What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution
A decade after his now-famous pronouncement of "the end of history," Francis Fukuyama argues that as a result of biomedical advances, we are facing the possibility of a future in which our humanity itself will be altered beyond recognition. Fukuyama sketches a brief history of man's changing understanding of human from Plato and Aristotle to the modernity's utopians and dictators who sought to remake mankind for ideological ends. 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. In Our Posthuman Future , one of our greatest social philosophers begins to describe the potential effects of genetic exploration on the foundation of liberal the belief that human beings are equal by nature.
218 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
131 people are currently reading
2558 people want to read
About the author
Francis Fukuyama
118 books2,241 followersYoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born 27 October 1952) is an American philosopher, political economist, and author.
Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese-American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church and received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago. His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka Municipal University in Osaka. Fukuyama's childhood years were spent in New York City. In 1967 his family moved to State College, Pennsylvania, where he attended high school.
Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom. He earned his Ph.D. in government from Harvard University, studying with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey C. Mansfield, among others. Fukuyama has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an educational enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg and Paul Wolfowitz.
Fukuyama is currently the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, located in Washington, DC.
Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism.
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
He has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original 'end of history' thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk. One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a highly desirable goal.
The current revolution in biological sciences leads him to theorize that in an environment where science and technology are by no means at an end, but rather opening new horizons, history itself cannot therefore be said to be, as he once thought, at an end.
In another work The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, he explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules.
Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese-American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church and received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago. His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama, was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka Municipal University in Osaka. Fukuyama's childhood years were spent in New York City. In 1967 his family moved to State College, Pennsylvania, where he attended high school.
Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom. He earned his Ph.D. in government from Harvard University, studying with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey C. Mansfield, among others. Fukuyama has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an educational enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg and Paul Wolfowitz.
Fukuyama is currently the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, located in Washington, DC.
Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism.
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
He has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original 'end of history' thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk. One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a highly desirable goal.
The current revolution in biological sciences leads him to theorize that in an environment where science and technology are by no means at an end, but rather opening new horizons, history itself cannot therefore be said to be, as he once thought, at an end.
In another work The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, he explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
December 6, 2021
George Ace, a crusty old dairy farmer I once knew, had an expression: "The big print gives it all to you. The fine print takes it all away." That's rather much the way it is with Francis Fukuyama.
Fukuyama, a Johns Hopkins University professor and philosophical gadfly, lays on us provocative titles like Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, or, The End of History, his earlier book, and then starts chiseling away at definitions so as to say, in effect, "Oh, I didn't really mean THAT," telling you instead that his definition of "human" or of "history" really means only his little narrow, contrived (and maybe marketable?) definition that fits his argument.
George Ace wouldn't have had time for it. Probably only academics and policy wonks would, and that's the dangerous part--dangerous because they might actually buy-into Fukuyama's contrivances. Still, the book is an intellectual pot of coffee: "Good morning! Wake up! There's an issue out there!"
Let me get right to the point, something Fukuyama never does. The book is a call for government to apply the brakes to biotechnology because he fears the nature of Man if an elite class unleashes its super-babies upon society.
The trouble is, it takes him 218 pages to get to the point, although it's a fascinating detour through the Philosophy Hall of Fame: Heidegger, Hegel, Mill, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Locke, and on into Jefferson and Lincoln, for at its core, this is NOT a book about biotechnololgy. It is a book about humanity, human nature, human rights, and therefore the question: What right have we to be tampering with "nature"?--whatever that is.
Indeed, the bulk of the book toys with terms, as the reader watches Fukuyama carve hand-crafted definitions that suit his purpose and shove aside those that--though perfectly logical--block his chosen path.
And where is it he wants to go? To a philosophically-sound-even if contrived or intellectually-cooked basis for saying biotechnology is too scary to be left unregulated, especially when it touches this magical, mystical thing called "human nature."
Fukuyama serves as intellectual tour guide through three schools of thought on human nature and its connection to human rights. The first school (my term, not his) is theology-based; that is, human rights are granted by God, a superior being. This school is no longer in control of western civilization, and hasn't been for a long time, says Fukuyama.
The second school, represented by and perhaps culminating in Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, says human rights come from human nature, though Fukuyama gets remarkably fuzzy when trying to link this human nature to genetics.
The third school says human rights are whatever a political body says they are. And that's what's wrong with society today, says Fukuyama in effect, because it lacks the moral compass of either of the first two schools.
Fukuyama begs us to return, please, the "human nature equals human rights" school of thought, while continually failing to close the deal intellectually as to how human nature automatically gets us to human rights (or even defining human nature in a way that solidifies his argument).
Indeed, his subsequent and perhaps accidental praise of civic control of pharmacology and agricultural biotechnology leave the reader thinking, "Gee, maybe human rights ARE whatever we agree they are," thereby supporting what he wants us to reject.
In the end, maybe it doesn't matter. Even if Fukuyama and his six research assistants cook the philosophical books, they are fascinating books. And even if they do get a few facts wrong here and there-too often citing activist-group propaganda as fact-in the end Francis Fukuyama puts on the table-almost despite himself-an interesting question. Would we accept a biotechnology-granted "soft tyranny" as envisioned in Brave New World, in which everyone is healthy and happy, but has forgotten the meaning of hope, fear, or struggle?
In so asking, he forgets he already gave us the answer, 50 pages back, and the answer is Yes.
Fukuyama, a Johns Hopkins University professor and philosophical gadfly, lays on us provocative titles like Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, or, The End of History, his earlier book, and then starts chiseling away at definitions so as to say, in effect, "Oh, I didn't really mean THAT," telling you instead that his definition of "human" or of "history" really means only his little narrow, contrived (and maybe marketable?) definition that fits his argument.
George Ace wouldn't have had time for it. Probably only academics and policy wonks would, and that's the dangerous part--dangerous because they might actually buy-into Fukuyama's contrivances. Still, the book is an intellectual pot of coffee: "Good morning! Wake up! There's an issue out there!"
Let me get right to the point, something Fukuyama never does. The book is a call for government to apply the brakes to biotechnology because he fears the nature of Man if an elite class unleashes its super-babies upon society.
The trouble is, it takes him 218 pages to get to the point, although it's a fascinating detour through the Philosophy Hall of Fame: Heidegger, Hegel, Mill, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Locke, and on into Jefferson and Lincoln, for at its core, this is NOT a book about biotechnololgy. It is a book about humanity, human nature, human rights, and therefore the question: What right have we to be tampering with "nature"?--whatever that is.
Indeed, the bulk of the book toys with terms, as the reader watches Fukuyama carve hand-crafted definitions that suit his purpose and shove aside those that--though perfectly logical--block his chosen path.
And where is it he wants to go? To a philosophically-sound-even if contrived or intellectually-cooked basis for saying biotechnology is too scary to be left unregulated, especially when it touches this magical, mystical thing called "human nature."
Fukuyama serves as intellectual tour guide through three schools of thought on human nature and its connection to human rights. The first school (my term, not his) is theology-based; that is, human rights are granted by God, a superior being. This school is no longer in control of western civilization, and hasn't been for a long time, says Fukuyama.
The second school, represented by and perhaps culminating in Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, says human rights come from human nature, though Fukuyama gets remarkably fuzzy when trying to link this human nature to genetics.
The third school says human rights are whatever a political body says they are. And that's what's wrong with society today, says Fukuyama in effect, because it lacks the moral compass of either of the first two schools.
Fukuyama begs us to return, please, the "human nature equals human rights" school of thought, while continually failing to close the deal intellectually as to how human nature automatically gets us to human rights (or even defining human nature in a way that solidifies his argument).
Indeed, his subsequent and perhaps accidental praise of civic control of pharmacology and agricultural biotechnology leave the reader thinking, "Gee, maybe human rights ARE whatever we agree they are," thereby supporting what he wants us to reject.
In the end, maybe it doesn't matter. Even if Fukuyama and his six research assistants cook the philosophical books, they are fascinating books. And even if they do get a few facts wrong here and there-too often citing activist-group propaganda as fact-in the end Francis Fukuyama puts on the table-almost despite himself-an interesting question. Would we accept a biotechnology-granted "soft tyranny" as envisioned in Brave New World, in which everyone is healthy and happy, but has forgotten the meaning of hope, fear, or struggle?
In so asking, he forgets he already gave us the answer, 50 pages back, and the answer is Yes.
March 27, 2016
Reading this book made me think of a line from the movie version of Jurassic Park: “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” This book is an investigation of what we can do with biotechnology now, what we might be able to do in the future, and what we should or should not do. It is broken down into three sections: scientific, philosophical, and legislative.
