Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not so brave new world, March 15, 2005
I can't argue the science presented in "Enough" and I do not think that is the point of the book. This is not a scientific treatise or a technical analysis of the subjects raised in the book. Instead, it is a moral tale, not unlike a sermon, and it does not pretend to be something other than that. I found it to be extremely engaging, frightening too. Why not? Not everyone will agree with the points made by Bill McKibben, which is fine. But he deserves much credit for presenting cogently a looming possibility for humanity and discussing it honestly and with foresight. I was fascinated.
Is is "luddite" (if anyone really knows the meaning of that word) to question what the outcome might be of letting the genie out of the bottle? Is it alarmist to suggest that we might need to reconsider the consequences of progress? For most Americans, it seems almost sacriligious to question the infallibility of technology, to say nothing of its ability to constantly improve our lives. But is that necessarily so? Can anyone really say that unleashing the power of the Atom was unequivocally good? Do we really have better lives with nuclear weapons blossoming all over the planet like morning glories? For me, the answer is no, and I applaud the attempt by Bill McKibbon to state his case. Is he absolutely correct, maybe not. Only time will tell. But this is an important book because it poses questions and challenges our thinking on the subject of genertic engineering, nanotechnology and the kind of future we are heading toward. The intensity of the reviews is a testament to that.
There are only a few voices out there discussing the possibilities awaiting us down the road. Enough is well worth reading, it may shake you up, and it will provoke some much needed discussion on these subjects.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
59 of 75 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Something we all need to think about, April 11, 2003
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thought-Provoking, September 21, 2004
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
