Enhancing Evolution
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
A persuasive case that today's biotechnologies...are on the continuum of an age-long pursuit by humans to improve themselves. -- Judy Illes, Nature John Harris...assumes not only that biotechnological enhancement is going to happen but that we have a moral obligation to make it happen. -- "Scientific American [Harris] challenges conventional thinking about genetic engineering, stem-cell research, designer children and other concepts that make most people uneasy. -- Richard Halicks, Atlanta Journal-Constitution [Harris] is warmly enthusiastic about the possibilities; moreover he is unshakably convinced that all human beings, given that they are capable of moral sense, have a duty not only to make things better for people, but to make people better as well...It is a pleasure to read a book that is so jolly about the future of mankind. -- Mary Warnock, THES [A] fine contribution to clear thinking and cogent argument in a field where these commodities have been in short supply. -- Arthur Schafer, The Globe and Mail Professor Harris uses his philosophical skills very effectively to expose public confusion. -- Robin Gill, Church Times This provocative book is a valuable retort to those who would summon the ghost of Frankenstein's monster at the first sight of a test tube. -- Stephen Cave, Financial Times [Harris] raises the stakes. Harris argues that humanity has been evolving biologically for millennia, and that those who believe we should forego the opportunity to evolve further through the use of genetic technology are 'making a fetish of a particular evolutionary stage. -- Richard Hayes, The American Interest Harris argues that biotechnological enhancements are morally good, a sensible social imperative, and necessary to improve humankind's genetic heritage. He believes people should seek increased powers and longer, healthier lives...He takes on objections to genetic engineering, stem-cell research, and designer babies. Harris's arguments for increased biotechnological intervention for the betterment of human life, though controversial, cannot be ignored. -- J.A. Kegley, Choice Harris has a much wider understanding of enhancement than most bioethicists ... he calls attention to the idea that there must be a new phase in human evolution so that darwinian evolution is replaced by a deliberately chosen process of selection--namely, enhancement. -- John Collins Harvey, Journal of the American Medical Association This eleven-chapter book is a major contribution to the debate on enhancement... Written with Harris' characteristic clarity and verve, the book is provocative, engaging, and at times entertaining... Enhancing Evolution is bioethics at its best. It is scientifically well-informed, with imaginative examples, incisive critiques of widely held views against enhancement, and persuasive arguments in favor of these interventions... Harris has hit a powerful volley against those who have argued that human enhancement is morally objectionable. The ball is now in their court. -- Walter Glannon, Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics Enhancing Evolution represents something of a landmark volume in its systematic consideration of human enhancement both as a philosophical concept, and in terms of the emerging technological possibilities and consequences. It has at its heart some unashamedly utilitarian assumptions, with the aim of 'making the world a better place'. -- Sarah Chan, EMBO Reports Harris' plea for enhancement is not only provoking. It is really thought-provoking since it demonstrates how deep the philosophical issues are and that we have to address them if we want to make explicit all the metaphysical, meta-ethical and ethical premises all participants in the debate rely on. But without such philosophical reflection a serious and fruitful discussion will not be possible. It is among the merits of this extraordinarily well written book to make this visible. -- Michael Quante, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Whether one looks upon biotechnology with hope, fear, or a little of both, Enhancing Evolution is a book that should not be ignored. -- "Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics"
Review
A persuasive case that today's biotechnologies...are on the continuum of an age-long pursuit by humans to improve themselves. (Judy Illes Nature )
John Harris...assumes not only that biotechnological enhancement is going to happen but that we have a moral obligation to make it happen. (Scientific American )
[Harris] challenges conventional thinking about genetic engineering, stem-cell research, designer children and other concepts that make most people uneasy. (Richard Halicks Atlanta Journal-Constitution )
[Harris] is warmly enthusiastic about the possibilities; moreover he is unshakably convinced that all human beings, given that they are capable of moral sense, have a duty not only to make things better for people, but to make people better as well....It is a pleasure to read a book that is so jolly about the future of mankind. (Mary Warnock THES )
[A] fine contribution to clear thinking and cogent argument in a field where these commodities have been in short supply. (Arthur Schafer The Globe and Mail )
Professor Harris uses his philosophical skills very effectively to expose public confusion. (Robin Gill Church Times )
This provocative book is a valuable retort to those who would summon the ghost of Frankenstein's monster at the first sight of a test tube. (Stephen Cave Financial Times )
[Harris] raises the stakes. Harris argues that humanity has been evolving biologically for millennia, and that those who believe we should forego the opportunity to evolve further through the use of genetic technology are 'making a fetish of a particular evolutionary stage. (Richard Hayes The American Interest )
