Burdo 1

Anthony Burdo

Professor Healey

Research in Disciplines

October 12, 2007

The Post-Human Future: Evolution or Extinction

As a society about to engage in the pursuit of the “post-human future,”

we must consider whether or not we are truly prepared to endure what is yet

to come. If we embrace genetic engineering, then we are ultimately going to

engage in the creation of a high tech, stealthy, and boundlessly intelligent

race of super humans. Bill McKibben, in “Enough”, expresses that our

limitations are what in fact make us human, and that we as a species are

changing and/or compromising our physical, mental, and spiritual identities

in the mere pursuit of more. Francis Fukuyama, in “Biotechnology and the

Threat of a Posthuman Future,” explains that while the future of

biotechnology will be immeasurably beneficial to our progress in a variety of

areas, we need to be wary of the ramifications. Ramez Naam, in “More Than

Human”, emphasizes that the post-human future and the progress of

biotechnology is inevitable, but it must be carefully monitored and regulated

to be successfully implemented into our society. We may very well be

pushing the boundaries and limitations that define us as human. Is the post-

human society going to be comprised of uniform robots who merely desire to

pursue the next measure in enhancing themselves?

 Burdo 2

The potential for remarkable breakthroughs in biotechnology

seemingly threatens to change who we are as humans: to force a

reign of synthetic evolution that will erase our identities and

replace us with uniform humanoids. In analyzing what may become

of the post-human future, we see that the demise of human beings

may stem from the incomprehension of qualities that define us as

human, the physical and societal consequences of pursuing the field

of biotechnology, and the deficiency of limitations and regulations

regarding scientific development.

When we think of the qualities that define us as human beings, we

might find it particularly unique that we, as a species, embrace our

imperfections and limitations. After all, we are only human! McKibben

expresses that “the meaning of conscious existence can only be usefully

answered by people whose bodies eventually start to sag, by people who

love and who grieve and who celebrate, by people who mourn and who know

that they will someday die” (143). These physical, emotional, and spiritual

defects earmark our experiences, our feelings, and our unique

interpretations of the meaning of life. In contrast, Naam states that “if our

limits define who we are, then we stopped being human a long time ago”

(154). It is, in fact, valid to say that throughout the course of human history,

we have strived to push the boundaries and limitations to create a better

overall quality of life. However, the future of biotechnology threatens to not

only reduce these limitations and imperfections, but may all together alter
 Burdo 3

our desires, thoughts, and most importantly, our abilities to make the best

decisions for mankind (McKibben 135).

Francis Fukuyama argues that, “human nature has a special role in

defining for us what is right and wrong, just and unjust, important and

unimportant” (89). The argument in scope is that we are sacrificing too much

for the pursuit of more. The plan for the post-human future is not necessarily

designed to enhance human quality of life, but to change humans

completely. We should not completely disregard our intellectual capacities,

emotions, and abilities to make moral judgments for the sake of advancing

our society toward a stage of artificial humanism. Again, we must reconsider

what qualities define us as human, and whether or not we are ready to give

up who we are for the sake of the post-human future. In doing this, we see

that what we risk to lose far outweighs any benefits the future of

biotechnology may bring.

The possibility of being a superhuman in the post-human future offers

a mystique unmatched by any other outbreak of technology in the last

millennium. What we might have to gain from such a venture may seem to

outweigh the risk of giving up our humanness; however, the consequences

could, in fact, be disastrous, and lead to the demise of our race. The future

of biotechnology promises prospects of living longer lives, freedom from

depression, advancements in pharmacology, and even tissue regeneration

(Fukuyama 90). Ramez Naam proposes that “keeping people younger longer

would slow the rise in worldwide health spending”, increase human

 Burdo 4

productivity, and lead to even more scientific breakthroughs (150). Perhaps,

however, from this perspective, we must realize several major complications

that coincide with such a scientific revolution. Naam theorizes that, in fact,

the availability of genetic engineering technology might lead to a

socioeconomic downfall (150). That is – the technology will be very costly,

much as the newest and best technology is today when it hits the market.

