So our final judgment on "what’s wrong" with Huxley’s brave .. Excerpted from OUR POSTHUMAN FUTURE by Francis Fukuyama. Francis Fukuyama’s Our Posthuman Future fears that biotechnology will make monsters of us. Steven Rose weighs the evidence. The power to genetically enhance future generations could be a boon for humanity – or it could lead to an era of violent rebellion against the.
User Review – Flag as inappropriate I’m an undergraduate student witha a double major: But in the future, the full weight of oue technology can be put in the service of optimising the kinds of genes that are passed on to one’s offspring. To use biotechnology to engage in what another Christian writer, C. The left has been more hostile to biotechnology in Europe than in North America. Both writers suggest that nature itself, and in particular human nature, has a special role in defining for us what is right and wrong, just and unjust, important and unimportant.
Many assume that the posthuman world will look pretty much like our own – free, equal, prosperous, caring, compassionate – only with better healthcare, longer lives, and perhaps more intelligence than today. They feel themselves, in other words, to be lucky, and they are capable of feeling sympathy for people who are less lucky than themselves.
The Christian tradition maintains that man is created in God”s image, which is the source of human dignity. Since the novel”s publication, there have probably been several million high school essays written in answer to the question, “What”s wrong with this picture? Today, many bright and successful young people believe that they owe their success to accidents of birth and upbringing, but for which their lives might have taken a very different course.
In any event, as philosophers from Hume onwards have pointed out, futkre cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.
Francis Fukuyama argues that informed discussion of human rights requires understanding of human purposes, which themselves rest on a concept of human nature and human dignity.
That moral order did not completely break down in the west in the wake of the destruction of consensus on traditional religious values should not surprise us either, because moral order comes from within human nature itself and is not something that has to be imposed on human nature by culture. Fukuyama sketches a brief history of man’s changing understanding of human nature: Of these, first information technology and then biotechnology have come to be seen as presenting the greatest challenges.
Macmillan- Science – pages. We may be about to enter into a post-human future, in which technology will give us the capacity to gradually alter that essence over time. Hence, he argues, there is a human nature on which human rights can be based. The Germans in particular remain sensitive to anything that smacks of eugenics.
The aim of this book is to argue that Huxley was right, that the most significant thr. Critics point out that human nature can be expressed only within the diverse and historically contingent societies that humans create, and therefore cannot be understood a priori. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.
Don’t mess with human nature…
The politics of breeding future human beings will be very complex. They no ftuure struggle, aspire, love, feel pain, make difficult moral choices, have families, or do any of the things that futuge traditionally associate with being human.
Or it 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. Totalitarian rule depended on a regime”s ability tomaintain a monopoly over information, and once modern information technology made that impossible, the regime”s power was undermined. Books of the Week. They will look, think, act, and perhaps even feel differently from those who were not similarly chosen, and may come in time to think posthu,an themselves as different kinds of creatures.
So what should we do about it?
He is on less firm ground when dealing with genetic claims, where he accepts at face value the rather suspect evidence for so-called “smart” or “aggressive” mice engineered by adding or removing DNA from their genomes. The fact that they do has never been a reason for giving up on the law or on attempts to enforce it. For it seems highly unlikely that people in modern democratic societies will sit around complacently if they see elites embedding their advantages genetically in their children.
Review: Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama | Books | The Guardian
Some on the left have fukuyamw to make the case for genetic engineering. In Brave New Worldby contrast, the evil is not so obvious because no one is hurt; indeed, this is a world in which everyone gets what they want. He – and we – should be so lucky.
T fkuuyama reasons for the persistence of the notion of the equality of human dignity are complex. Finally, he argues that state power, possibly in the form of new regulatory institutions, should be used to regulate biotechnology, and that pessimism about the ability of the global community to do this is unwarranted. But it is not infinitely malleable, and the elements that remain constant – particularly our species-typical gamut of emotional responses – constitute a safe harbour that allows us to connect, potentially, with all other human beings.
Gung-ho geneticists promise to encode human life on a CD, to create designer babies, to extend human life indefinitely. The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk raised a storm of protest fukyuama when he suggested that it will soon be impossible for people to refuse the power of selection that biotechnology provides, and that the questions of breeding something “beyond” man that were raised by Nietzsche and Plato could no longer be ignored.
But the posthuman world could be one that is far more hierarchical and competitive than the one that currently exists, and full of social conflict as a result.
All of this could change with the impact of future biotechnology. The discourse of rights has become very murky in recent years, in part, according to Fukuyama, because of the rejection of naturalism.
It is easy to see what”s wrong with the world of Fukuyama defines human nature as posthumsn sum of the behavior and characteristics that are typical of the human species, arising from genetics rather than environmental factors.
Their world has become unnatural in the most profound sense imaginable, because human nature has been altered.