Rating: 
Summary: Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age by Bill McKibben
Review: Although this book should get 5 stars for imagination and style,
I disagree with its premise.
We humans already have built into our systems, the trait of curiosity as well as the strong desire to survive as a species.
We're going to move forward with genetic research, stem cell
research and cloning organs in the 21st Century. We're also
excited with the prospect of space travel and intelligent life
elsewhere in the universe.
The author thinks that we must stop developing our human-ness, at
this time because we need to stick with what's "natural."Is it natural to have the ability to cure all diseases by manipulating genes and stem cells, but NOT do it?...for fear of
not being "natural?" Is it natural NOT to live 200 years, if we
have it within our power to do so? As long as we solve the
problems of overpopulation, what's wrong with living 200 years? At this time, we're replacing damaged human parts with new high
tech man-made materials? Is it unnatural to have a prosthetic
arm, leg, hand, etc.? In some cases, we're also using animal
cells to cure human brain diseases. Some people have used
transplanted animal hearts. Is this unnatural...to want to live,
no matter what? Would it be better to die then to have an
animal or prosthetic part?
Cloning human organs simply refines the above procedures, and
nothing more. In the 21st Century we already know that machines are putting many out of work. We know that computers can "think" faster than most humans, and yet we want them to make our lives more
convenient. Our desire to choose our own destiny could come to
an end if we were NOT to enhance our brain power vis a vie these
existing machines. What is wrong with that? Is it unnatural to want to have higher intelligence than the machines in our lives?
Through the development of machines, computer chips, satellites,
space ships, and the e*world in general, we have changed our
environment. The "medium is the message" should be pretty clear
here. Now, we need to adapt to the very environment that we
have wrought. The reason that homo sapiens have come this far, is the ability of our brains to adapt to an assortment of environments. Of course, we need to develop our intelligence so
that we are the masters of the machines and...beyond. Wouldn't
it be grossly unnatural NOT to be smarter than the machines we
build? There's no doubt that most humans who think about space travel,
are smart enough, in the present time, to know that we humans
will NOT be able to do this, in our present form. If we ever reach the point of being able to chart a destination...it wouldn't be possible to arrive at that goal, in our present state. No doubt, to send a space ship out into the universe to
some distant planet or moon with humans on board to inhabit that
celestial place, our Planet Earth ancestors will have to create
a nearly new species... a more sophisticated primate. Perhaps,
humanoids with highly enhanced brains and no legs will navigate
a cargo of suspended fertilized eggs, as well as humans long in
hibernation. But how is this not natural? Isn't it very natural to want to explore our universe? Isn't it extremely
natural to want to survive a collision with a meteor or comet, if
it's "humanly" possible? It would seem that NOT to do all of the above, would hold back
our VERY NATURAL human drives of survival and exploration.
I applaud the author for pointing out some pitfalls that technology might lead us into. Taking these into consideration,
we humans, have no choice but to move forward into gradually
expanding brave new worlds, which is what we have always done, in
order to make our species stronger and able to survive.
Rating:
Summary: Enough's enough.
Review: As Wendell Berry has observed, this is not a happy book. It would be a mistake to dismiss Bill McKibben (THE END OF NATURE, 1989) as a Luddite for raising the question of whether recent technological advances will result in the disenchantment of human existence. ENOUGH is as much about ongoing advances in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics as it is about what it really means to be a human being. Just as Aldoux Huxley envisioned a dehumanized future in his 1932 science fiction classic, BRAVE NEW WORLD, McKibben offers his readers a compelling look into the future, and it is hell. He foresees a future in which, instead of making babies by making love, parents genetically engineer their babies in laboratories, and robots render humans obsolete. While he convincingly argues that we've reached an "enough point" (p. 118), where most aspects of our daily life could not be dramatically improved by new technology, and that we should instead be using technology to make quantum leaps in medicine to deal with illness, to aid the poor around the world, and to conquer death (p. 122), McKibben also makes it rather clear that there is very little we can do to escape the technological advances threatening to futher devalue human existence. It is still enough to read ENOUGH for the troubling questions it raises about the future of humanity. G. Merritt
Rating:
Summary: Enough's enough.