1) the technology itself: A look at trends in neuropharmacology (the manipulation of human emotions and behaviour with drugs), the prolongation of life (along with the geopolitical consequences of it), and genetic engineering (using science to usurp the so-called genetic lottery). This section covers a lot of ground: nature/nurture studies on genetic predispositions, eugenics, social engineering, cross-cultural anthropology, 'knockout' studies (what happens to an animal when it is bred with a particular gene disabled), the relationship between neurotransmitters and subjective states like well-being and self-esteem, etc. Some of this information might be out of date given the rate at which technology grows these days but I still found it interesting and informative.
2) human rights, human nature, and human dignity: This was the section I found the most interesting because it illustrated the type of hoops you have to jump through to make an egalitarian case for the intrinsic value of all human life when you start with the presumption of philosophical naturalism. To be fair, even though this book is written from an entirely secular perspective, he also examined the logical conclusions that follow when one begins with a teleological perspective on life. He spent a lot less time on it, a fact I wouldn't put down to bias; he simply didn't need to. Things that are designed have purpose and value by virtue of the fact they are designed. This is true not only in the case of overtly functional things like cars, screwdrivers, and smart phones but even things that have no functional value. A painting might have no functional value but it still has aesthetic value: it is designed to be looked at. Of course, it might have a functional value as well: to make you think. Design > purpose > value. Randomness > no purpose > value? How does one derive an absolute from an accident? That was the problem he couldn't solve (or at least, he didn't convince me with his arguments).
The rest of this section was the author following different trains of thought to see where they lead. If you could choose the attributes a child would have before it was born, would you? And who would such technology be available to? Everyone? The rich only? Would that give people who some say already have an unfair advantage (the haves) an even greater advantage over those that don't (the have nots)? Would the state step in and provide this service for everyone? Would it be ethical to breed different classes of people? Or would an engineered class separate themself from a natural class?
3) how the technology should be implemented/regulated: Who gets to decide how these emerging technologies should be used? Scientists? Philosophers? Theologians? Politicians? Parents? Should it be legislated at a national or an international level? Should it be outlawed completely or might it be used therapeutically (for example, to bring someone with a defect like cystic fibrosis up to the level of a normal, functional human being) and not cosmetically (to make a normal, functional human being smarter and stronger than they otherwise would be)?
You might call this a work of speculative non-fiction. Technology has always had social and political consequences (the industrial revolution, the information revolution, etc.) What might be the consequences of the biotechnology revolution?
1) the technology itself: A look at trends in neuropharmacology (the manipulation of human emotions and behaviour with drugs), the prolongation of life (along with the geopolitical consequences of it), and genetic engineering (using science to usurp the so-called genetic lottery). This section covers a lot of ground: nature/nurture studies on genetic predispositions, eugenics, social engineering, cross-cultural anthropology, 'knockout' studies (what happens to an animal when it is bred with a particular gene disabled), the relationship between neurotransmitters and subjective states like well-being and self-esteem, etc. Some of this information might be out of date given the rate at which technology grows these days but I still found it interesting and informative.
2) human rights, human nature, and human dignity: This was the section I found the most interesting because it illustrated the type of hoops you have to jump through to make an egalitarian case for the intrinsic value of all human life when you start with the presumption of philosophical naturalism. To be fair, even though this book is written from an entirely secular perspective, he also examined the logical conclusions that follow when one begins with a teleological perspective on life. He spent a lot less time on it, a fact I wouldn't put down to bias; he simply didn't need to. Things that are designed have purpose and value by virtue of the fact they are designed. This is true not only in the case of overtly functional things like cars, screwdrivers, and smart phones but even things that have no functional value. A painting might have no functional value but it still has aesthetic value: it is designed to be looked at. Of course, it might have a functional value as well: to make you think. Design > purpose > value. Randomness > no purpose > value? How does one derive an absolute from an accident? That was the problem he couldn't solve (or at least, he didn't convince me with his arguments).
The rest of this section was the author following different trains of thought to see where they lead. If you could choose the attributes a child would have before it was born, would you? And who would such technology be available to? Everyone? The rich only? Would that give people who some say already have an unfair advantage (the haves) an even greater advantage over those that don't (the have nots)? Would the state step in and provide this service for everyone? Would it be ethical to breed different classes of people? Or would an engineered class separate themself from a natural class?
3) how the technology should be implemented/regulated: Who gets to decide how these emerging technologies should be used? Scientists? Philosophers? Theologians? Politicians? Parents? Should it be legislated at a national or an international level? Should it be outlawed completely or might it be used therapeutically (for example, to bring someone with a defect like cystic fibrosis up to the level of a normal, functional human being) and not cosmetically (to make a normal, functional human being smarter and stronger than they otherwise would be)?
You might call this a work of speculative non-fiction. Technology has always had social and political consequences (the industrial revolution, the information revolution, etc.) What might be the consequences of the biotechnology revolution?
August 7, 2016
cuốn này vô nhà sách cầm lên mấy lần rồi, bỏ vô giỏ hàng tiki mấy lần rồi mà cuối cùng bỏ ra. Vừa rồi anh Reading Circle làm về cuốn này nên cũng vô thư viện mượn đọc coi sao.
Nguyên nhân mình không mua nó là vì ác cảm với Francis Fukuyama, lão này có cuốn The End of History and the Last Man nói về sự kết thúc của biên chứng lịch sử( Francis Fukuyama dùng lại khái niệm của Hegel) nghĩa là không con đấu tranh giai cấp nữa mà trật tự dân chủ-tư do sẽ là trật tự thống trị thế giới. Cuốn này nổi như cồn vì nhận được nhiều phê bình quá vì viết hơi bị tào lao. Tóm lại là ăn may nổi tiếng nên mình ghét =))
Nói về cuốn sách thì nguyên nhân thức hai hồi đó không mua vì chán đọc mấy tranh luận về bio-ethic quá. Trong vấn đề này trong sách cũng chán, nhưng phần 2 thì thì Francis Fukuyama viết về con người rất hay. Hơn nữa ông dùng nhãn quan của triết học chính trị để phân tích bản chất con người(human nature) và sự thay đổi các trật tự chính trị thế nào nếu một số bản chất của con người thay đổi. Với mình thì đọc chủ đề này khá nhiều rồi nhưng đọc những điều do Francis Fukuyama viết vẫn thấy hay nên mình đánh giá nó cho phần này 5 sao.
Nguyên nhân mình không mua nó là vì ác cảm với Francis Fukuyama, lão này có cuốn The End of History and the Last Man nói về sự kết thúc của biên chứng lịch sử( Francis Fukuyama dùng lại khái niệm của Hegel) nghĩa là không con đấu tranh giai cấp nữa mà trật tự dân chủ-tư do sẽ là trật tự thống trị thế giới. Cuốn này nổi như cồn vì nhận được nhiều phê bình quá vì viết hơi bị tào lao. Tóm lại là ăn may nổi tiếng nên mình ghét =))
Nói về cuốn sách thì nguyên nhân thức hai hồi đó không mua vì chán đọc mấy tranh luận về bio-ethic quá. Trong vấn đề này trong sách cũng chán, nhưng phần 2 thì thì Francis Fukuyama viết về con người rất hay. Hơn nữa ông dùng nhãn quan của triết học chính trị để phân tích bản chất con người(human nature) và sự thay đổi các trật tự chính trị thế nào nếu một số bản chất của con người thay đổi. Với mình thì đọc chủ đề này khá nhiều rồi nhưng đọc những điều do Francis Fukuyama viết vẫn thấy hay nên mình đánh giá nó cho phần này 5 sao.
September 1, 2018
Genetic engineering and other human technological augmentations have long been tropes of science fiction, but few stories look at the wholesale social and societal implications of changing the definition what what it means to be human.
Even in today's world, when all people are fundamentally equal, we have a difficult time creating societies that walk out that equality without allotting prejudice and privilege along the lines of trivial physical and economic differences. Just imagine what society will look like when physical and intellectual superiority can be engineered and purchased by those that can afford it.
In this book Fukuyama does imagine it and makes many suggestion on how to prepare ourselves.
Even in today's world, when all people are fundamentally equal, we have a difficult time creating societies that walk out that equality without allotting prejudice and privilege along the lines of trivial physical and economic differences. Just imagine what society will look like when physical and intellectual superiority can be engineered and purchased by those that can afford it.
In this book Fukuyama does imagine it and makes many suggestion on how to prepare ourselves.
May 29, 2011
This book is absolutely shockingly bad. It is rare for me to be simply horrified at a book. I can normally find an idea or phrase or concept to think about even if I disagree with it. But this book is so basic, it is almost pseudo-academic. It takes an array of 'research' into biology and biochemical interventions such as ritalin and then raises supposedly grand arguments about ethics and 'human dignity.' Causal connections are forged where nothing except casual links may exist.
