The readingrules reading group met on Sunday to talk about Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama, a book that is pretty maddening for its impoverished view of human ethics yet very compelling at some other level. This is somewhat a simplification but I tend to categorize non fiction books under three categories:

1.Plain dumb
2.Brilliant (and this can be for a multitude of reasons)
3.Infuriating (in a good way).

His was infuriating, but I usually find that to be a positive thing for I find myself not reading but arguing with the book. My fingers grip the pages while my eyes absorb the words and my mind races thinking of all the reasons why I don’t agree with a certain position, occasionally caving in noting that the author makes some really good points.

The book is essentially about ethics, about what it means to be human, to act morally, what guides the desire to be good, and how new genetic technologies (especially the ability to change “human nature”)will threaten the very basis of our (no, his) Ethical foundations.

First his view on ethics and nature: His basic argument is that the most sound system of ethics is one derived out of “human nature” as it then is the only way that we can have a sort of pan-universal morality that cuts across time and space and cultures.

Unfortunately, he gives a really unsatisfying rendition of human nature, basically saying that it is, well in a nutshell, “complex”, a complex mixture of our ability to acquire language, learn, reason and feel emotions:

“What is Factor X [Factor X is is awfully original code word for human nature].That is, Factor X cannot be reduced to the possession of moral choice, or reason, or language or sociability, or sentience, or emotions, or consciousness, or any other quality that has been put forth as a ground for human dignity. It is all these qualities coming together in a human whole human being that make up Factor X. Every member of of the human species possesses a genetic endowment that allows him or her to become a whole human being, an endowment that distinguishes a human in essence from other types of creatures.” P. 171

The specifities of these are addressed but in an incomplete and piecemeal way. Genetic modification has then the ability to simplify the complexity of humans and/ or make other beings like humans (and vice versa) so that the clear and demarcated boundary between human and non-human would be blurred undermining the whole basis of a morality based on a unique human nature.

OK, that is the short of it and though I do admire his desire to try to find a basis that emphasizes equality across people and know that there are serious ethical issues in the realm of bio-tech and genetics, I find any moral rendition that places the human above all else is one that well, is just not my bag of ethical tea. I am going to spare my few readers one of my longer posts because I think I can get really carried away criticizing FF but I think one of the things that is problematic is, well it is very obvious, it is so very humancentric which, for the question of “human morals” might not seem to be such a bad thing. But it does not exactly allow for a deep integration of humility which in my cup of E-Tea, is a necessary ingredient whether it is because it is an important factor for treating others with respect and dignity or whether it is an important means to treat nonhuman things well or at least with awareness of how we are treating them individually or as a society.

I have already read our next book the Hacker Crackdown, which also touches upon ethics but from a very different angle. I look forward to talking about it with a bunch of other people who will have, I am sure, passionate thoughts about it!