as Alzheimer´s increasing as people get older. There is also political correctness about age that suggests that makes people not want to criticize any problems with the aged or with aging. He brings up the problem of how much do we want to spend on prolonging people´s lives after they have finished their careers and raised their kids.¤

5) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador. By arguing that human rights comes from some vague concept of "dignity" and "familiarity" rather than sentience and feeling, Fukuyama brings to mind the European colonists who considered Africans no more than "common beasts." His philosophy, although argued in a tone that seems reasonable, is at turns startingly narrow-minded and genetically-racist. Not reccomended: readers should look otherwheres for a more balanced and less judgemental review of biotechnology and ethics.¤

6) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador.

7) Paperback Book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Picador. Maybe we have a future after all: Our Posthuman Future is political historian Francis Fukuyama´s reconsideration of his 1989 announcement that history had reached an end. He claims that science, particularly genome studies, offers radical changes, possibly more profound than anything since the development of language, in the way we think about human nature. He makes his case thoroughly and eloquently, rarely dipping into philosophical or critical jargon and consistently maintaining an informal tone.

Fukuyama is deeply concerned about the erosion of the foundations of liberal democracy under pressure from new concepts of humans and human rights, and most readers will find some room for agreement. Ultimately, he argues for strong international regulation of human biotechnology and thoughtfully disposes of the most compelling counterarguments. While readers might not agree that we´re at risk of creating Huxley´s Brave New World, it´s hard to deny that things are changing quickly and that perhaps we ought to consider the changes before they´re irrevocable. --Rob Lightner¤

Page Updated: Robert N. Goolsby, 2-Dec-2008, 03124217109780312421717, 990-890-100-310-500-380-BAB-8

Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Book, Image © Picador

Search: Picador, Book Posters, Book Art