This is the worst book I have read in a while. It is pretending to be significant and sweeping. Instead, it is lacking both argument and evidence.
This is the worst book I have read in a while. It is pretending to be significant and sweeping. Instead, it is lacking both argument and evidence.
October 24, 2008
This is a really great book if you can get past the first chapter or so, which is pretty dense. Fukuyama provides an in depth and well rounded look at the philosophical, social, and evolutionary implications of bioengineering. He takes some rather interesting and controversial positions, but they are well thought out and supported with hard facts and straight forward logic. Took me a while to read it, but I'm glad I did.
January 15, 2023
Bu kitabı okumaya başladığımda da, okuyup bitirdikten sonra da hangi başlıkta raflayacağıma karar veremedim: Siyaset bilimi, sosyoloji, teknoloji, fütürizm, biyoteknoloji, felsefe ...
Fukuyama'nın çok tartışılan Tarihin Sonu ve Son İnsan kitabını, hayata bambaşka bir perspektiften bakmama rağmen beğenmiş, en azından entelektüel bir sorgulama olarak görmüştüm. Toplumcu siyasal programlara karşı keskin bir karşı duruşu olsa da, Fukuyama'yı okumaya değer buluyorum. Kitaplarına seçtiği isimlerin iddialı oluşunu ve keskin yargılar içermesini ise bir pazarlama taktiği olarak görüyorum. Bu kitap, yazarın Tarihin Sonu ve Son İnsandan İnsan Ötesi Geleceğimize nasıl geldiğini anlamak bakımından bile okumaya değer bir eser.
Kitapta ifade edilen görüşlerin bir kısmı, benim de sıkça dile getirdiğim bazı tehlikeler ve kökten demografik değişimlerle ilgili: İnsanlık tarihinde ilk defa dört nesil bir arada yaşıyor olmamız, yakın gelecekte insan ömrünün dramatik bir şekilde uzayacak olmasına karşın, alışkın olduğumuz sosyal düzenlerin genç ve orta yaşlı insanlara uygun olarak düzenlenmiş olması, çok yaşlı bir siyaset sınıfının yönetimlere el koymuş ve bundan vazgeçmiyor olması, genetik biliminin iktisadi ve sosyal eşitsizliklere ilaveten bir de biyolojik eşitsizlikler ve sınıflaşma tehlikeleri içermesi, vs..
Fukuyama bütün bu tehlikelere çözüm olarak ne öneriyor? Kitabın ilk satırından son satırına kadar bu merakla okudum, ancak kitabın kapağını kapattığımda bu soruya yanıt bulamadım. Fukuyama'nın her birine bir bölüm ayırarak tartıştığı insan hakları, insan doğası ve insan onuru kavramları, binlerce yıldır anlaşılmaya çalışılan sorunsallar. Fukuyama da bunları tarihsel geçmişleriyle bir kez daha sorguluyor. İnsan haklarının geçerliliğine dair üç kaynağa, dinsel, doğal ve çağdaş pozitivist kaynaklara işaret etmesi ve farklı kaynaklara dayanıyor olsalar da, insan haklarının varlığına dair genel uzlaşının kökenini oluşturmalarına işaret etmesi doğru bir saptama. Ancak bu kaynakların her üçünün de geçerliliğini ya da en azından toplumların zihninde genel kabul gerekçelerini yitirmesi tehlikesi, yeni bir anlayışı zorunlu kılıyor. Bu anlayışın ne olabileceğine dair Fukuyama'nın sağlam bir izahı yok. Toplumcu siyasal programlara mesafeli oluşu ve bu programların genel doğrularına sıcak bakmıyor oluşu, Fukuyama'yı entelektüel bir kaosa sürüklüyor ve korkarım ki okuyucu da bu kaosun içinde tatmin edici bir cevap bulamıyor.
Fukuyama'nın biyoteknolojinin yakın gelecekte yaratacağı tehlikeye karşı politik denetim önermesi, ancak bu denetimin devlet tarafından yapılmaması gerektiği ile ilgili görüşleri çok naif. Fukuyama'ya göre bu denetim bireylerin öz iradesi ile yapılmalı, çünkü devlet denetimi başka türlü riskler içeriyor. Ancak bireylerin kolayca nasıl manipüle edilebileceğini, son derece irrasyonel kararlar verebileceğini ve söz konusu olan, insanlık tarihinde hiç yaşanmamış bir tehlikenin ortadan kaldırılması olduğunda, alacakları kararların nasıl kısa vadeci, hatalı ve uzun vadede felaketlere zemin hazırlayacak ölçüde tehlikeli olabileceğini doğrudan yaşayarak gördüğümüz bir çağdayız.
Bu durumda da akla hemen tarihe müdahale etmek üzere yola çıkan devrimci programların 20. yüzyıl sonunda yıkılışının neden "Tarihin Sonu" olarak alkışlandığı sorusu geliyor.
Fukuyama'nın kitabın ilk bölümünde bahsettiği 1984 ve Cesur Yeni Dünya, geçen yüzyılda iki farklı perspektiften çizilen distopyalar; Fukuyama bunların ikisinde de dikkat çekilen tehlikeleri, günümüzde belli ölçülerde yaşandığımızın farkında. Henüz bu tehlikeler ortadan kalkmamışken, "tarihin sonunu" yaşadığımız bu liberal çağda, biyoteknolojinin nasıl denetim altına alınacağına dair tatmin edici bir cevabı olmadığı gibi "insan ötesi çağımızın" neye benzemesi gerektiğine dair de bir görüşü yok.
Bu kitabı, dikkat çekilen tehlikelere ve tarihsel sorunsallara Fukuyama'nın dünya görüşü dışında cevaplar arayarak okumak, okur için daha yararlı olacaktır.
Fukuyama'nın çok tartışılan Tarihin Sonu ve Son İnsan kitabını, hayata bambaşka bir perspektiften bakmama rağmen beğenmiş, en azından entelektüel bir sorgulama olarak görmüştüm. Toplumcu siyasal programlara karşı keskin bir karşı duruşu olsa da, Fukuyama'yı okumaya değer buluyorum. Kitaplarına seçtiği isimlerin iddialı oluşunu ve keskin yargılar içermesini ise bir pazarlama taktiği olarak görüyorum. Bu kitap, yazarın Tarihin Sonu ve Son İnsandan İnsan Ötesi Geleceğimize nasıl geldiğini anlamak bakımından bile okumaya değer bir eser.
Kitapta ifade edilen görüşlerin bir kısmı, benim de sıkça dile getirdiğim bazı tehlikeler ve kökten demografik değişimlerle ilgili: İnsanlık tarihinde ilk defa dört nesil bir arada yaşıyor olmamız, yakın gelecekte insan ömrünün dramatik bir şekilde uzayacak olmasına karşın, alışkın olduğumuz sosyal düzenlerin genç ve orta yaşlı insanlara uygun olarak düzenlenmiş olması, çok yaşlı bir siyaset sınıfının yönetimlere el koymuş ve bundan vazgeçmiyor olması, genetik biliminin iktisadi ve sosyal eşitsizliklere ilaveten bir de biyolojik eşitsizlikler ve sınıflaşma tehlikeleri içermesi, vs..
Fukuyama bütün bu tehlikelere çözüm olarak ne öneriyor? Kitabın ilk satırından son satırına kadar bu merakla okudum, ancak kitabın kapağını kapattığımda bu soruya yanıt bulamadım. Fukuyama'nın her birine bir bölüm ayırarak tartıştığı insan hakları, insan doğası ve insan onuru kavramları, binlerce yıldır anlaşılmaya çalışılan sorunsallar. Fukuyama da bunları tarihsel geçmişleriyle bir kez daha sorguluyor. İnsan haklarının geçerliliğine dair üç kaynağa, dinsel, doğal ve çağdaş pozitivist kaynaklara işaret etmesi ve farklı kaynaklara dayanıyor olsalar da, insan haklarının varlığına dair genel uzlaşının kökenini oluşturmalarına işaret etmesi doğru bir saptama. Ancak bu kaynakların her üçünün de geçerliliğini ya da en azından toplumların zihninde genel kabul gerekçelerini yitirmesi tehlikesi, yeni bir anlayışı zorunlu kılıyor. Bu anlayışın ne olabileceğine dair Fukuyama'nın sağlam bir izahı yok. Toplumcu siyasal programlara mesafeli oluşu ve bu programların genel doğrularına sıcak bakmıyor oluşu, Fukuyama'yı entelektüel bir kaosa sürüklüyor ve korkarım ki okuyucu da bu kaosun içinde tatmin edici bir cevap bulamıyor.
