OUR POSTHUMAN FUTURE
by Francis Fukuyama
Farrar Straus & Giroux, 272 pp, $25.00
OUR MOLECULAR FUTURE:
How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence Will
Transform Our World
by Douglas Mulhall
Prometheus Books, 390 pp, $28.00
One of America's defining characteristics is that we embrace innovation
as it emerges and address problems as they arise, unlike nations that
wait until all possible effects of innovation have been considered before
accepting change. This is a central reason for our economic dynamism.
However, that tradition is being put at risk by the emergence of fundamentally
new systems of biotechnology and nanotechnology (the manipulating of atoms
and molecules in the range of a nanometer, one billionth of a meter);
a small but vocal group of wary nay-sayers from both the right and the
left are loudly cautioning us against going forward. The Bush administration's
opposition to stem cell and cloning research is only the first salvo in
what could be a defining political battle over the development and use
of fundamentally new and beneficial technologies.
But opposition is not confined to extremists on the left and the right.
Francis Fukuyama, acclaimed author of The End of History and the Last
Man, has now written a new book warning of the consequences of genomics
and biotechnology. Fukuyama's participation in the debate illustrates
the extent to which opposition to new technologies has become intellectually
acceptable. In Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology
Revolution, Fukuyama revises his earlier thesis: We haven't reached
the end of history because we haven't reached the end of science. He worries
that "the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology
is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us
into a 'posthuman' stage of history." Like Aldous Huxely's Brave
New World, written at the beginning of the pharmaceutical age, Fukuyama
paints a decidedly pessimistic view at the beginning of the biotech age.
His book is filled with spurious arguments and worst-case scenarios for
why we should fear the new technology.
Fukuyama fears that biotechnology, especially genomics, could once and
for all put an end to the debate between nature and nurture with disastrous
consequences for a democracy based on the notion that all men are created
equal. Finding that factors such as sexuality, criminal behavior and intelligence
have a genetic basis and might be related to race could have, he believes,
significant political implications. Raising the specter of eugenics, he
fears that "life sciences may give us news we would rather not hear."
But from the time Galileo's discoveries made clear that the earth was
not the center of the universe, science has given us news that many did
not want to hear. While it's not clear that this will be news we don't
want to hear, to say that we should prefer ignorance to enlightenment
is to underestimate our capacity to adjust to new realities.
Fukuyama's second fear is that biotechnology will lead to the development
of new neuropharmacological drugs that will be used for purposes other
than addressing mental illness. While he admits that we already make distinctions
between therapeutic and recreational drugs and regulate accordingly, that's
not good enough. Comparing drugs like Prozac and Ritalin to Huxley's "soma,"
he asks, "Would Caesar or Napoleon have felt the need to conquer
most of Europe if he had been able to pop a Prozac every now and then?"
Yet, given the fact that since cave men first fermented fruit there have
always been powerful drugs, it is absurd to think that drugs will ever
put an end to human ambition.
Fukuyama is at his pessimistic best in discussing biotech's role in
life extension. Biotechnology could significantly extend human life spans,
while letting people remain physically and mentally active. But Fukuyama
will have none of it, warning that further "life extension will wreak
havoc with most age-graded hierarchies." Yet, Americans live 30 years
longer than they did a century ago and we're doing okay. Fukuyama not
only worries that society will crumble if people live yet another 30 years
longer, but that if "retirement stretches on for 20 or 30 years with
no apparent end, it may seem pointless." Maybe to him, but not to
everyone. Fukuyama clearly underestimates people's ability to live enjoyable
and productive lives outside of work.
Finally, while Fukuyama admits that genetic engineering has "obvious
attractions for the treatment of inherited diseases, such as diabetes,"
he warns that we will someday be able to create "designer babies"
leading to a post-human future. Here, Fukuyama is on more solid ground.
One could envision problems arising if some parents had access to procedures
that could make their offspring smarter, taller, or better looking than
others. But the situation is not as black and white as Fukuyama would
have us believe; there may be cases where such enhancement is medically
recommended. Moreover, he makes a slippery-slope argument that if it becomes
possible to genetically engineer embryos not just for therapy but for
enhancement, we will do it. But to date we have established common-sense
rules governing medical procedures; there is no reason we won't do so
in the future if it ever becomes possible to do such genetic engineering.
