Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future
Anyone who’s kept up with some of my book reviews knows that I’ve been reading about biological enhancement and what the future holds for the human race. When I first saw the title of James Hughes’ book, I immediately thought I would read about further proof that we are on the brink of a biological uplifting of our society—a social change so vast that the world as we know it will be redefined.
But, Hughes brings us sci-fi optimists back down to planet earth. It’s all right there in the subtitle, “Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future.” So, what does he mean by “respond”?
He means we, as a society, need to have a conversation about what the next 100 years will bring, and what exactly we’re going to do about it. The next 50 years. The next 10 years.
He recognizes that there is a need for a serious discussion of bioethics. He recognizes that Francis Fukuyama, appointed to the President’s Council on Bioethics, was the wrong man for the job.
Most importantly, he notes that the term “citizen” will have to be redefined.
I think he may go a little off-chart by putting the great apes in the same classification as human children and demented and mentally disabled adults. But, I won’t argue too much there because numerous studies have shown that those great apes might have something that we attribute to consciousness, self-awareness.
He notes that he attended a conference where a transgendered person spoke of being the first of the transhumans. So, is this the first step? Thus far, the U.S. hasn’t been extremely tolerant of the transgendered, but I can see that changing in the future. We’re never tolerant of difference at first. Eventually, people start seeing things differently as time passes on. We’ve seen that with women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement, and are now beginning to see a gay rights movement.
The next movements may involve the transhuman movement—rights for the biologically enhanced. This is where the trouble may start. In the other movements, humans were equal in intelligence and physical attributes, for the most part. However, without a serious discussion of the dos and don’ts of biological enhancement, we may create a species of man that is vastly more intelligent and physically superior.
Without the proper steps taken to ensure their rights, we could put ourselves on the brink of another civil war. Or, a world in which humans version 1.0 are enslaved.
With writers such as Philip K. Dick and other greats, whose words tell how humans must fight against future technology, we’ve become accustomed to think of danger when we think of technological advancement. Hughes believes that “If there is to be a future for progressive politics it has to come from a rebirth of a sexy, high-tech vision of a radically democratic future, a rediscovery of the utopian imagination.”
Maybe that’s what we’ve lost, the ability to imagine a future where things might just actually work. A future where disease is erradicated. Where war is rare. Life is fullfilling.
Hughes is an optimist. However, he also has a realistic view of our world. With so much argument over moral permissibility in today’s society, how are we going to face tomorrow’s? We must respond.
In order for these changes to happen, we need politicians to make it their interest, which in this country means publicity. If we can get people interested in science again, that curiosity will fire the media up and make scientific advancement an issue of human progress rather than just a pet project for right-to-lifers. As I see it, viral information is the key for doing this.
I disagree about the problems Human 1.0 would have with Human 2.0. If we only develop technologies that allow prenatal genetic engineering, this will be an issue as each generation would be a quantum leap ahead of the next, but I find it more likely that, especially with the more enhanced intelligence transhumanity will bring, postnatal genetic engineering and other modes of humanity enhancement will make upgrading fast, easy, and affordable.
I want to believe that the more intelligent we become, the less destructive. I really want to believe that. So far, we’ve only built more destructive weapons. Maybe we’ve just got to get past this primitive mindset of war. However, if we push the transhumanists far enough, it could end badly.
We probably need to get the media fired up about science again. Look how far NASA’s sunk. Nobody cares what they’re doing these days. And, people aren’t very knowledgeable about some of the things going on. I say the word “clone” and a lot of people immediately think I’m talking about cloning an entire human.
Politicians need to put this back on their to-discuss list instead of pushing the issue aside as they’ve done time and time again.
I agree, getting the media interested in science is definitely the key. Sadly, the mainstream media’s primary purpose is profit, and science isn’t profitable to report. The alternate media (specifically viral information and the blogosphere) is, then, responsible at this point for getting people interested in science again.
The internet provides a low-cost medium we can use to disinterestedly (applying specifically to corporate interest) inform more and more people about the possibilities on the horizon. Hopefully more will realize this and we’ll see more articles like this one.
Nope, science is not profitable to report. Britney Spears is though. Even I wrote a post about her.
With the continuing rise of Internet users and its effect on the world, it is the perfect medium to let people know about what’s going on.
Interesting blog, Justin. Thanks for the comment this weekend.
It’s not so much science that isn’t profitable, it’s the kinds of science. You’re right, space science has almost completely taken a back burner while it seems medical science is huge (new medications – esp. those that fail – always make high stories). I just went back and read your post re: Freakonomics (which I loved) and I think I’ll read this one, too. You make it sound well-worth the read. Creepy, but interesting.
Yes, you’re right Veda. Only particular parts of science are profitable to print.
As far as reading this goes, which I should’ve put in the post, is that you should only jump into this book after reading over some related material first. It can be a heavy read if you’re unfamiliar with the types of things he writes about. I recommend Radical Evolution for a good starter book. It gives some of the basic information without overwhelming the reader. But, if this is familiar territory, then dive right in.
your articles are interesting and so useful for me. Thank you for sharing great information.So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great article from your blog. Thank you