Fukuyama'nın biyoteknolojinin yakın gelecekte yaratacağı tehlikeye karşı politik denetim önermesi, ancak bu denetimin devlet tarafından yapılmaması gerektiği ile ilgili görüşleri çok naif. Fukuyama'ya göre bu denetim bireylerin öz iradesi ile yapılmalı, çünkü devlet denetimi başka türlü riskler içeriyor. Ancak bireylerin kolayca nasıl manipüle edilebileceğini, son derece irrasyonel kararlar verebileceğini ve söz konusu olan, insanlık tarihinde hiç yaşanmamış bir tehlikenin ortadan kaldırılması olduğunda, alacakları kararların nasıl kısa vadeci, hatalı ve uzun vadede felaketlere zemin hazırlayacak ölçüde tehlikeli olabileceğini doğrudan yaşayarak gördüğümüz bir çağdayız.
Bu durumda da akla hemen tarihe müdahale etmek üzere yola çıkan devrimci programların 20. yüzyıl sonunda yıkılışının neden "Tarihin Sonu" olarak alkışlandığı sorusu geliyor.
Fukuyama'nın kitabın ilk bölümünde bahsettiği 1984 ve Cesur Yeni Dünya, geçen yüzyılda iki farklı perspektiften çizilen distopyalar; Fukuyama bunların ikisinde de dikkat çekilen tehlikeleri, günümüzde belli ölçülerde yaşandığımızın farkında. Henüz bu tehlikeler ortadan kalkmamışken, "tarihin sonunu" yaşadığımız bu liberal çağda, biyoteknolojinin nasıl denetim altına alınacağına dair tatmin edici bir cevabı olmadığı gibi "insan ötesi çağımızın" neye benzemesi gerektiğine dair de bir görüşü yok.
Bu kitabı, dikkat çekilen tehlikelere ve tarihsel sorunsallara Fukuyama'nın dünya görüşü dışında cevaplar arayarak okumak, okur için daha yararlı olacaktır.
February 22, 2021
I bought this after reading the author's phenomenal The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution . In some respects a very different book: forward-looking rather than historical analysis, speculation based on the present rather than factual detail with the benefit of hindsight. But the same comprehensive, expert research remains.
Whereas the previous book looks back beyond humanity to our predecessor, in this book the author looks forward to a world where humanity may change itself. But in both cases, this is not science fiction or idle speculation, but carefully constructed analyses. In this book, the author reviews the current state of the technology that has the potential to change us. He focuses in particular on new drugs that affect our mental & emotional state, and on biotechnology (including gene therapy cloning). After reviewing the current state of affairs and the potential developments moving forward, he also examines the nature of what it means to be human, and how changes to longevity and "designer babies" might change our fundamental nature. The book ends with a review of the current regulatory regimes that exist to control this work, stressing the importance of ensuring this field remains properly regulated (but not necessarily banned out of hand).
Although the book came out less than 20 years ago, the extent to which the world has changed since then is apparent. And not only from the references to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Much of what the author speculates on has not come to pass, indeed there seems to have been very little progress at all in the technology he is so concerned about. I suspect that 9/11, the 2008 financial crash, Trump, and now Brexit (and Covid) have very much changed the biotechnology environment, not least in terms of the financial incentives involved. But that does not detract from the author's work or his apprehension about the future; indeed, it is to be hoped that they will be borne in mind by those in authority if and when biotechnology once again becomes a fertile ground for development.
Whereas the previous book looks back beyond humanity to our predecessor, in this book the author looks forward to a world where humanity may change itself. But in both cases, this is not science fiction or idle speculation, but carefully constructed analyses. In this book, the author reviews the current state of the technology that has the potential to change us. He focuses in particular on new drugs that affect our mental & emotional state, and on biotechnology (including gene therapy cloning). After reviewing the current state of affairs and the potential developments moving forward, he also examines the nature of what it means to be human, and how changes to longevity and "designer babies" might change our fundamental nature. The book ends with a review of the current regulatory regimes that exist to control this work, stressing the importance of ensuring this field remains properly regulated (but not necessarily banned out of hand).
Although the book came out less than 20 years ago, the extent to which the world has changed since then is apparent. And not only from the references to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Much of what the author speculates on has not come to pass, indeed there seems to have been very little progress at all in the technology he is so concerned about. I suspect that 9/11, the 2008 financial crash, Trump, and now Brexit (and Covid) have very much changed the biotechnology environment, not least in terms of the financial incentives involved. But that does not detract from the author's work or his apprehension about the future; indeed, it is to be hoped that they will be borne in mind by those in authority if and when biotechnology once again becomes a fertile ground for development.
October 29, 2014
A deeply confused book that tries to map the potential political implications of the biotechnological revolution. It may be satisfactory for self-indulging snobs who want to invoke Plato and Kant in favor of very simple ideological points, but it falls short in establishing a coherent liberal framework in which these innovations make sense. The aim of this book is to inform policy makers about the necessity of building institutions to remedy potential negative results of biotechnological innovations that have a big impact on human lives. Fukuyama not only wants to talk about the more explicitly problematic practices (eugenics, prolonging the span of life itself), but tries to talk about neuropharmacology (and its products: ritalin, prozac) as well. This book even is inconsistent at moments (he relies heavy on the conventional economic model in one chapter, discards it in another, for example) and uses notions like 'human nature' without giving the term much thought. Contains gross overgeneralizations, mischaracterizations of great thinkers and only a few interesting thoughts. Quite a disappointment.
July 22, 2020
Francis Fukuyama is, despite the disastrous thesis of "The End of History and the Last Man", one of the greatest political thinkers of our time. This is a fairly in-depth foray into the realm of bioethics in which Fukuyama proves that not only has he the capacity to understand ethics, but he's fairly good at applying them to a complex subject like biochemistry and pharmacology.
I must preface any further comments with this caveat: I come from the school of bioethicists Fukuyama believes are enablers of anything pharmacological companies want. Unlike Fukuyama, I do not have an instinctive reverence towards the natural human form as expected by good Christians. (To Fukuyama's credit, I don't think he gets his reverence from religious sources either.) If I get the chance to genetically augment my kids, I will consider it seriously.
Fukuyama tries to draw lines between what is generally considered ethical for humans and what is not. In doing so, he delves a little into philosophy and brings out statements, arguments, and in many cases facts about the way in which humans think about these things. Does he do a good job of bringing out whatever is written in the literature about these issues? I'm not sure. I am not an expert in bioethics. However, he does a fairly good job in piecing together whatever he's got and weaving a coherent narrative out of it. I have seen papers which, either knowingly or unknowingly, seem to quote him directly.
What is Fukuyama's argument? A human is a complex system in which perfection is difficult to achieve because we do not understand one fully. And even if we did understand it fully, is perfection desirable? Can one anticipate the socio-cultural effects of commonly available genetic tools? Of eugenics on a whim? Of aristocracy defined in our genes? And before we get to genetics and their modification, is it a good idea to outsource things like concentration and happiness to external agents like Ritalin and Prozac? Will it deprive us of what makes us human?
There is a lot to unpack here. He proposes questions and subtly nudges the unassuming reader towards saying no. It is a fairly logical and safe bet as of now. However, will it be either fair or logical later? Can we even dream up a society in which the way we look is a function of our (or our parents') whims? In which we can be as intelligent or as musically talented as we want? What will happen to people who want to have it all in their genes? Will they rule over society or will the dregs of humanity rise up and cast them down from their manufactured pedestals?
These are impossible questions to answer now. Fukuyama doesn't try to answer them all either: he merely suggests that the answers might be something we aren't prepared to accept as a society. I find myself unconvinced. Progress for progress's sake is discouraged by the High Inquisitor, but even the powers that be must bow to the inevitable shifting of the sands of time.
I must preface any further comments with this caveat: I come from the school of bioethicists Fukuyama believes are enablers of anything pharmacological companies want. Unlike Fukuyama, I do not have an instinctive reverence towards the natural human form as expected by good Christians. (To Fukuyama's credit, I don't think he gets his reverence from religious sources either.) If I get the chance to genetically augment my kids, I will consider it seriously.
Fukuyama tries to draw lines between what is generally considered ethical for humans and what is not. In doing so, he delves a little into philosophy and brings out statements, arguments, and in many cases facts about the way in which humans think about these things. Does he do a good job of bringing out whatever is written in the literature about these issues? I'm not sure. I am not an expert in bioethics. However, he does a fairly good job in piecing together whatever he's got and weaving a coherent narrative out of it. I have seen papers which, either knowingly or unknowingly, seem to quote him directly.
