Customer Reviews

Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Bill McKibben can cut through the glossy ideals of technology better than anyone. This time he takes on the modification of the human genome, a debate that seems to have broken down between those who want to preserve life vs. those who want to improve life. As McKibben argues, both sides are fighting for the wrong reasons.

The true arguments are not the destruction of human embryos (stem cells) or the potential to cure otherwise incurable diseases, but the ramifications of our ability to make changes to our DNA that will be passed on, thereafter, to our offspring. Since this technology is virtually in our hands now, how can we draw a line that will not be crossed? How can we cure a genetic disease without also opening up the opportunity to modify the IQ or physical stamina of our children? And then, is modifying and improving our children really such a bad thing? McKibben argues that this is a bad thing; "choices" that would turn genetic engineering into a consumer culture product destined by the unregulated free market to set people against one another in a race to stay ahead.

Consumer-genetic-engineering would also create a permanent underclass, a group of inferiors who will never be able to afford genetic modification. The rich will not only get richer, they will get smarter and stronger as well. After not-too-many generations of this, a new posthuman species will arise, with the power to demand subservience from Homo sap-and this really isn't science-fiction.

McKibben's arguments in "Enough" are the same as his arguments in "The End of Nature", "The Age of Missing Information", and "Maybe One": that is, why can't we step back to examine what makes us human? How does the unwise and unregulated use of technology steal our authenticity, our sustainability, and our happiness? When can we just say, Enough?

McKibben is a little long winded in this book; he makes the same point more than once, so the repetitiveness of his arguments begin to sound like sermonizing. Nevertheless, he is alerting us to a Pandora of problems that are right on our doorstep. Most people probably see genetic engineering as either a challenge to religion or the solution to long-dreaded diseases or inflictions, but without really understanding what is involved. Properly regulated by an educated populace, this technology could probably be reined in and used only as a means to cure disease, but, like that old anti-war saying of the 60s, "suppose they gave a war and nobody came", now we have a real fight and no one has come to ask the right questions or fight for the right reasons. As we have already wrecked our environment, we may now pass on the unresolved ethics of genetic engineering. History will judge our apathy and ignorance harshly.

One point that has not been made yet which I feel is pertinent is the question of disease. Namely, what purpose has disease served in directing the adaptation of humans? This needs to be considered by pathologists and geneticists alike. Genetically engineering resistance to known diseases will not protect future humans from all diseases. On the contrary, such a poorly thought-out removal of adaptive processes such as natural immunity is likely to make engineered humans of the future utterly helpless when beset by a new disease. If space colonization is a serious hope for the future, we'd best not engineer ourselves for greater comfort. It's a real shame that multi-generational eugenics programs have been abandoned in favor of a get-it-now attitude similar to that which produced fast food. "Fast Evolution."

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

Bill McKibben has written a thoroughly researched book that highlights what kind of developments are now taking place and are expected to take place in the fields of genetics, computer technology, and nanotechnology. He then argues that we should voluntarily put the brakes on this kind of research, when it comes to redefining what it means to be human. McKibben seems genuinely frightened at what is on the horizon.

And when I read some of the quotes from highly respected scientists, I'm frightened, too. They seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to their research, just plowing ahead just because they can, without thinking too hard about consequences, intended or otherwise.

But I have some problems with the book. First, many of the developments that scientists think they can accomplish will be very difficult, if not impossible, and the fallout may or may not be as bad as McKibben suggests. I can see no way to identify all genes connected with certain personality traits, for example, nor can I see that inserting those genes guarantee that you'll get the desired outcome (environment does play a role in a person's temperment, after all).

Second, McKibben's arguments are spurious, at best, based on sort of a gut revulsion to some of this research. I share his revulsion to many of these developments, but I also recognize that to convince most people, you can't just talk about something as squishy as meaning and expect them to give up what seems like a good thing. His statement that things are good enough as they are is almost comical, when you think of all the times through history when people declared that everything that could be invented already has, or that a new technology was dangerous (people once thought riding on "fast-moving" trains -- 25 mph or so -- would result in death). And thinking that everyone will voluntarily restrain himself from human-altering research is even more comical. As I said, I don't disagree necessarily, but I'd like to have seen him argue more compellingly and offer more feasible solutions.

Another problem I had was simply with the way the book was written. Sentence fragments can be very effective, but when overused, they just become annoying. Ditto for ellipses. Comma splices are just inexcusable. And let's not put quotation marks around technical terms, shall we?

Nonetheless, I found the information on what scientists are doing and hope to accomplish fascinating (and yes, a little scary). When scientists are speaking to "true believers" they make some statements that make me want to keep a very close eye on them. And we should.

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.

The Strong point about this book is that it poses thought provoking questions. The author has really thought about this subject and where the field of genetics may lead us. The book provides some good explanations of the terms and types of research currently being carried on. He shows that by the time the nation starts legislating procedures it is generally too late. The author does bring up some pretty good predictions that society may be forced to deal with. The compulsion to fix detrimental hereditary diseases is really a forgone conclusion, Cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy etc, but will Genetic engineering rapidly go the route that plastic surgery traveled, from repairing hideous disfigurements to cosmetic [...] augmentation and facial makeovers. The author makes a very good point, if IQ or athletic ability can be increased by genetic tweaking and everyone is doing it for their kids, do you want your kid to be the only natural kid getting below average grades with below average athletic ability. The book definitely accomplished its purpose with this reader. I appreciate the ideas and societal situations this author has brought into the book and I have thought about it many times since I finished the book. Definitely worth a second read in the short-term future. The title is unfortunate, it sounds as if the author wants no more genetic progress, but the author wants to enjoy his "humanness" . He asks that society consider the big picture when dealing with limits to genetic engineering

In this book, McKibben argues that humanity needs to shut down large chunks of two areas of technology: stemline genetics research and nanotechnology/robotics. In each case, he works through the possible advantages for people of this research and then thinks about the implications if we go down that path.

Genetics research is much farther along, and I found McKibben's concerns in this area convincing. His discussion of nanotechnology seemed over the top to me, reminding me of Michael Creighton's "Prey" - - which may be my least-favorite Creighton book.

The concerns about genetics are very real. If parents can influence the intelligence or athletic ability of their offspring, this will set off an arms race among parents that will exclude people who are not wealthy enough to engage in genetic engineering. Even if everyone can participate, the effects on free-will are chilling: are your achievements your own if your parents chose them for you? If you are designed to love the piano, would you do anything other than given your own children a piano-loving gene? What happens to the species and to society in such a world?

The bigger question, which he touches on but does not emphasize, is whether the developed world really needs continued technological advance at all. How much is enough?

The challenge, as McKibben recognizes, is how to step back from the brink. He spends a chapter discussing societies that have rejecting technology, such as Japan and guns, China and navies, or the Amish people today. I find the Amish the more interesting and relevant example, especially since they coexist with non-Amish people making different choices. (And quite well, I might add, since I live about 30 miles from an Amish community that interacts with my own community economically in all sorts of ways.)

This is a provocative book, well worth reading. The material on genetics deserves five stars but the nanotechnology/robotics chapter doesn't work nearly as well. The sections on "how much is enough" are also thoughtful.