Review: As Wendell Berry has observed, this is not a happy book. It would be a mistake to dismiss Bill McKibben (THE END OF NATURE, 1989) as a Luddite for raising the question of whether recent technological advances will result in the disenchantment of human existence. ENOUGH is as much about ongoing advances in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics as it is about what it really means to be a human being. Just as Aldoux Huxley envisioned a dehumanized future in his 1932 science fiction classic, BRAVE NEW WORLD, McKibben offers his readers a compelling look into the future, and it is hell. He foresees a future in which, instead of making babies by making love, parents genetically engineer their babies in laboratories, and robots render humans obsolete. While he convincingly argues that we've reached an "enough point" (p. 118), where most aspects of our daily life could not be dramatically improved by new technology, and that we should instead be using technology to make quantum leaps in medicine to deal with illness, to aid the poor around the world, and to conquer death (p. 122), McKibben also makes it rather clear that there is very little we can do to escape the technological advances threatening to futher devalue human existence. It is still enough to read ENOUGH for the troubling questions it raises about the future of humanity. G. Merritt
Rating:
Summary: Something we all need to think about
Review: Bill McKibben's latest book, "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age," raises some fundamental questions about who we are, what we are, and how we may be affected by the biotechnologies which we already possess and those which are just over the horizon. The author takes us on an expedition into the world of genetic research, nanotechnology and robotics. This is a passionate book and a disturbing book and one that presents what we in the "argumentation trade" might call a "persuasive" argument, that is, a presentation of facts which are used, not to support a conclusion that may be true or false, but used to support a conclusion promoting a particular policy or course of action. "Enough" is also a revealing book, a hard and detailed look at our rapid acceleration into technologies which may have permanent and adverse effects on the future of human beings; indeed, these technologies have the potential to affect what it means to be human at all. Because he perceives this to be a threatening situation, McKibben discusses technologies such as germline engineering and therapeutic cloning, warning that they represent a slippery slope that may make more dangerous and harmful technologies possible and even acceptable. "[I]f we aggressively pursue any or all of several new technologies now before us," the author says, "we may alter our relationship not with the rest of nature but with ourselves. First human genetic engineering and then advanced forms of robotics and nanotechnology will call into question, often quite explicitly, our understanding of what it means to be a human being." McKibben acquaints us with microscopic nanobots cruising our bloodstreams, attacking pathogens within our bodies and building new cells. And with children born so genetically enhanced that they will never be able to believe that they reached success as musicians or artists or athletes or whatever because there was something unique in them and a hunger to reach the pinnacle of their ability through their own choice and desire. The author tackles what it means to be human, pointing out how these new technologies threaten our very identity as human beings. "What if we have been programmed," he asks, "or at least must suspect each time we choose a path that we have been nudged in that direction by our engineered cells? Who then 'are we'?" One of the more interesting arguments that McKibben makes, in my opinion, has to do with the matter of "choice," an issue with which libertarians are always concerned. Libertarian-minded thinkers tend to be among the strongest advocates of modern technologies and tend to believe that the free market will police itself in regard to any dangers which may result from their use. More often than not, libertarians accuse those who oppose or may merely question the effects of new technologies of being Luddites, a name attributed to that infamous group of early nineteenth century workers who protested against the introduction of new labor-saving technologies in the factories of that period. But McKibben argues that some of these new biotechnologies are really "anti-choice." He points out that "In widespread use, they will first rob parents of their liberty, and then strip freedom from every generation that follows. In the end, they will destroy forever the very possibility of meaningful choice." I think that's a point that needs to be thoughtfully and seriously considered, especially by those who are, like I am, more or less on the libertarian side of the socio-political spectrum. McKibben is not a naive thinker. He realizes that there is no limit to human aspirations or desires. And our ability to discover new scientific facts and to invent new technologies seems unlimited. But can we draw a line and say this far and no further? Can we say, this is enough? The author answers yes, and argues that only by staying human can we find true meaning in our lives. What sets a human being apart from other beings in this world of ours? McKibben argues that it is our power of self-limitation. "We need to do an unlikely thing," he says. "We need to survey the world we now inhabit and proclaim it good. Good enough." While allowing that many of these new technologies may hold the promise to cure disease and provide other benefits, they also offer problematic choices such as the capacity to choose a child's gender, the power to boost human intelligence and, what may be the nightmare of all nightmares, the option of "improving" or "perfecting" human beings. And, I have always argued and will continue to do so: just because we can do something does not mean it is something we should do or need to do. I find myself having to agree with McKibben when he concludes, "I think the stakes in this argument are absurdly high, nothing less than the meaning of being human. Must we forever grow in reach and power? Or can we, should we, ever say,'Enough'?" Maybe so, maybe in this case, maybe at this time. This is a book that should be read by everyone who is concerned about the future of the human species.
Rating: 
Summary: Just another self-righteous, ignorant Luddite.
Review: Here we go again. Bill McKibben, who in his book "One" decided that if one child was good enough for him, then by golly, it was good enough for everyone else!, now writes a book on genetic engineering. Or, more accurately, makes a poor excuse for a book out of his fears, faulty premises, and jumped-to conclusions about genetic engineering. ... McKibben, and ideological cohorts of his like the insufferably self-righteous Wendell Berry, are the left-wing equivalents of William Bennett. They're basically control freaks who think they know what's best for you. As long as the gullible, the guilty-minded, and the fanatical make a fetish out of the "natural," McKibben and his ilk will continue to spew and scribble apocalyptic tripe deploring the way most Americans prefer to live, work, enjoy, and, one day, re-engineer themselves....and make a handsome living at it.