What is Fukuyama's argument? A human is a complex system in which perfection is difficult to achieve because we do not understand one fully. And even if we did understand it fully, is perfection desirable? Can one anticipate the socio-cultural effects of commonly available genetic tools? Of eugenics on a whim? Of aristocracy defined in our genes? And before we get to genetics and their modification, is it a good idea to outsource things like concentration and happiness to external agents like Ritalin and Prozac? Will it deprive us of what makes us human?
There is a lot to unpack here. He proposes questions and subtly nudges the unassuming reader towards saying no. It is a fairly logical and safe bet as of now. However, will it be either fair or logical later? Can we even dream up a society in which the way we look is a function of our (or our parents') whims? In which we can be as intelligent or as musically talented as we want? What will happen to people who want to have it all in their genes? Will they rule over society or will the dregs of humanity rise up and cast them down from their manufactured pedestals?
These are impossible questions to answer now. Fukuyama doesn't try to answer them all either: he merely suggests that the answers might be something we aren't prepared to accept as a society. I find myself unconvinced. Progress for progress's sake is discouraged by the High Inquisitor, but even the powers that be must bow to the inevitable shifting of the sands of time.
February 29, 2016
When a book starts out talking about where we’re at in society, and you note that it makes two central points, and both are hopelessly wrong, it makes you think that maybe either the author is confused, or timeliness of the book might have already passed us by.
In this case, I think it was a timeliness issue. It was funny though. The first thing I noticed was when the author said something along the lines of, ‘Deregulation of the financial industry has led to a golden age of wealth acquisition.’
Whatever, that’s not a real quote, but it was something like that. I mean, look, I don’t have the book in front of me, I can’t actually go look the thing up. Well, I could, but I didn’t really enjoy the book, so I don’t feel like thumbing through it looking for quotes.
And, in case you were under a rock back in 2008, modern civilization nearly crumbled thanks to a whole set of issues in relation to the financial industry being monumentally stupid. If you think I’m exaggerating then go dig up the This American Life podcast on the topic. It will melt your brain. I'm not sure if that particular podcast touches on the fact that most of those shenanigans that screwed us over were the direct result of the deregulation of the financial industry, but it will still melt your brain. The deregulation thing, well, if anyone wants to call me on that then I'll explain myself further (maybe, I'm awfully lazy). But otherwise, that's 'nuff said about that.
The second point he made, which was even worse of an oopsie, is when the author talked about how a 1984ish future full of government surveillance of its citizens as a fact of life is very unlikely. Because the internet has depowered the government, somehow.
I’m not sure I understood that part. Except that it didn’t fill me with confidence in his predictive qualities, as these were the most confidently made observations in the whole book. In fact, it was the very non-existence of govt spying on its citizens that led him to steer the book away from that subject and more into biotech areas.
If that was the only sin here, honestly, I’d be okay with it. No one is good at predicting the future. My real problem with the book is that I felt lied to about its central premise. It’s mostly about legislating the future.
Ugh.
I’m not totally hating on it though, because once it started getting more philosophical in the middle part of the book, it really did get interesting. So, you know, it was fine. Whatever.
In this case, I think it was a timeliness issue. It was funny though. The first thing I noticed was when the author said something along the lines of, ‘Deregulation of the financial industry has led to a golden age of wealth acquisition.’
Whatever, that’s not a real quote, but it was something like that. I mean, look, I don’t have the book in front of me, I can’t actually go look the thing up. Well, I could, but I didn’t really enjoy the book, so I don’t feel like thumbing through it looking for quotes.
And, in case you were under a rock back in 2008, modern civilization nearly crumbled thanks to a whole set of issues in relation to the financial industry being monumentally stupid. If you think I’m exaggerating then go dig up the This American Life podcast on the topic. It will melt your brain. I'm not sure if that particular podcast touches on the fact that most of those shenanigans that screwed us over were the direct result of the deregulation of the financial industry, but it will still melt your brain. The deregulation thing, well, if anyone wants to call me on that then I'll explain myself further (maybe, I'm awfully lazy). But otherwise, that's 'nuff said about that.
The second point he made, which was even worse of an oopsie, is when the author talked about how a 1984ish future full of government surveillance of its citizens as a fact of life is very unlikely. Because the internet has depowered the government, somehow.
I’m not sure I understood that part. Except that it didn’t fill me with confidence in his predictive qualities, as these were the most confidently made observations in the whole book. In fact, it was the very non-existence of govt spying on its citizens that led him to steer the book away from that subject and more into biotech areas.
If that was the only sin here, honestly, I’d be okay with it. No one is good at predicting the future. My real problem with the book is that I felt lied to about its central premise. It’s mostly about legislating the future.
Ugh.
I’m not totally hating on it though, because once it started getting more philosophical in the middle part of the book, it really did get interesting. So, you know, it was fine. Whatever.
September 19, 2011
Having encountered numerous references to this book in other discussions of contemporary bio-technologies, I felt it was time to actually read the book. And I am glad I did. The book is broken up into three distinct sections, the first acting as a survey of recent bioetech trends, the second as a philosophical treatment of the ideas of human rights and human nature, and lastly a proposal for future regulations. Of the three sections, I most enjoyed the philosophical maneuvering of the second section, although I have my suspicions about and criticisms of some of the arguments and examples used. Nonetheless, Fukuyama does utilize clear argumentation, which encourages thoughtful engagement. I understand the need for the last section on regulation, but it felt a little rushed, and could benefit from a more substantial book long treatment. In particular, I felt that a more substantial connection needed to be made between the regulation of certain biotechnologies and the perception that those technologies compromised what it meant to be human. Still, this is an interesting and worthwhile read in a time when questions of the right and wrong of particular biotechnologies are likely to become more prevalent and pressing.
September 29, 2010
Review 1.0
My father bought me this book. Perhaps it was the second English book he ever bought me. I am also sure that he only picked this book because it was placed on the front self, looked cool and all. So I had this book which I would never ever buy in the first place and.... enjoyed it.
Maybe I had to review it again in the future. But in the mind of a barely highschool student at that time, I was impressed by the book. The whole vision of the future, when 'cloning' was quite a new subject at school and I was barely familiar with it.
For now, I ought to re-read it. Now that I have a different state of mind. :)
... To be continued.
My father bought me this book. Perhaps it was the second English book he ever bought me. I am also sure that he only picked this book because it was placed on the front self, looked cool and all. So I had this book which I would never ever buy in the first place and.... enjoyed it.
Maybe I had to review it again in the future. But in the mind of a barely highschool student at that time, I was impressed by the book. The whole vision of the future, when 'cloning' was quite a new subject at school and I was barely familiar with it.
For now, I ought to re-read it. Now that I have a different state of mind. :)
... To be continued.
May 2, 2010
A fascinating book, as I write in my 2002 review for the San Francisco Chronicle:
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL
Francis Fukuyama argues that biotechnology could lead to the end of humankind as we know it
Reviewed by Steve Kettmann
Sunday, April 21, 2002
Our Posthuman Future
Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution
By Francis Fukuyama
FARRAR, STRAUS & GIROUX; 256 PAGES; $25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewers try not to go overboard, but here's a humble prediction: "Our Posthuman Future," the latest from the author of "The End of History and the Last Man," could be the most important book of the year.
Francis Fukuyama has taken a stunning step forward with this exploration not only of the ins and outs of a designer-baby future, but also of the politics and even the political philosophy of a world in which advances in biotechnology fundamentally shape who we are as human beings.
Books this smart just do not come along very often. How many other writers could blend thorough updates on the cutting edge of advances in the biological sciences with hard-won insights into what Kant and Hobbes mean in the here and now with a pitch-perfect rundown on why "Star Trek" fans are fascinated by Spock?
"The coolly analytical Mr. Spock in the TV series 'Star Trek' appears at times more likable than the emotional Mr. Scott only because we suspect that somewhere beneath his rational exterior lurk deeply buried human feelings," he writes. "Certainly many of the female characters he encountered in the series hoped they could rouse something more than robotic responses from him."
The Spock reference is anything but gratuitous. Fukuyama seeks to make a case for a return to looking to the ineffable qualities of human nature as a foundation for the basic building blocks of political philosophy we typically call human rights. The idea is simple enough: That which makes us human (or half-human, in Spock's case) springs in the end as much from our capacity for a wide range of emotions as anything else.
"While many would list human reason and human moral choice as the most important unique human characteristics that give our species dignity, I would argue that possession of the full human emotional gamut is at least as important, if not more so," he writes.
Given the thunder-clap impact of Fukuyama's most famous work, "The End of History," it's reasonable to assume that many will heed the warning implicit in such pronouncements. He's saying that as designer drugs such as Prozac and Ritalin shape the moods and personalities of huge numbers of people, and science gives us more insights into the wiring of the brain and what it means, an overly rationalistic conception of who we are as humans becomes increasingly dangerous.
