Rating: 
Summary: Thinly disguised neophobia, but worthwhile
Review: By almost any standard, social philosopher Francis Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" is an important book. In it, he explores near-term breakthroughs in neuropharmacology (i.e., Prozac, Ritalin, Zoloft), genetic screening and the looming prospect of germ-line genetic engineering, which could conceivably fracture the human race beyond recognition a la Aldous Huxley's cautionary masterpiece "Brave New World." Fukuyama is an engaging polemicist who knows biotechnology and harbors understandable reservations about its potential. So perhaps it's surprising that I don't agree with his thesis. Much of "Our Posthuman Future" is devoted to Fukuyama's case for "human nature" and "human dignity." One can hardly blame him; the technologies he describes pose grave existential questions for the human condition. We may very well evolve into a "posthuman" stage of being. My central problem is Fukuyama's negative reading of the term "posthuman"; though he applauds biotech breakthroughs that have prolonged and improved human life, he equates "posthuman" with the soulless "happy slaves" of dystopian science fiction. He seems unable or unwilling to foster the notion that willfully upgrading the human species through psychotropic drugs or genetic intervention might result in a legitimate long-term improvement. Fukuyama accomplishes his literary mission by vigorously defending what he terms "human nature." To his credit, he gives us a robust historical model of what it means to be human, citing philosophers from Aristotle to Nietzsche and even name-dropping roboticist Hans Moravec and artificial intelligence advocate Ray Kurzweil. But he refuses to acknowledge that the definition of "human" is conceivably in our hands and not the exclusive domain of blind natural selection, thus ignoring the opportunity to develop an authentically new transhumanist philosophy. Any reader will naturally sympathize with the impending bioethical controversies scrutinized in "Our Posthuman Future." For example, will germ-line engineering lead to a race of superhumans and, if so, what happens to the founding principles of liberal democracy? Will parents of the near-future screen prospective embryos for desired characteristics, resulting in a genetic aristrocracy? Unfortunately, Fukuyama's arguments are rendered toothless by his unwillingness to challenge the prevailing biomedical paradigm, which seeks to treat the sick yet leave well enough alone. For Fukuyama, death is not merely acceptable in a society of potential immortals, but confirmation of "human nature." Predictably enough, he ends his book with a rallying cry for increased governmental precautions and legislation against technologies that might revise his quaint definition of "human." To be sure, "Our Posthuman Future" is worth reading. Fukuyama is intelligent and sincerely cares about the future of humanity and civil liberty, which is more than can be said for many of his contemporaries. But even his best arguments are burdened with thinly disguised neophobia.
Rating:
Summary: Technophobic, but slightly redeeming
Review: Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis has struck many as manifestly falsified by the terrorist attacks on New York. In the light of this, he has revised this thesis substantially in his newest work, "Our Posthuman Future." Fukuyama's argument runs as follows: liberal democracy and market capitalism are rooted in the notion of human rights. Human rights are derivative from the requirements of life and human nature. The exponential progress in neuropharamacology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, etc. is fundamentally changing the requirements of human existence. The notion of human rights will be obsolete since we have become "posthuman." Therefore, Fukuyama's central thesis states, unless we closely regulate technological advances, the ethical foundations of democracy and capitalism shall be undermined. Some reviewers have correctly nailed Fukuyama's on his adherance to the "naturalistic fallacy." (which, in all fairness, Fukuyama explictly tries to rebuff) However, his biggest failing stems from his inability to address why "posthumanity" is intrinsically inferior to humanity. Indeed, any attempt to answer that normative question would involve either a human or posthuman frame-of-reference, the latter of which we do not currently possess. In other words, Fukuyama tries to argue against the prospect of posthumanity from a distinctly human ethics. For some ethical theories, (e.g. Kantianism) criticizing the prospect of posthumanity may not be a problem, since the theory should apply to all rational beings. Fukuyama, however, explicitly states his allegiance to Aristotlean ethics, which constructs value judgments from the requirements of human nature. In other words, Aristotlean ethics only applies to human beings, not posthumans. Thus, Fukuyama has no right to criticize the prospect of posthumanity. Fukuyama uses this faulty reasoning to urge legislators to clamp down on science and progress through massive regulations. Rather unconcerned with the plethora of benefits that these technologies may bring to humanity, Fukuyama's remains paranoid of entering a Huxleyan brave new world. In the light of these flaw, why 3 stars? Fukuyama's catalogue of advancements in neuropharmacology, genetic engineering, etc. is really the only redeeming aspect of his work. As one who read this book primarily for its philosophical and political implications, Fukuyama's extensive and accessible discussion of the biotech revolution provides a value-added advantage for those who wish to learn about it. Recommended with reservations.
Rating:
Summary: Technophobic, but slightly redeeming
Review: Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis has struck many as manifestly falsified by the terrorist attacks on New York. In the light of this, he has revised this thesis substantially in his newest work, "Our Posthuman Future." Fukuyama's argument runs as follows: liberal democracy and market capitalism are rooted in the notion of human rights. Human rights are derivative from the requirements of life and human nature. The exponential progress in neuropharamacology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, etc. is fundamentally changing the requirements of human existence. The notion of human rights will be obsolete since we have become "posthuman." Therefore, Fukuyama's central thesis states, unless we closely regulate technological advances, the ethical foundations of democracy and capitalism shall be undermined. Some reviewers have correctly nailed Fukuyama's on his adherance to the "naturalistic fallacy." (which, in all fairness, Fukuyama explictly tries to rebuff) However, his biggest failing stems from his inability to address why "posthumanity" is intrinsically inferior to humanity. Indeed, any attempt to answer that normative question would involve either a human or posthuman frame-of-reference, the latter of which we do not currently possess. In other words, Fukuyama tries to argue against the prospect of posthumanity from a distinctly human ethics. For some ethical theories, (e.g. Kantianism) criticizing the prospect of posthumanity may not be a problem, since the theory should apply to all rational beings. Fukuyama, however, explicitly states his allegiance to Aristotlean ethics, which constructs value judgments from the requirements of human nature. In other words, Aristotlean ethics only applies to human beings, not posthumans. Thus, Fukuyama has no right to criticize the prospect of posthumanity. Fukuyama uses this faulty reasoning to urge legislators to clamp down on science and progress through massive regulations. Rather unconcerned with the plethora of benefits that these technologies may bring to humanity, Fukuyama's remains paranoid of entering a Huxleyan brave new world. In the light of these flaw, why 3 stars? Fukuyama's catalogue of advancements in neuropharmacology, genetic engineering, etc. is really the only redeeming aspect of his work. As one who read this book primarily for its philosophical and political implications, Fukuyama's extensive and accessible discussion of the biotech revolution provides a value-added advantage for those who wish to learn about it. Recommended with reservations.
Rating:
Summary: A Commendable Failure
Review: Fukuyama has a gift. He takes the great issues of the day and discerns the grand theoretical explanation for them, even while the controversy and chaos of the present swirls around us. Along with the theory comes insightful predictions of where these issues will go next. This time Fukuyama focuses on the impact of biotechnology on science, law, philosophy and politics. He asks whether biotechnology will alter our concept of common humanity to such an extent that it will undermine the basis for human rights, dignity and equality that have served as our core values for the last century. Or will the availability of cloning prompt liberal demands to "further equality" by improving the capacities of the lower strata of society? These are no small questions. And, if they are not enough to digest, Fukuyama will also explain how classic philosophy and political science help frame these issues, delve into the current round of the timeless debate of heredity versus environment, and ponder the nature of the "X factor" that makes a human being a human being. Turn on your thinking cap for another journey with Fukuyama. As usual, he will lift you from the every day world of the shadows into the realm of ideas.
Rating: 
Summary: ...and this guy's on the president's bioethics panel?!
Review: I guess someone has to play the job of the paranoid futurist and Fukuyama has done a great job of it in the past. Here, he is no better. His aim: the biotech industry. His worry: biotech threatens human dignity. His arguments: (?) I bought this book after seeing him on a C-SPAN panel discussion and he seemed quite balanced. Myself seeing nothing wrong with biotech (and being puzzled at the 'human dignity' arguments), I am still willing to hear good arguments to counter my own. I thought this would be the book. It was not. The first section of the book is a rehash of the developments and techinical information needed to make a meaningful discussion of biotech. Here, Fukuyama gains both his stars. He was clear, concise, and he even managed to say in one sentence what I've seen others say in 2 paragraphs, and more comprehensively. Being familliar with a lot of this info from past readings, a lesser writer may have caused me to skip over the chapters. Even though I'd read most of the info before, reading it in Fukuyama's words was exciting. Then there is the second, decidedly more philosophical section, where the author discusses first, human rights, and second, human dignity. Here, we see that Fukuyama is truly "Aristotle's bulldog". He first makes a(n almost irrelevent) case for natural rights. How does he do it? Surprise, suprise: humans have natures; those natures are (with minor variance) universal: therefore, human rights exist. He tells us that "ought" actually can be derived from "is". But here is the problem. Fukuyama is very selective in what he recognizes as human nature. Many prominent biologists have shown that brutish things like revenge, rape, infanticide, and bluffing (via game theory) are also part of our universal natures. Should we recognize them as rights too? Fukuyama, oddly, is silent. (somme other reviewers have made astute critiques of his "natural rights" proofs). While I think that 'oughts' should be made with 'is's' in mind (judgments should be INFORMED by fact), Fukuyama (and other natural rights theorists) must unavoidably be selective in what parts of our natures to count as 'natural rights' and which not to. These are value judgments and ones based almost unavoidably on PRIOR conceptions of what is desirable. Therefore, "is" to "ought" is not a necessary step, but a highly 'unnatural' moral leap. (Oddly enough, Fukuyama quotes Hume saying exactly this, never quite rebutting him. Hume, it turns out, makes the stronger case!) From there, we talk about human dignity. I certainly agree with Fukuyama on two points: first, science has had a nasty tendency to (somewhat sadistically) make statements "degrading human dignity". Instead of being the third chimpanzee (an oversimplification to say the least), we are "JUST (read: only or merely) the third chimpanzee. Similarly Richard Dawkins likes to say that we are survival machines BLINDLY programmed by our genes to ensure their, not our, survival. The second area that I agree with Fukuyama is that science has made it appear that since we are made of the same stuff as other animals, that we are really not much different from them. This ignores obvious empirical evidence that even if we have the same emotions as, say, bonobos, we not only have more of them, but we can do such things as supress them, learn about them, modify them (fairly quickly) and be aware of them in a second-order way. Fukuyama, then, is right on these two counts and becuase of both of them, science has appeared to threaten our human dignity. Where he is not correct is on the conclusions he draws from is: that biotech DOES threaten our dignity. If our natures can be manipulated, he says, then there is really not much special about us at all. My answer: only if that is the way YOU want to think of it, but your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. After all, we can control diamonds: we can cut them, color them, crush them into powder, chisel them to our specs; but does that make a diamond less valuable to us? No. So if I were to engineer my daughter prior to birth to try and ensure that she is as healthy or has the 'best brain' possible, does that diminish her future high score on the SAT's? I highly doubt she will really think of it as my, and not her own, achievement. Fukuyama also assumes that we will be able to genetically engineer to ensure our children are succesful in life. Hmmm....I thought environmental factors played pretty important roles in ones 'succcess' (whether you've the right business partners, whether consumers like your ideas, whether you are in the right place at the right time with the right people...etc.) There is a third section that takes his 'arguments' and applies them to public policy debates where his ultimate stance is to put serious regulations on cloning and biotech. I found this section only skim-worthy, as they rely on the faulty argumenets in previous sections. I generally don't write long reviews, but there are honestly so many fallacies, over-simplifications, and unrealistic speculations in this book (not much of a departure from The End of History)that writing a short one would feel wrong. My suggestion? Read the book, but do so skeptically. A better book explicating the same kind of fears but with better arguments? "Human Cloning and Human Dignity" by The President's Council on Bioethics.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: In his latest work, Frank Fukuyama, a political scientist with a talent for sweeping analysis and cogent policy insights, turns to the fascinating and (from a layman's perspective) mysterious world of biotechnology to uncover the possible long range implications of cracking the human genetic code. The central argument Fukuyama presents is that the second and third order political consequences stemming from advances in neuro-pharmacology, dramatic increases in productive life, and genetic engineering are little understood but potentially profound. Unlike other revolutionary advances in science, such as nuclear energy, where the threats to society if the technology were abused or unregulated were obvious from the outset, biotechnology's greatest threat is that on the surface it seems rather benign. From this starting point Fukuyama addresses three distinct but related topics: 1) an overview of the biotech revolution; 2) the relationship between the biotech revolution and classical political philosophy; and 3) an outline of possible policy responses. From this reader's perspective, the first section was fascinating, the second dull, and the third necessary but dry. In short, 'Our Post Human Future' provides a great primer on the biotech revolution and convincingly lays out the potential social and political impact of those advances. Those familiar with the subject will likely find nothing new and may be disappointed. However, for those will little background in bio-technology but who enjoy pondering 'the long view' or thoughtfully engaging in policy debates, 'Our Post Human Future' will be of great interest, and will likely leave you pondering questions you'd never considered before.
Rating:
Summary: Needs to be read by everyone!
Review: The biotechnology revolution is upon us, says Francis Fukuyama in his new book "Our Posthuman Future," and we had better begin to deal with the challenging social, political, and economic issues which will be raised by the changes to come. Fukuyama points out that we are already a society that is widely using and abusing drugs like Prozac and Ritalin to modify behavior and psychological states and we now seem to be all too eager to employ our expanding knowledge of human genetics to influence everything from increasing intelligence to prolonging life. But these may be the least of the problems we face in the future. The author also discusses such controversial issues as eugenics, the prospects for germline enhancement, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and "designer babies." There are sound reasons to put limits on biotechnology and these limits can be and need to be enforced. This is, in my opinion, Fukuyama's main thesis in his book, and with this I wholeheartedly agree. "Our Posthuman Future" deserves to be read by all those who are concerned about the direction in which biotechnology is going. No, let me go further. This book needs to be read by all thinking human beings. The reason is simple: human beings, or human nature as we have understood it up to now, may be at stake. Fukuyama is no Luddite, neither am I. But the simple fact is this: just because something in science or technology "can" be done, does not mean it "should" be done. When we learn that lesson, maybe the world will be a better place.
Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful and interesting
Review: There is no great revolutionary thesis here of the kind that Fukuyama astonished the world with in his previous work, claiming that the end of history had come and it is the triumph of liberal democracy. But there is the same kind of reasoned and measured thought, this time about the very nature of what it means to be human, and the threats to our humanity posed by our own technological innovations.
It seems to me that Fukuyama touches on only a share of the problems involved with the question. And I believe he could be helped had he relied on the Jewish conception , that human beings are creators creating in the image of the Creator and therefore constantly recreating themselves. i.e. by the conception that the essence of Mankind is in transcending our past humanity to create our next stage of development. In any case this is an important book for anyone who would understand the problems Humanity is facing today in regard to its own essence and future.
Rating:
Summary: A Commendable Failure
Review: This is a book with many virtues and one fatal flaw. Among the former are a clear, lucid style and an impressive overview of the state of the art in contemporary genetic science and the moral debates that they have provoked. This book is highly recommended to those who are relatively new to these issues and want a superb, layman's introduction. But the book's central argument is embarrassingly weak. Fukuyama relies on Aristotle to support his central claim that morality ought to be grounded in an essential conception of human nature, the substance of which he sketches in the core chapters of the book. Scientific techniques should be regulated by the state, he argues, so that they do not threaten this nature, and thereby constitute an assault on human dignity. The flaw here is what 20th Century philosophers have labelled "the naturalistic fallacy": deriving a statement of value from a statement(s) of fact(s). In a word, facts tell us nothing about what is valuable. Fukuyama confronts this objection head-on by denying that the naturalistic fallacy really is a fallacy. (The "naturalistic fallacy fallacy"!) I admire his intellectual gusto in doing so, although he had little choice if he wanted his argument to have some chance of success. But he just isn't a good enough philosopher to pull it off. He doesn't even come remotely close. The fact that many philosophers (eg. Kant, Rawls) who accept that this is a fallacy have made claims about human nature--this is Fukuyama's main counter-argument--may be true, but it simply goes to show that they were inconsistent; it doesn't touch the naturalistic fallacy. That is the (weak) heart of his counter-argument. This isn't a minor problem for Fukuyama. His whole argument pivots on it. One can almost hear the rest of his book come crashing down around mid-way, as he earnestly rides into battle against the naturalistic fallacy armed with the flimsiest of weapons and fails to make even a small dent in it. All of the prescriptive aspects of the book fall with this failure, which makes the book overall a failure. (A disturbing conclusion, when one considers that Fukuyama is on a national committee on bioethics advising the US government!) But the copious descriptive parts of the book are very well executed and impressively well-informed, making it a commendable failure. You will learn a lot about modern science from this book, and nothing about what (ethically) to do about it.
Rating: 
Summary: Timely and Provocative
Review: This is an exploration on several levels -- advances in biotechnology and where they are headed, and what it means to be human. While occasionally tedious, overall Fukuyama has an excellent writing style and coveys information well. He starts by briefly examining George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. He then explains, "The aim of [this] book is to argue that Huxley was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a "posthuman" stage of history." (7) For all of our diversity, humans share fundamental qualities. Aristotle and his students began the dialog about "the nature of human nature [which has continued] in the Western philosophical tradition right up to the early modern period, when liberal democracy was born." (13). The Declaration of Independence captured the concept of shared human equality (albeit the concept was imperfectly applied in the Constitution). Fukuyama picks up the dialog, going beyond medical ethics to how advances in biotechnology may affect what it means to be human -- our humanness. The book is in three parts. In the first part he runs the spectrum of biotechnology issues facing humanity, asking many intriguing questions along the way. He categorizes these issues as "the increasing knowledge about the brain and the biological sources of human behavior, neuropharmacology and the manipulation of emotions and behavior, the prolongation of life, and finally, genetic engineering." (16). It is the latter that raises the most concern, that has huge moral implications, since it has the most potential to change human nature and brings with it the specter of eugenics -- originally a neutral term, but since the 1930s one that has taken on a dark, foreboding connotation. He explains (101) the cause for worry. "It is...a fear that, in the end, biotechnology will cause us in some way to lose our humanity -- that is, some essential quality that has always underpinned our sense of who we are and where we are going ...And what is that human essence that we might be in danger of losing? For a religious person, it might have to do with the divine gift or spark that all human beings are born with. From a secular perspective, it would have to do with human nature: the species-typical characteristics shared by all human beings qua human beings. That is ultimately what is at stake in the biotech revolution." The second part of the book "deals with the philosophical issues raised by an ability to manipulate human nature. It argues for the centrality of human nature to our understanding of right and wrong -- that is, human rights -- and how we can develop a concept of human dignity that does not depend on religious assumptions about the origins of man" (16). He discusses at length (chapter 7) Western humanistic philosophies and social theories about the nature of man that presuppose more versatility with these ideas than I possess. Noticeably, he puts less emphasis on the spiritual aspects of being human (in contrast, for example, to Dr. Martin Luther King in his meditations on "What is Man" and "Dimensions of a Complete Life.") In chapter 8 he defines what he means by human nature and in chapter 9, human dignity. The latter is "the idea there is something unique about the human race that entitles every member of the species to a higher moral status than the rest of the natural world" (160). "We are thus brought back to the question of politics and political strategies. For if there is a viable concept of human dignity out there, it needs to be defended, not just in philosophical tracts but in the real world of politics, and protected by viable political institutions" (177). This is the topic of the third part of his book - how and where we decide to draw the line. He argues that this decision can only be made by "the democratically constituted political community, acting chiefly through their elected representatives" (186). The scope of his research is enormous (much of it building on his previous work), and he has excellent insights. For example,
·"If people get upset enough about genetic inequality, there will be two alternative courses of action. The first and most sensible would simply be to forbid the use of biotechnology to enhance human characteristics and decline to compete in this dimension. But the notion of enhancement may become too powerfully attractive to forego...At this point a second possibility opens up, which is to use that same technology to raise up the bottom" (158-159).
·In his discussion of reductionism vs. complex systems theory (162-164) he explains how cosmology and particle physics, even the eventual discovery of a Grand Unified Theory, likely will be unable to predict with certitude how the known universe will continue to evolve.
·He says (28), "Attacking the methodological credentials of people whose views one doesn't like and dismissing their work as "pseudoscience" is a convenient shortcut around arguing over substance." Interesting comment in light of the current controversy surrounding the Raelian claim of having cloned humans for the first time.
·"Human nature also serves to provide us with guidance as to what political orders won't work. Proper understanding of the contemporary evolutionary theory of kin selection, or inclusive fitness, for example, would have led us to predict the bankruptcy and ultimate failure of communism, due to the latter's failure to respect the natural inclination to favor kin and private property" (127). In the end this is not only a primer on biotech issues, but a philosophical discussion of what it means to be human as well. While it's an evenhanded exploration, he shows a preference for caution and control. "...[I]t is time to move from thinking to acting, from recommending to legislating. We need institutions with real enforcement powers" (204). It's a complex book that is rewarding even if difficult to fully absorb (for me, in one reading anyway).
|
