Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 288 pages
• Published by: Holt Paperbacks February 1, 2004
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 0805075194
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-0805075199
• Book Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.6 x 0.7 inches
• Weighs: 9.3 ounces

Reader Reviews
This review is from: Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age (Hardcover) This is an alarmist polemic about the danger that unrestrained growth in germline engineering, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence poses for the human race. Bill McKibben is terrified (the word is not too strong) that science and technology are on the verge of engineering humans out of existence. I think his fears are justified. However I don't think we should be worried. Unlike McKibben, who seems to view human beings as a fixed endowment (perhaps from a Creator), I think we can view ourselves as ever changing, ever evolving beings, constantly in the process of becoming. I welcome the excitement and prospect of our accelerated evolution. Yes, there are dangers ahead, so it is important to proceed with caution and full deliberation. The main danger that McKibben presents that I find creditable is that the already wide gap between the haves and have nots of the world will simply get greater and greater until the former will view the latter as something less than human, and the latter will feel demoralized, inferior and without hope. The GenRich will spend their resources on upgrading their genetic stock and especially that of their offspring, while the GenPoor, who will not be able to afford the expensive genetic engineering will, relatively speaking, become less skilled, less talented and presumably a lot less happy. This is a very real danger, and from what I know of humanity, and what I can see in our ghettos and in our suburbs, one not likely to be averted. But this is the irony of McKibben's argument. He wants to restrain science and technology so that our humanity will not change, so that we will remain as we are. His arguments sadly give the lie to his thesis. He avers that a child that has had its genome altered in some way, perhaps to improve memory or IQ or appearance or even emotional intelligence, is now "a product." He adds, "You [as a parent] can take precisely as much pride in her achievements as you take in the achievements of your dishwashing liquid." (p. 59) I disagree, and I think (and hope) the child would too. On page 48 he asserts that the faith of a genetically altered "anchorite monk" would be "utterly meaningless" compared to that which "his medieval ancestor inherited by birthright." How could McKibben know this, and would the monk agree with him? Frankly, such assertions are just McKibben's preferences, built into his psyche by his genetic composition, his experience and his education. Are such views somehow lacking in meaningfullness because of that? The genetically altered child is NOT going to feel like a product, unless he listens to McKibben. The child is still a child, perhaps a beautiful, intelligent and loving child. But McKibben seems to think because someone's genome may be altered they can no longer take pride in themselves. He gives the example earlier in the book of himself and his running. He writes that it is a great source of pride for him to be able to complete a marathon only an hour or so behind the leaders. But he says he would no longer take pride in such an accomplishment had he been engineered for it. But in fact he has been evolutionarily "engineered" for it. Most of us cannot, no matter how hard we try, run a marathon in three, four, five or even ten hours. His ancestors chose (consciously or unconsciously) to mate with genes for running rather than say genes for surviving long winters by burning body fat. By his reasoning, his pride in his running accomplishments should be lessen by the knowledge that he was bred for it to some extent. "Natural" as seen by McKibben is good; man made or induced is bad. His sense that there is something sacred in sexual reproduction (see p. 12) is shared by many and is understandable. However, the people of the future might feel differently, and I wouldn't be surprised to see in the not too distant future a woman's movement toward relieving themselves of the burden, the pain, the relative immobility, and the danger of pregnancy for something less "natural." Natural is not necessarily better. Would we like to live with all the natural parasites that burdened our ancestors? Are baby bottles and formula to be condemned because they are unnatural? Should a child whose mother had to resort to their use feel less pride in him or herself? To be fair the changes that we are facing today are greater both in extent and different in kind that we have so far faced. But in principle they are not. We judge from our position of prejudice in what we are now and what we have been, not in what we may be. There is one other danger that I wish McKibben had focused on, that of making sure our genetic choices are adaptive in the Darwinian sense. (Instead of worrying rhetorically, as he does on page 157, about which frozen wife Robert Ettinger will be married to should they be unfrozen. This sort of journalism I think he should save for a Geraldo TV Special should the opportunity arise.) If we always opt for more happiness and serenity in our lives, we may wake up some day and find that we can no longer cope with the contingencies of the environment. On the other hand if we foolishly cling to an unchanged genome we may find that changing circumstances will leave us far behind. In either case there is the danger of becoming exinct. We need to educate ourselves to cope with the growing complexity of our culture. That is the answer to the challenge of science and technology, not any neo-Luddite attempt at stuffing the genie back into the bottle. Comment | | (Report this)