Those words we all intoned in grade school about all "men"
being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," that was Jefferson, in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, making an essentially parallel argument. Fukuyama stands with Jefferson, and Locke and Hobbes, in arguing that human rights should be grounded in human nature.
If that assertion sounds self-evident, it's not. Many disagree. What amounts to a growing human propensity for self-importance and self-awe at the power of the rational mind has led many to make the argument that human nature is readily alterable. Major figures like B.F. Skinner have attempted to reduce human behavior down to a question of positive and negative reinforcement. Economists, too, make a fetish of reductive models for how people will behave. Fukuyama, like Tolstoy, for example, believes that underneath the layers of rationality is something fundamentally human that defies easy characterization.
"The problem is that human nature is far too complex to be reduced to simple categories like 'pain' and 'pleasure,' " he writes. "Some pains and pleasures are deeper, stronger, and more abiding than others. The pleasure we derive from reading a trashy pulp fiction novel is different from the pleasure of reading 'War and Peace' or 'Madame Bovary' with the benefit of life experience of the sort that these latter novels address."
The major culprit in steering our big thinkers away from this seemingly self-evident line of thinking (that as the Kevin Spacey character in "K-Pax" tells the Jeff Bridges character: "All living creatures in the universe know the difference between right and wrong") was Kant. He got us started on shadowboxing with notions about how we had to use our reason to overcome human nature, rather than looking to human nature as a fountainhead for who and what we are.
If this all sounds a little rarefied for some tastes, the genius of "Our Posthuman Future" is that it brings home just how important it will be in our immediate future for people like you and me to explore such questions. Soon enough, for example, it's likely that increases in life expectancy and decreases in birth rate will dramatically boost median ages, so that many generations will simultaneously be competing in the workforce, rather than one clearing out for the next. Questions of right and wrong, and the relative importance of conflicting values, take on greater clarity in such scenarios.
That's not even getting into all the other head-scratching possibilities, such as the rich using genetic therapies to produce a super race, possibly leading to genetic wars. As Fukuyama notes, "There are very few domestic political issues today in our rich, self-satisfied liberal democracies that can cause people to get terribly upset, but the specter of rising genetic inequality may well get people off their couches and into the streets."
What's desperately needed, in short, is not just a broader understanding of the advances in science and technology that can have so many consequences for how we live, but also a heightening of our collective moral imagination as we attempt as a civilization to come to terms with questions so much larger than us.
"[T:]he posthuman world could be one that is far more hierarchical and competitive than the one that currently exists, and full of social conflict as a result," he concludes. "It could be one in which any notion of 'shared humanity' is lost, because we have mixed human genes with those of so many other species that we no longer have a clear idea of what a human being is. It could be one in which the median person is living well into his or her second century, sitting in a nursing home hoping for an unattainable death. Or it could be the kind of soft tyranny envisioned in "Brave New World," in which everyone is healthy and happy but has forgotten the meaning of hope, fear or struggle."
Steve Kettmann, Berlin correspondent for Wired.com, has written on politics and biotechnology issues for many publications.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
This article appeared on page RV - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL
Francis Fukuyama argues that biotechnology could lead to the end of humankind as we know it
Reviewed by Steve Kettmann
Sunday, April 21, 2002
Our Posthuman Future
Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution
By Francis Fukuyama
FARRAR, STRAUS & GIROUX; 256 PAGES; $25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewers try not to go overboard, but here's a humble prediction: "Our Posthuman Future," the latest from the author of "The End of History and the Last Man," could be the most important book of the year.
Francis Fukuyama has taken a stunning step forward with this exploration not only of the ins and outs of a designer-baby future, but also of the politics and even the political philosophy of a world in which advances in biotechnology fundamentally shape who we are as human beings.
Books this smart just do not come along very often. How many other writers could blend thorough updates on the cutting edge of advances in the biological sciences with hard-won insights into what Kant and Hobbes mean in the here and now with a pitch-perfect rundown on why "Star Trek" fans are fascinated by Spock?
"The coolly analytical Mr. Spock in the TV series 'Star Trek' appears at times more likable than the emotional Mr. Scott only because we suspect that somewhere beneath his rational exterior lurk deeply buried human feelings," he writes. "Certainly many of the female characters he encountered in the series hoped they could rouse something more than robotic responses from him."
The Spock reference is anything but gratuitous. Fukuyama seeks to make a case for a return to looking to the ineffable qualities of human nature as a foundation for the basic building blocks of political philosophy we typically call human rights. The idea is simple enough: That which makes us human (or half-human, in Spock's case) springs in the end as much from our capacity for a wide range of emotions as anything else.
"While many would list human reason and human moral choice as the most important unique human characteristics that give our species dignity, I would argue that possession of the full human emotional gamut is at least as important, if not more so," he writes.
Given the thunder-clap impact of Fukuyama's most famous work, "The End of History," it's reasonable to assume that many will heed the warning implicit in such pronouncements. He's saying that as designer drugs such as Prozac and Ritalin shape the moods and personalities of huge numbers of people, and science gives us more insights into the wiring of the brain and what it means, an overly rationalistic conception of who we are as humans becomes increasingly dangerous.
Those words we all intoned in grade school about all "men"
being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," that was Jefferson, in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, making an essentially parallel argument. Fukuyama stands with Jefferson, and Locke and Hobbes, in arguing that human rights should be grounded in human nature.
If that assertion sounds self-evident, it's not. Many disagree. What amounts to a growing human propensity for self-importance and self-awe at the power of the rational mind has led many to make the argument that human nature is readily alterable. Major figures like B.F. Skinner have attempted to reduce human behavior down to a question of positive and negative reinforcement. Economists, too, make a fetish of reductive models for how people will behave. Fukuyama, like Tolstoy, for example, believes that underneath the layers of rationality is something fundamentally human that defies easy characterization.
"The problem is that human nature is far too complex to be reduced to simple categories like 'pain' and 'pleasure,' " he writes. "Some pains and pleasures are deeper, stronger, and more abiding than others. The pleasure we derive from reading a trashy pulp fiction novel is different from the pleasure of reading 'War and Peace' or 'Madame Bovary' with the benefit of life experience of the sort that these latter novels address."
The major culprit in steering our big thinkers away from this seemingly self-evident line of thinking (that as the Kevin Spacey character in "K-Pax" tells the Jeff Bridges character: "All living creatures in the universe know the difference between right and wrong") was Kant. He got us started on shadowboxing with notions about how we had to use our reason to overcome human nature, rather than looking to human nature as a fountainhead for who and what we are.
If this all sounds a little rarefied for some tastes, the genius of "Our Posthuman Future" is that it brings home just how important it will be in our immediate future for people like you and me to explore such questions. Soon enough, for example, it's likely that increases in life expectancy and decreases in birth rate will dramatically boost median ages, so that many generations will simultaneously be competing in the workforce, rather than one clearing out for the next. Questions of right and wrong, and the relative importance of conflicting values, take on greater clarity in such scenarios.
That's not even getting into all the other head-scratching possibilities, such as the rich using genetic therapies to produce a super race, possibly leading to genetic wars. As Fukuyama notes, "There are very few domestic political issues today in our rich, self-satisfied liberal democracies that can cause people to get terribly upset, but the specter of rising genetic inequality may well get people off their couches and into the streets."
What's desperately needed, in short, is not just a broader understanding of the advances in science and technology that can have so many consequences for how we live, but also a heightening of our collective moral imagination as we attempt as a civilization to come to terms with questions so much larger than us.
"[T:]he posthuman world could be one that is far more hierarchical and competitive than the one that currently exists, and full of social conflict as a result," he concludes. "It could be one in which any notion of 'shared humanity' is lost, because we have mixed human genes with those of so many other species that we no longer have a clear idea of what a human being is. It could be one in which the median person is living well into his or her second century, sitting in a nursing home hoping for an unattainable death. Or it could be the kind of soft tyranny envisioned in "Brave New World," in which everyone is healthy and happy but has forgotten the meaning of hope, fear or struggle."
Steve Kettmann, Berlin correspondent for Wired.com, has written on politics and biotechnology issues for many publications.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
This article appeared on page RV - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
January 6, 2023
gigantic yikes!
Want to read
December 4, 2023It's so impressive how this man manages to cover so many topics without having good takes on almost any of them.
Cosplays as a philosopher but should NEVER be mistaken as actually being one.
Cosplays as a philosopher but should NEVER be mistaken as actually being one.
January 20, 2026
The End of History: Fully Loaded.