The rules of supply and demand should not apply when lives are at risk or if

parents want to give their unborn children equal opportunities to succeed in

a genetically engineered superhuman world. The potential for limited and

costly technology would create a struggle between social classes, and

ultimately, an inflated black market to supply those who are denied access to

the technology (Naam 150).

We approach the more personal and human issue at hand; we may

very well be giving up our cultural, social, and ethnic diversities which make

each and every one of us unique. The billboard for the future of

biotechnology might read, “Lose Yourself to the Future!” Bill McKibben

suggests that we might simply become “programmed to do what we’re

supposed to do” (135). We might become so focused on pursuing the future

of technology that we would abandon all other goals, hopes, and dreams.

The phrase “seize the day” might simply become three words more

misunderstood than Shakespearean scripture. It is clear that many of us are

overlooking the obvious consequences of pursuing the post-human future.

We, as humans, must convene to protect our identities and the identities of
 Burdo 5

our children’s children’s children. Only with strict regulations and limitations

on scientific development can we do this.

The age of genetically engineering the post-human future may

seem as distant a concept as was space travel to the average American in

colonial times. As the possibility of synthetic evolution hovers over us, we

have to consider who or what would regulate such a thing. Much as NASA

was established to regulate space travel, maybe we should have a national

organization to control the future of biotechnology. Fukuyama articulates

that we “require legislators in countries around the world to step up to the

plate and make difficult decisions about complex scientific issues” (91). The

challenge, it seems, would be to effectively establish laws to regulate the

progress of science while not obstructing positive development (Fukuyama

91). Similarly, Naam exclaims that “nations who do not allow their people the

option to alter their minds and bodies will ultimately fall behind while those

that do will thrive” (151).

If we take a step back and see the big picture, it is clear that the future

of such technology revolves completely around the approval of humans. As

such, the people should undoubtedly have a say about how the post-human

world develops! In such a case, McKibben states that seemingly, “we have

no choice” (131). However, while the evolution of biotechnology may seem

beyond our grasp, we, the people, are in fact responsible for regulating its

progress because it affects us directly (Naam 150). Without regulations and

limitations, the future for the human race may be bleak and disconcerting.
 Burdo 6

Many scientists and technotopians today aspire to pursue the post-

human future with persistence and ferocity: disregarding the moral, physical,

and humanistic consequences that may follow suit (McKibben 131). Are we

being replaced by a superhuman race without us even realizing it, or do we

simply choose to ignore the possible repercussions to our own race in favor

of pursuing more? Although scientists and engineers promise a future of

profound advancements to our kind, we have to consider the costs we are

willing to pay to attain it.

If we analyze what really makes us human, we find that our thoughts,

emotions, faults, limitations, and our uniqueness set us apart from each

other and all other species. We have to ask ourselves whether or not the

pursuit of the post-human future is really worth giving that up. Additionally,

we are not prepared to endure the physical and societal catastrophes that

the era of genetic engineering and biotechnology will inevitably bring. We

should not be prepared to put our lives and the lives of our children in the

hands of higher up organizations and governments. Our society must take a

stand for humanism and make the decision to say “enough”? In

understanding the concepts put forth by Francis Fukuyama, Bill McKibben,

and Ramez Naam, we should come to realize that the pursuit of the post-

human future is not worth sacrificing our humanness. The reign of synthetic

evolution would ultimately lead to the demise of our kind. We can say

“enough”.
 Burdo 7

Works Cited

Fukuyama, Francis. “Biotechnology and the Threat of a Posthuman

Future.” The Chronicle if Higher Education. March 22, 2002.

<http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi>

McKibben, Bill. “Enough.” Enough. New York: Henry Holt, 2003. 200-227.

Naam, Ramez. “Healing and Enhancing.” “Life Without Limits.”

More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement.

New York: Broadway Books, 2005. 1-10, 224-234.