Again, it's better to support the process of innovation and then address
the issues that arise.
In contrast to Fukuyama's cautious approach, Douglas Mulhall says "let
'er rip" in Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics,
Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World. Mulhall
lays out a visionary future in which scientists and engineers make a whole
class of new materials and products from the atomic and molecular level
up. Throughout history humans have had to be content to manipulate (cutting,
melting, grinding) materials to make things. The development of new instruments
like the electron tunneling microscope, now takes this process to a finer
level, giving scientists and engineers the ability to create materials
from the atomic level up. New materials like nanotubes, which are 100
times stronger than steel and one-fifth lighter, are likely to lead to
fundamental new applications in energy, materials, transportation, and
medicine. In fact, Mulhall boldly and perhaps prematurely endorses a future
in which machines are smarter than humans, and in which humans have computer
implants or biological engineering to enhance their own intelligence.
Jeremy Rifkin, a diehard opponent of new technology who is noted for
a series of anti-modernist books, argues that "the Biotech era separates
those who champion the intrinsic value of life from those who favor a
purely utilitarian approach to life." Rifkin could have included
nanotech and added "the intrinsic value of nature" since the
major opponents of these new technologies from the left and the right
have one thing in common: an ideological commitment that technology should
not alter nature. For more than a century, the right's clarion call was
to preserve liberty by restricting government. Increasingly, their preoccupation
is to preserve "human nature" by regulating biotechnology. The
left once celebrated technology that liberated workers from drudgery.
Fearing control by a corporate elite, a host of left-wing interests increasingly
wants to limit technologies like agricultural biotech and nanotech, even
though they promise to significantly boost productivity. But as sociologist
Daniel Bell states, "technology is the instrumental ordering of human
experience within a logic of efficient means, and the direction of nature
to use its powers for material gain." To argue otherwise is the naturalistic
fallacy that gives moral value to that which is "natural."
But it's not just ideology that leads to opposition; it's also fear.
Many fear the new and prefer the old. Shoshana Zuboff blithely argues
in In the Age of the Smart Machine that "Technology makes
the world a new place," as though that is an automatic disqualifier
for progress. But in a world threatened by global warming, bioterrorist
attacks, overpopulation, and depletion of natural resources, biotech and
nanotech will also provide the wellsprings of needed solutions. In short,
we cannot afford the luxury of wishing to stop the clock of technological
progress.
But that doesn't deter those who would have government slow the process
down, or even reverse it. Bill Joy, Sun Microsystems' chief scientist,
recently wrote an essay warning of technology out of control: "We
are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no
brakes. Have we already gone too far down the path to alter course? I
don't believe so, but we aren't trying yet, and the last chance to assert
control -- the fail-safe point -- is rapidly approaching."
At least one environmental group has begun to call for regulation of
nano-technology, encouraging the EPA and FDA, and similar bodies in Europe
to regulate research. Fukuyama argues that now "is the time to move
from thinking to acting, from recommending to legislating." As a
member of President Bush's Bioethics Council he started the process when
he switched his vote on the issue of therapeutic cloning, sparing Bush
the embarrassment of having his handpicked council disagree with him.
But for Fukuyama, this is just a prelude. He urges the creation of a new
federal regulatory institution that would "have statutory authority
over all research and development, and not just research that is federally
funded."
In the absence of such regulation, many simply lapse into opposition -- to
the point where it becomes hard to distinguish between thoughtful critics
and Luddite extremists. For example, Fukuyama writes that the posthuman
future 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." This sounds strikingly like
another commentator who stated that new technology will enable people
to be "biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove
their need for the power process or make them 'sublimate' their drive
for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may
be happy in such a society, but they will certainly not be free."
That commentator was Ted Kaczynski, the infamous and now imprisoned Unabomber.
One doesn't have to be a libertarian to worry that the regulation envisioned
by opponents of technological innovation would slow down needed scientific
progress. That doesn't mean that we should blithely acquiesce to libertarians
and those in the scientific and corporate communities who resist the notion
that there are legitimate cases where society needs to intervene. It does
mean that New Democrats need to actively and vigorously support the development
and use of new technologies like biotechnology and nanotechnology. And
if and when problems arise, they should judiciously and strategically
intervene to mitigate them.