Read
December 8, 2025what a load of bullshit
July 12, 2013
...When Fukuyama, in his latest book, published a few months ago, takes to task large segments of the scientifical and bioethical community, we should pay attention, for he is rarely misinformed and never less than cogent in his analyses. The author's main point is that human nature, and the social and political institutions built on it (such as democracy, the rule of law and the capitalist market), is at risk from changes in biotechnology, such as neuropharmacology (drugs capable of altering human behaviour in radical ways), or longevity-enhancement treatments, or genetical manipulation of the unborn. He makes a brave attempt at showing that the concept of human nature is meaningful and even necessary in this debate, and that it must not be grounded in religion necessarily. His criticism of the disregard for human nature often exhibited by scientists (even in this day and age) is chilling, and goes a long way in convincing the reader that a short leash is in order when human dignity and human rights are at stake. He shows very clearly that the main risk from genetic manipulation does not come from eugenistic states intent on eliminating the inferior- as in Hitler's Germany-, but from the law of unintended consequences (which in economics is termed social externalities). There is just no way of knowing the impact that genetic manipulation will have, especially if left in the hands of ambitious parents desirous of giving their offspring an early start in life's struggle. A probable consequence is the rise of real, biologically-grounded aristocracies, who in fairness should be accepted as a perpetual ruling class. Plato's chilling description of a perfect state, in which superior minds and bodies govern the vast majority of untermenschen, neither mixing nor pitying them, could actually come into existence. While this is probably the part of the book that will generate the biggest reaction, Fukuyama's arguments about the impacts of legal drugs to alter human behaviour are not amiss either. His main point is that current society dislikes gender-specific behaviours, and therefore attempts to use drugs to generate an androgynous conformity. He refers to how Prozac is used to nudge depressed women into more self-assertive (male-like) attitudes, whereas Ritalin is used to appease hyperactive young boys into sedate compliance. His many quotes of scientists and social commentators indicate the degree to which nature is spurned by intelligent people who believe that it is, or should be, within their power, to remake human nature and the world we live in. Stanford's Paul Erlich, always good for a laugh (he was priceless in the pompous-yet-totally-mistaken-windbag role in Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist") shows yet again that common sense is quite uncommon in academia. Given the risks on the one hand and on the other the total lack of insight that most scientists show in this regard, regulation is indispensable, and Fukuyama shows the way. He is right to argue that, contrary to what some people think, or would have us think, regulation does work to a large extent. And he is right that prohibition of certain types of research, such human cloning, should be the starting point and litmus test. This book is a must read for laymen who would like to make sense of the contradictory messages they receive on this subject, and of course by policy-setters, scientists, philosophers and social commentators. Besides being interesting and clear, the book is also very well written, so that the reader must not struggle with the writing to get at the heart of the point, and the length is also just right. In the hands of someone else, this might have become a 500 page tome, rambling its way through anecdotes and repetition. That's not the case. The book's 220 pages (plus notes and bibliography), and fighting fit.
November 12, 2013
Overall, the book seems to be an extensive mea culpa on the part of the author for his much criticized 1989 book "The end of history and the last man". In short, in the first book, Fukuyama argued that, after liberal democracy had shown itself to be the only viable political model, civilization would enter an era of everlasting bliss.
In this book from 2002, Fukuyama focusses on the widespread critique on his earlier book stating that there can not be an end to history as long as there is no end to science and Fukuyama agrees. He particularly makes the point that humanity's future depends on developments in the life sciences, particular biotech. Basically, his point is that as we get more and more enabled to change human characteristics, we might in the end be able to change humankind, through changing human nature, which can result in the structural change of politics. Seems like a fair enough thesis to me, but Fukuyama doesn't seem to get enough of it, continuing his line of reasoning for way too long and repeating himself too often.
I'm sure Fukuyama is trying to convince other theorists of his sanity (after writing 'The end of history') while positing a valid theory, but, in the end, what's lacking is guidance on how to proceed.
Indeed, changes to society through existing biological and medical possibilities are already happening: Societies are growing older, individuals live longer, drugs like Prozac and Ritalin make sure individual outliers are driven more to society's medians, and changes like these will have a profound long term political effect. And, indeed, the advent of more particular biological or genetic engineering can have far reaching consequences for the politics of modern societies and individuals' understanding of what it means to be human, but what should we do about it? In the end, all Fukuyama says is, "Let's talk". That's not enough.
In this book from 2002, Fukuyama focusses on the widespread critique on his earlier book stating that there can not be an end to history as long as there is no end to science and Fukuyama agrees. He particularly makes the point that humanity's future depends on developments in the life sciences, particular biotech. Basically, his point is that as we get more and more enabled to change human characteristics, we might in the end be able to change humankind, through changing human nature, which can result in the structural change of politics. Seems like a fair enough thesis to me, but Fukuyama doesn't seem to get enough of it, continuing his line of reasoning for way too long and repeating himself too often.
I'm sure Fukuyama is trying to convince other theorists of his sanity (after writing 'The end of history') while positing a valid theory, but, in the end, what's lacking is guidance on how to proceed.
Indeed, changes to society through existing biological and medical possibilities are already happening: Societies are growing older, individuals live longer, drugs like Prozac and Ritalin make sure individual outliers are driven more to society's medians, and changes like these will have a profound long term political effect. And, indeed, the advent of more particular biological or genetic engineering can have far reaching consequences for the politics of modern societies and individuals' understanding of what it means to be human, but what should we do about it? In the end, all Fukuyama says is, "Let's talk". That's not enough.
August 21, 2018
Attack on transhumanism brought to you by a man most famous for being wrong. Now he worries that science is going to make life too easy – that overcoming human evolution’s horrible legacy issues (e.g. ubiquitous mental illness, moral myopia, unspeakable death) with biotechnology will amount to the death of the soul. (Where the soul is that which thrives on adversity, is real / spiritual / creative, and Takes Responsibility.)
I shouldn’t mock; Fukuyama at least handles this fear secularly and rationally, and his existential claim is not wrong by definition; also, it is interesting to him endorse regulation for once. This is a clear statement of a common (the default?) position on a matter of huge importance.
However, his arguments are piss-poor: he argues via 1) using fictional evidence – Brave New World and the Bible; by 2) suggesting, without real evidence, that there are insurmountable trade-offs between longevity and cognition, happiness and creativity, and personality and freedom; and by 3) a truly massive suppressed premise: that things are ok as they are (or, at least, as good as they get).
The first section, laying out 2002’s cutting edge in life extension, neuropharmacology, and genetic engineering, is fair and good. He accuses bioethicists of being gung-ho shills for Industry, which is interesting, but completely opposed to my experience of them as timid precautionists.
If you read it, read Bostrom too.
I shouldn’t mock; Fukuyama at least handles this fear secularly and rationally, and his existential claim is not wrong by definition; also, it is interesting to him endorse regulation for once. This is a clear statement of a common (the default?) position on a matter of huge importance.
However, his arguments are piss-poor: he argues via 1) using fictional evidence – Brave New World and the Bible; by 2) suggesting, without real evidence, that there are insurmountable trade-offs between longevity and cognition, happiness and creativity, and personality and freedom; and by 3) a truly massive suppressed premise: that things are ok as they are (or, at least, as good as they get).
The first section, laying out 2002’s cutting edge in life extension, neuropharmacology, and genetic engineering, is fair and good. He accuses bioethicists of being gung-ho shills for Industry, which is interesting, but completely opposed to my experience of them as timid precautionists.
If you read it, read Bostrom too.
July 6, 2015
If nothing else, the breadth of knowledge that Fukuyama brings to bear on the ethics of biotechnology is remarkable: he is as comfortable talking about ethology as he is Kantian ethics or international regulatory frameworks, and he does a great job discussing all of these. His prose is clear and persuasive, and his argument relatively straightforward.
His argument can be boiled down to this: ethics are based on human nature, biotechnology can alter human nature, if biotechnology isn't properly regulated it could change human nature for the worse, and therefore biotechnology needs to be regulated better.
This would be a solid argument if you accept the premise that ethics are based on human nature. Fukuyama does a fair amount of philosophical work to defend this claim, but I didn't think that the argument ultimately held up. The main flaw in his defense is that he appeals to "gut" emotional reactions from his readers rather than making a solidly reasoned case for a human nature-based ethics. There was also a decent dose of straw-man characterizations of alternative approaches to ethics like utilitarianism, which have much more nuanced things to say about the ethics of biotechnology than Fukuyama admits.
But if you're at all interested in the ethics or politics of biotechnology, read this book. Even if you don't agree with it, it'll give you something to argue against.
His argument can be boiled down to this: ethics are based on human nature, biotechnology can alter human nature, if biotechnology isn't properly regulated it could change human nature for the worse, and therefore biotechnology needs to be regulated better.
