Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future [Hardcover]

I found "Citizen Cyborg" quite readable, and James Hughes brings up a number of interesting arguments against both the bio-Luddite and libertarian-Extropian views of human transformation through technological means. Regarding the latter, Hughes points to the contradiction between the Extropians' desire to re-engineer naturally evolved biology without limits, versus their taboo against intervening into the evolved "spontaneous orders" of markets. Ironically the Extropians' guru F.A. Hayek in "The Fatal Conceit" asserts that we cannot rationally control the direction of an evolved system of any sort, even in principle. But Extropians deliberately ignore that aspect of Hayek's philosophy because it conflicts with their biological agenda.

I also like how Hughes treats the futurist philosopher F.M. Esfandiary (who also called himself FM-2030) as a serious thinker. Many of FM-2030's speculations about the values and lifestyles of "Future Man" sound more plausible now than when he first promoted them in the 1970's and 1980's, and I would like to see his contributions receive more recognition.

I find fault with Hughes's book in the following areas, however:

1. He puts too much emphasis on the technology of baby-making, maybe he because writes for a "family values" friendly American readership, at a time when most developed democratic countries now face population declines, especially Japan. It looks as if people in democracies have better things to do than planning to create genetically improved offspring.

2. He doesn't deal with the threat Peak Oil poses to the future of technological civilization.

3. He fails to address the fact that aging people for the most part can't or won't integrate novelty and additional risks into their lives, and what this means for the acceptance of new technologies in aging democratic societies.

4. He doesn't explain how Transhumanism would address the conflict of secular modernity versus third-world christianity and traditional Islam.

5. He assumes that everyone will behave himself to thrash out all these policy issues through democratic processes, instead of looking for shortcuts to get his way.

6. And, he assumes that the people with superior energy, ability and ambition, regardless of their social origins, will just tolerate living under democratic rule, instead of using their enhancements to challenge the authorities, like Magneto from the X-Men mythos. (A few years ago I asked: How do we handle the prospect of the Evil Transhuman? Answer: Plan on becoming the first one!) Many philosophers have long recognized that most people (the vulgar) live closer to the animal level than a relative handful of humans who have greater capacity for cognition and achievement. These natural aristocrats chafe now under the regime of the vulgar -- so why wouldn't they use enhancements to break free from social-political constraints and start making their own rules?

Maybe Hughes will address these issues in the future books I've heard he plans to write. I find it unfortunate that this one seems to have fallen dead-born from the press, compared with the best-selling book Ray Kurzweil published about future technologies. I hope "Citizen Cyborg" can get its second wind, because the questions it raises will require social responses much sooner than we think.

The day I finished reading "Citizen Cyborg" I met friends for a late dinner in an upscale Georgetown bistro. As a measure of the power of medical ethicist James Hughes' book, our dinner conversation revolved around the potential of babies free of genetic defects, the elimination of most of the diseases that now decimates our population, the potential of creating non-human sentient beings that might well have legal rights, and the possibility of near immortality. The domination of these issues among such an eclectic group of young Washingtonians is a measure of the book's saliency in the first part of the twenty-first century. I recommend "Citizen Cyborg" as an entertaining, challenging, and provocative exploration of the meaning of the post-human in modern American society.

Part history, but especially an ethical perspective on the future, Hughes describes the efforts of those who seek to bring a future to humanity that offers the elimination of most diseases and enhances life through the use of drugs, careful eugenics, technological enhancement, and biotech innovations. The mapping of the human genome, according to Hughes, is just the beginning of a future in which human life might be radically improved. These possibilities also harbor questions and fears, as anything new and different has always done. Dubbing them "bioLuddites," Hughes suggests that those opposing these possibilities are organizing to ensure that the United States does not participate in the next fundamental transformation in human history. The biotech revolution has the potential, he believes, to be more significant than the Industrial Revolution that the United States embraced.

The battle lines in this debate are already being drawn, and skirmishes over stem cell research, pharmaceuticals, cloning, and related innovations are already underway. These are nothing compared to future controversies, according to Hughes. What do we do once we are presented with cloned human beings? Are those individuals citizens of the United States? What rights do they have? What will prospective parents do once they have the capability through mastery of the human genome to ensure that birth defects are eliminated in their fetuses? What if they had the capability to select genes for greater intelligence for their fetuses? Would they do so? Should they be allowed to do so? These are only some of the coming challenges.

The bioLuddites use arguments ranging from religion to Nazi eugenics to oppose any human intervention into these processes. Hughes takes a different approach. He argues that it is impossible to turn back these innovations and rather than trying we should seek to regulate and control them. He contends that the manner in which American society decides these challenges will chart the course for the future. He suggests that a faith in our democratic institutions is necessary here, and that through them we might reach decisions that will preserve human freedom and make possible a hopeful future. Through this process we might reach decisions on which of these potentials should be mandatory for all Americans, which should be forbidden, and which might be voluntary but carefully regulated.

To return to my Georgetown dinner conversation, there was no consensus among those at the table on these questions. Some embraced the potential changes and looked forward to having these new choices. Others were opposed, suggesting that it was "not nice to mess with Mother Nature." Some thought it was "playing god" and therefore inappropriate for humans. The diversity of responses at dinner mirrored the divisions in larger society, and if the forcefulness of beliefs expressed at the table is any guide, the debates in society will be difficult and trying.

It certainly seems that James Hughes is onto something important. "Citizen Cyborg" is an important exploration of what may well be the most critical issue of the twenty-first century.

New technologies are coming in the near future that have the potential to radically change what it means to be human. This book looks at why democratic societies must respond to things like cloning, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, instead of pretending that they don't exist.

What the author calls "bio-Luddites" are opposed to such new technologies, because they feel that mankind should be happy with its 70 (or so) years of life, characterized by increasing bodily disfunction in its later stages. Another reason for opposition is the vague, but always there, possibility of a disaster unleashing some new plague on the world. Some people say that taboos and gut feelings are the path to wisdom. If a new technology feels spooky, ban it immediately. The Catholic Church opposes such things because they are supposedly offensive to God.

On the other hand, if a person is found to be a carrier for, or genetically susceptible to, Disease X, don't they have the right to fix their DNA (assuming a safe and reliable method can be found to do so)? Those who call themselves transhumanists (based on humanism) believe that people should have the right to modify their bodies, whether the quest is for greater intelligence, longevity or a happier outlook on life. They are the first to assert that there must be adequate discussion beforehand, and adequate safeguards after the introduction of a new technology. Such things must also be available to all people, through some sort of universal health insurance, not just to the rich. Transhumanists have no desire to take over the world, but one of the subjects for social consideration has to be how to extinguish potential schisms between humans and posthumans. To those who think that some new regulatory agency is needed, the author does not agree. Agencies like the FDA and EPA will be able to do the job, if they ever get the funding and authority needed. Don't forget that 25 years ago, in vitro fertilization was considered an abomination; now it is practically mainstream.

This is a pretty specialized book, but it shouldn't be. Like it or not, the new technologies described in this book are coming in the near future. It is better to start discussing, now, how to deal with them, instead of just saying No. The reader may not agree with everything in this book, but it is an excellent place to begin that discussion.