Rating: 
Summary: Enough ..Misinformation about Genetic Reseaarch
Review: I had difficulty taking this book seriously. It seems as though the author has misinterpreted the findings of genetic research. As a result, he doesn't present the whole story. His fears are unfounded. Scientists know full well that life is not governed by genetic specifications. The psychological processes he discusses, such as music ability and intelligence, are influenced by many factors such as upbringing, life experiences, culture, cohort and education. Even in the late seventies, when I went to college, researchers accepted the premise that human traits ..especially psychological ones ..are brought about by the interaction of our genetic nature with our life experiences. Human development is a constant exchange between nature and the socializing influences of family and culture. To think that it is unilaterally determined by genetic makeup is fallacious.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-Provoking
Review: So where to join the fray? I'll just say what I think, I guess. First of all, McKibben has written a highly informative and gripping book. He provides a good overview of some of the developments actually occurring in biotech, robotics, and nanotech right now (well, within the last few years), and then proceeds to outline his viewpoint of opposition to the radically transformative effects of these technologies. This is all well and good. Though I'm not sure how I come down on these issues, I greatly appreciated his viewpoint and thought that he had some compelling arguments against the use, or at least reckless use, of these technologies.
First of all, I do not think, as some other reviewers have stated, that his argument is Luddite or in any way antitechnological. He wholeheartedly agrees with, or at least supports, the efforts of biotech researchers, doctors, and roboticists to advance and apply their technologies in ways that do not radically alter the existential landscape. Where he gets nervous is when people start talking about modifying who we are on an extremely basic level. Try as one might, the discoveries of Galileo, Columbus, Einstein, and Bohr cannot be compared to germline engineering and nanotech. These were revelations of the external landscape, knowledge revolutions. The territory McKibben is trying to protect is the internal landscape.
Living to be 200 (or 500+), selecting from a catalog of gene upgrades for an unborn child, or becoming host to a swarm of nanomachines that act as immune system kevlar sounds pretty cool on paper, but his contention is that these technologies will ultimately dehumanize by making one of our last givens--our selves--into yet another commodity. Once committed to these technologies, we'll be locked in, forced to get the next upgrade every time there's a new advance (every few years?), forced to keep feeding the hungry corporate behemoths to keep ourselves tuned up. If not, we risk becoming obsolete and disconnected from the world we have allowed to come into being, not just economically or politically, as is the case with the disenfranchised now, but existentially, at our root level of being. If we don't get our kids genetic upgrades, they or their descendents will become second-, third-, or fourth-class human beings, forever relegated to the trashbin of history. And the poor may not even get the choice to procure gene upgrades or nanotech defenders, with the rich giving themselves a carte blanche to write their good fortune into the DNA of their descendants so that the advantages of "good blood" become literal.
Decide for yourselves whether this argument and his others are convincing, or whether the technologies he discusses are dangerous for some other reason. Nanotech and genefixing may make us so prosperous that everyone, all over the world, will become a golden god and begin living a life of ease. Perhaps history is not an accurate precedent when dealing with something so transformative. But even if you are a fervent supporter of gene manipulation or nanotech, you should read the book. Whether it's for the best or no, I do think McKibben is correct in saying that this is the only chance we have to say no. The genie in the bottle is making all sorts of promises, trying to get us to let her/him/it out, and though they may all come true, it will be nigh impossible to get that genie back in if things aren't to our liking.
McKibben wants us to say enough. I'm not quite convinced, but he has convinced me that we should step back, as a society, and look long and hard at this technology before we say OK to anything that is going to change who we are. I see nothing in our society to convince me that any of us have more than an extremely dim and immature understanding of who or what we are and are capable of right now, pre-germline engineering. Maybe we should spend some more time understanding ourselves before we pass judgment on "stupid," "limited" man and start trying to upgrade.
Rating: 
Summary: Good enough
Review: The book is a discussion of McKibben's opinions of genetic manipulation of humans, the history of stem cell and cloning research and the possible outcomes. It is not a scientific work, but succeeds as a discussion in bioethics.
The book would be very useful for those who are unfamiliar with the subject and those who are only beginning to study bioethics. Some of the information seems too superficial for me, since I am a Family Physician studying for a Master's in Bioethics. I still learned new information and am definitely informed by the author's viewpoint.
I disagree with some of his pessimism about the reaction of the subjects of genetic manipulation since all children have struggled with identity and we've done fairly well so far. However, Dr Leon Kass and other more informed minds agree with McKibben. (I wonder how much of our differing opinions and optimism/pessimism are due to *our* genetics and how much due to that very struggle? How much is nature, how much nurture and the specific portion of our environment that includes these discussions?)
Rating:
Summary: Look out Galileo, Copernicus, Dr. Frankenstein, et al!
Review: The only thing new about this book is the author and the printing date. Its premise is as old as recorded history. "Man dare not venture into some areas or he risks waking the demon, being eaten by the sea monster, incurring the wrath of the gods, creating the Frankenstein monster, etc." First of all, these dire predictions seldom (if ever) come to pass. Nuclear power is an excellent example. In spite of the dire warnings and gloomy scenarios, some how we've managed to avoid annihilation (I can hear the collective "well, not yet" issuing from the Naderites), much to the chagrin of doom-prophets like McKibben, I'm sure. We seem to manage to stay alive and even prosper whatever technologies we happen develop. Most importantly, McKibben's proposal that we ban, cease, outlaw, restrict, move backwards, whatever, is untenable. You cannot stop people from eventually exploring these areas. The technologies will be developed. Pass all the laws you want. Set up all the inquisitions you can muster. Burn all the heretics you can round up. The Bible will still be translated into English. The printing press will still disseminate information to the masses. The world will still revolve around the sun, not vice versa. Even though God didn't give man wings he can still fly. The automobile will replace the horse. It will still be possible to exceed the speed of sound. Man will still be descended from lower life forms, and on and on. McKibben challenges us to face the "fact" that things are as good as we need them to be. He asks us to imagine how life could actually be any better and believes that we must admit that we can't. Well, horse hockey! Ask someone at the end of the 19th century the same question and they would probably not be able to imagine the world we live in. They would probably have agreed with the statement, "Life can't get any better than it is right now." Point is we can't know what all this will mean for the future of mankind. I, for one, am not willing to abandon possibilities based on the fear mongering of a twenty-first century naysayer. As for his argument that all this is somehow dehumanizing, nothing is more human than improving who we are and how we live. That is exactly how we've survived for the past 3.5 million years. Sorry Bill, but you can take your place with the old wives and leave the rest of us alone. I'm glad McKibben has the ability to say what he says. He needs to thank technological advancement for the opportunity. Other wise, he'd still be plowing a field to put bread on the table instead of cashing a check and going to the store. This book is one of the best examples of cultural lag that I've seen lately. The sad thing is that so many agree with the premise out of ignorance and fear. But, that too has had it evolutionary advantages. Fortunately, it's always been the progressives that adapted and survived. Sorry Bill, I think you're headed for extinction.
Rating:
Summary: Look out Galileo, Copernicus, Dr. Frankenstein, et al!
Review: The only thing new about this book is the author and the printing date. Its premise is as old as recorded history. "Man dare not venture into some areas or he risks waking the demon, being eaten by the sea monster, incurring the wrath of the gods, creating the Frankenstein monster, etc." First of all, these dire predictions seldom (if ever) come to pass. Nuclear power is an excellent example. In spite of the dire warnings and gloomy scenarios, some how we've managed to avoid annihilation (I can hear the collective "well, not yet" issuing from the Naderites), much to the chagrin of doom-prophets like McKibben, I'm sure. We seem to manage to stay alive and even prosper whatever technologies we happen develop. Most importantly, McKibben's proposal that we ban, cease, outlaw, restrict, move backwards, whatever, is untenable. You cannot stop people from eventually exploring these areas. The technologies will be developed. Pass all the laws you want. Set up all the inquisitions you can muster. Burn all the heretics you can round up. The Bible will still be translated into English. The printing press will still disseminate information to the masses. The world will still revolve around the sun, not vice versa. Even though God didn't give man wings he can still fly. The automobile will replace the horse. It will still be possible to exceed the speed of sound. Man will still be descended from lower life forms, and on and on. McKibben challenges us to face the "fact" that things are as good as we need them to be. He asks us to imagine how life could actually be any better and believes that we must admit that we can't. Well, horse hockey! Ask someone at the end of the 19th century the same question and they would probably not be able to imagine the world we live in. They would probably have agreed with the statement, "Life can't get any better than it is right now." Point is we can't know what all this will mean for the future of mankind. I, for one, am not willing to abandon possibilities based on the fear mongering of a twenty-first century naysayer. As for his argument that all this is somehow dehumanizing, nothing is more human than improving who we are and how we live. That is exactly how we've survived for the past 3.5 million years. Sorry Bill, but you can take your place with the old wives and leave the rest of us alone. I'm glad McKibben has the ability to say what he says. He needs to thank technological advancement for the opportunity. Other wise, he'd still be plowing a field to put bread on the table instead of cashing a check and going to the store. This book is one of the best examples of cultural lag that I've seen lately. The sad thing is that so many agree with the premise out of ignorance and fear. But, that too has had it evolutionary advantages. Fortunately, it's always been the progressives that adapted and survived. Sorry Bill, I think you're headed for extinction.
|