This would be a solid argument if you accept the premise that ethics are based on human nature. Fukuyama does a fair amount of philosophical work to defend this claim, but I didn't think that the argument ultimately held up. The main flaw in his defense is that he appeals to "gut" emotional reactions from his readers rather than making a solidly reasoned case for a human nature-based ethics. There was also a decent dose of straw-man characterizations of alternative approaches to ethics like utilitarianism, which have much more nuanced things to say about the ethics of biotechnology than Fukuyama admits.
But if you're at all interested in the ethics or politics of biotechnology, read this book. Even if you don't agree with it, it'll give you something to argue against.
July 27, 2019
Vital and interesting but not entirely convincing
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:
"In the future, virtually everything that the popular imagination envisions genetic engineering accomplishing is much more likely to be accomplished sooner through neuropharmacology." (p. 52)
"There is a disconcerting symmetry between Prozac and Ritalin. The former is prescribed heavily for depressed women lacking in self-esteem; it gives them more of the alpha-male feeling that comes with high serotonin levels. Ritalin, on the other hand, is prescribed largely for young boys who do not want to sit still in class because nature never designed them to behave that way." (pp. 51-52)
"Developed countries" are finding that "the pool of available military manpower" is shrinking as their population ages. "The willingness of people in such societies to tolerate battle casualties among their young may fall as well." He sees a world "divided...between a North whose political tone is set by elderly women, and a South driven by...super-empowered angry young men." (p. 63)
Finally on page 172 he writes, "This protracted discussion of human dignity is intended to answer the following question: What is it that we want to protect from any future advances in biotechnology? The answer is, we want to protect the full range of our complex, evolved natures against attempts at self-modification."
My question is why? Are we so perfectly constituted as to make change undesirable? Our "evolved natures" are just that, something that has evolved and is evolving and will go on evolving. The creature that was "us" five million years ago has changed into the "us" of today. Would it be somehow preferable to have somehow stopped change five million years ago? If not, what makes Fukuyama think that we should attempt that now? He writes from the position of a humanist, but his unstated assumptions are similar to the religious notion that we are somehow the final product of a Creator and therefore not to be tampered with.
Evolution is now proceeding with an enormous rapidity driven not by natural selection but by culture. Our artifacts and our science and yes our biotechnology are part of the culture that is shaping us. We can't escape from that fact, and we cannot deny our nature as creatures that create, even though some of our creations may be dangerous. Being creative is also part of the essence of being human.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
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:
"In the future, virtually everything that the popular imagination envisions genetic engineering accomplishing is much more likely to be accomplished sooner through neuropharmacology." (p. 52)
"There is a disconcerting symmetry between Prozac and Ritalin. The former is prescribed heavily for depressed women lacking in self-esteem; it gives them more of the alpha-male feeling that comes with high serotonin levels. Ritalin, on the other hand, is prescribed largely for young boys who do not want to sit still in class because nature never designed them to behave that way." (pp. 51-52)
"Developed countries" are finding that "the pool of available military manpower" is shrinking as their population ages. "The willingness of people in such societies to tolerate battle casualties among their young may fall as well." He sees a world "divided...between a North whose political tone is set by elderly women, and a South driven by...super-empowered angry young men." (p. 63)
Finally on page 172 he writes, "This protracted discussion of human dignity is intended to answer the following question: What is it that we want to protect from any future advances in biotechnology? The answer is, we want to protect the full range of our complex, evolved natures against attempts at self-modification."
My question is why? Are we so perfectly constituted as to make change undesirable? Our "evolved natures" are just that, something that has evolved and is evolving and will go on evolving. The creature that was "us" five million years ago has changed into the "us" of today. Would it be somehow preferable to have somehow stopped change five million years ago? If not, what makes Fukuyama think that we should attempt that now? He writes from the position of a humanist, but his unstated assumptions are similar to the religious notion that we are somehow the final product of a Creator and therefore not to be tampered with.
Evolution is now proceeding with an enormous rapidity driven not by natural selection but by culture. Our artifacts and our science and yes our biotechnology are part of the culture that is shaping us. We can't escape from that fact, and we cannot deny our nature as creatures that create, even though some of our creations may be dangerous. Being creative is also part of the essence of being human.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
March 31, 2013
This book covered some of the philosophical and ethical issues related to biotechnology and biomedical sciences. The book started with technologies that are affecting our society now (10% of people are on Prozac – what does that mean for democracy?) and then moved progressively further out into the future, discussing technologies like genetic screens, cloning, and genetic engineering. Throughout the book runs a theme warning that without proper regulation, a world like Huxley’s “Brave New World” could be possible, with Prozac and other drugs filling in for soma and selection for favorable traits or even outright genetic engineering of offspring by the upper class could lead to Alphas. The book spends rather a long time trying to determine what is the core human essence that we must be careful to not disrupt with our technologies. There is also a discussion of how regulation might proceed – emphasizing that these outcomes are preventable.
October 10, 2013
Although written over 10 years ago, it is even more important today to consider the things that Fukuyama writes about as science and technology continues to barrel forward into the future with seemingly little or no barriers. What is most important to ponder is what happens to the idea of what it means to be human and upon what do you base these ideas. Fukuyama makes a good non-religious case that there is something special about being human that we may lose as transhumanist and posthumanist philosophies gain wider audiences.
Fukuyama ends the book with this statement with which I totally agree: "True freedom means the freedom of political communities to protect the values they hold most dear, and it is that freedom that we need to exercise with regard to the the biotechnology revolution today." (218)
Fukuyama ends the book with this statement with which I totally agree: "True freedom means the freedom of political communities to protect the values they hold most dear, and it is that freedom that we need to exercise with regard to the the biotechnology revolution today." (218)
February 24, 2014
It is interesting to think that changes in biotechnology, namely human cloning, DNA recombination and other could have political consequences. And how do we regulate the advance of science? at an individual or state level? Is a natural aristocracy of over intelligent, over beautiful people going to emerge? How to we keep our humanity, that undefinable factor X that makes us call ourselves humans? Like any good book, this one leaves us will all the questions open, and a warning: whatever road we follow, we should do it with our eyes wide open.
November 15, 2016
أنه لا يستطيع أن يعرف ما إذا كانت المعرفة ستنقذه أم أنها ستقتله ،سيقتل نعم لكنه لا يستطيع أن يعرف ما إذا كان قد قتل بسبب المعرفة التي أكتسبها أم بسبب المعرفة التي لم يكتسبها و التي كانت ستنقذه لو أنه عرفها
كانت تلك مقدمة الكتاب التي جذبتني إليه ، فمع أعتراف الكاتب بأن البيوتكنولوجي علم ذو حدين إلا أنه تخوف كثيرا منه و من الهندسة الوراثية بشكل اكبر حتي مترجم الكتاب نفسه لا يتفق مع الكاتب رغم إيمانه باهمية الكتاب
كانت تلك مقدمة الكتاب التي جذبتني إليه ، فمع أعتراف الكاتب بأن البيوتكنولوجي علم ذو حدين إلا أنه تخوف كثيرا منه و من الهندسة الوراثية بشكل اكبر حتي مترجم الكتاب نفسه لا يتفق مع الكاتب رغم إيمانه باهمية الكتاب
March 20, 2022
في هذا الكتاب ركز فوكوياما على انتقاد فكرته القديمة والتي قال فيها أنه لا يمكن أن يكون هناك نهاية للتاريخ طالما لا نهاية للعلم . يشير بشكل خاص إلى أن مستقبل البشرية يعتمد على التطور في علوم الحياة ، وخاصة التكنولوجيا الحيوية. وجهة نظره تقول أنه كلما تمكّننا أكثر فأكثر من تغيير الخصائص البشرية ، قد نتمكن في النهاية من تغيير الجنس البشري ، من خلال تغيير الطبيعة البشرية ، مما قد يؤدي في النهاية الى نهاية الانسان على حد زعمه
October 10, 2008
Conclusive proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, and we can quit worshipping Him.
In a nutshell: evolution has transcended the biological substrate (meatspace) and entered into the mental.
It all fits in nicely with the theory of exponential acceleration of knowledge into the coming singularity.
In a nutshell: evolution has transcended the biological substrate (meatspace) and entered into the mental.
It all fits in nicely with the theory of exponential acceleration of knowledge into the coming singularity.
Currently reading
May 17, 2011Was fairly expecting to hate this, to be honest. But there's a lot of thought-provoking stuff here.
The book's not afraid of controversial stuff and there are some uncomfortable passages, I suppose. This is one of its strengths.
Summary, so far: the biotechnological revolution will test our intuition and our institutions regarding the question of what it means to be human.
The book's not afraid of controversial stuff and there are some uncomfortable passages, I suppose. This is one of its strengths.
Summary, so far: the biotechnological revolution will test our intuition and our institutions regarding the question of what it means to be human.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews