The premise for the book is that we could go extinct someday but, unlike all other species, we have the capability to anticipate the possibility and to do something about it. Then he proposes a 500-year plan to use and anticipate the advances in biology to take control of our own physical evolution. It is our duty to our species to survive!
That’s the premise. I don’t buy the “duty to our species to survive” or the desirability to modify ourselves to become radiation resistant blobs that can colonize distant planets. I’d like to think about it. And I guess that is a main point of the book.
As an aside, I am a biologist and I recall my professor, Ledyard Stebbins (Author of The Basis of a Progressive Evolution) argued that physical evolution may have stopped for people because of advances in technology; for example, genetic impairment causing bad vision were not subject to natural selection because optometrists could fix vision with eyeglasses. We have a society and a technology that renders such differences to be interesting variation and not disabilities. and this is why the people in Star Trek and Star Wars movies are not visibly different from our current form. --- That is one argument.
Duty issue aside, this is clearly the stuff of science fiction. But then, the role of science fiction is also to anticipate what the future might look like. I recall reading of future humans adapted to space travel and unhindered by the appendages necessary for walking, climbing trees, etc. In this book, the author takes so many of those strategies explored in science fiction stories and novels and discusses the current science making those strategies possible. To some extent, this is an applause for past science fiction writers and a manual for future writers.
He is accurate. In the last 20 years we have sequenced the human genome and it is even becoming a common clinical tool. Our scientists have begun to find ways to discretely modify DNA and have used the technology to improve crops and correct diseases. We are discovering genes and biological capabilities in many species that have unique abilities to tolerate radiation, altitude, heat, desiccation, and more. These genes and these capabilities could prove to be beneficial as our planet changes or as we move into space. He discusses how colonization might take place for new planets and what might be done to overcome the vast distances for space travel. As of yet, there is no tesserac or warpdrive.
The great value of the book, in my opinion, is a “Gee whiz” aspect. The author does a nice job picking up key points and observations over a very wide range including advances in medicine, space travel, physiology and agriculture. He does a good job describing the hopes, failures and successes for treating hereditary diseases using gene modification. Gene editing is still pretty sketchy. However, the technology is evolving rapidly, and we can anticipate having something much better than “survival of the fittest” for making changes to our genomes. Playing God may not be cool but “survival of the fittest” is a pretty brutal social construct. --- But then again, Stebbins suggested we may have evolved beyond survival of the fittest.
All that being said, I didn’t find it that interesting. It felt a bit like de-bunking science fiction. Where’s the fun in that? Bigger questions are the consequences of this gene editin. We are discovering that genes are pleiotropic. That is a $5 word meaning that a gene can have multiple effects. For example, the gene for red hair also confers increased sensitivity to pain and some drugs. I don’t know why that would be. Red hair is caused by a variant in the gene MC1R that binds a hormone, melanotropin and sets off a biochemical pathway leading to the conversion of red pigment to black pigment. The variant for red hair does not allow the binding to occur. The receptor, MC1R, has other roles in other cells. There are many biochemical pathways that are affected. Changing this gene so that an individual has red hair has other consequences. We are at the beginning of understanding these changes. --- IMO it is appropriate to apply gene editing technology to relieve suffering, just as we provide eye-glasses to those with myopia. Curing severe combined immunodeficiency disease, hemophilia and other nasty diseases will be wonderful. None of my kids were born with these diseases and I would have done anything to make them better! Scientists are proceeding cautiously, making sure that genetic modifications to correct diseases do not appear in the sex cells and will not be passed on to the next generation. Only the patient is affected but their own children will still be at risk. (There was a famous exception to this rule in China, two years ago, but the up-roar should have made it clear that this was not appropriate.) Even so, one day, we may find it beneficial to make germline changes in the genome. Imagine making a genetic modification that prevented us from contracting influenza or other infectious diseases? Infectious diseases are species specific so there will be genetic modifications that could render us unsusceptible. That might be better than having to make, modify and deliver vaccines on an annual basis… I don’t know. We should talk about it. And perhaps take each case on an individual basis. Some edits might be biochemically limited consequences. IMO, these are more immediate and more interesting questions to address than preparing for space travel.
Still, these are fun thought exercises and the stuff of science fiction.