Harris argues that biotechnological enhancements are morally good, a sensible social imperative, and necessary to improve humankind's genetic heritage. He believes people should seek increased powers and longer, healthier lives...He takes on objections to genetic engineering, stem-cell research, and designer babies. Harris's arguments for increased biotechnological intervention for the betterment of human life, though controversial, cannot be ignored. (J.A. Kegley Choice )
Harris has a much wider understanding of enhancement than most bioethicists . . . he calls attention to the idea that there must be a new phase in human evolution so that darwinian evolution is replaced by a deliberately chosen process of selection--namely, enhancement. (John Collins Harvey Journal of the American Medical Association )
This eleven-chapter book is a major contribution to the debate on enhancement. . . . Written with Harris' characteristic clarity and verve, the book is provocative, engaging, and at times entertaining. . . . Enhancing Evolution is bioethics at its best. It is scientifically well-informed, with imaginative examples, incisive critiques of widely held views against enhancement, and persuasive arguments in favor of these interventions. . . . Harris has hit a powerful volley against those who have argued that human enhancement is morally objectionable. The ball is now in their court. (Walter Glannon Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics )
Enhancing Evolution represents something of a landmark volume in its systematic consideration of human enhancement both as a philosophical concept, and in terms of the emerging technological possibilities and consequences. It has at its heart some unashamedly utilitarian assumptions, with the aim of 'making the world a better place'. (Sarah Chan EMBO Reports )
Harris' plea for enhancement is not only provoking. It is really thought-provoking since it demonstrates how deep the philosophical issues are and that we have to address them if we want to make explicit all the metaphysical, meta-ethical and ethical premises all participants in the debate rely on. But without such philosophical reflection a serious and fruitful discussion will not be possible. It is among the merits of this extraordinarily well written book to make this visible. (Michael Quante Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy )
Whether one looks upon biotechnology with hope, fear, or a little of both, Enhancing Evolution is a book that should not be ignored. (Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics" )
John Harris...assumes not only that biotechnological enhancement is going to happen but that we have a moral obligation to make it happen. (Scientific American )
[Harris] challenges conventional thinking about genetic engineering, stem-cell research, designer children and other concepts that make most people uneasy. (Richard Halicks Atlanta Journal-Constitution )
[Harris] is warmly enthusiastic about the possibilities; moreover he is unshakably convinced that all human beings, given that they are capable of moral sense, have a duty not only to make things better for people, but to make people better as well....It is a pleasure to read a book that is so jolly about the future of mankind. (Mary Warnock THES )
[A] fine contribution to clear thinking and cogent argument in a field where these commodities have been in short supply. (Arthur Schafer The Globe and Mail )
Professor Harris uses his philosophical skills very effectively to expose public confusion. (Robin Gill Church Times )
This provocative book is a valuable retort to those who would summon the ghost of Frankenstein's monster at the first sight of a test tube. (Stephen Cave Financial Times )
[Harris] raises the stakes. Harris argues that humanity has been evolving biologically for millennia, and that those who believe we should forego the opportunity to evolve further through the use of genetic technology are 'making a fetish of a particular evolutionary stage. (Richard Hayes The American Interest )
Harris argues that biotechnological enhancements are morally good, a sensible social imperative, and necessary to improve humankind's genetic heritage. He believes people should seek increased powers and longer, healthier lives...He takes on objections to genetic engineering, stem-cell research, and designer babies. Harris's arguments for increased biotechnological intervention for the betterment of human life, though controversial, cannot be ignored. (J.A. Kegley Choice )
Harris has a much wider understanding of enhancement than most bioethicists . . . he calls attention to the idea that there must be a new phase in human evolution so that darwinian evolution is replaced by a deliberately chosen process of selection--namely, enhancement. (John Collins Harvey Journal of the American Medical Association )
This eleven-chapter book is a major contribution to the debate on enhancement. . . . Written with Harris' characteristic clarity and verve, the book is provocative, engaging, and at times entertaining. . . . Enhancing Evolution is bioethics at its best. It is scientifically well-informed, with imaginative examples, incisive critiques of widely held views against enhancement, and persuasive arguments in favor of these interventions. . . . Harris has hit a powerful volley against those who have argued that human enhancement is morally objectionable. The ball is now in their court. (Walter Glannon Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics )
Enhancing Evolution represents something of a landmark volume in its systematic consideration of human enhancement both as a philosophical concept, and in terms of the emerging technological possibilities and consequences. It has at its heart some unashamedly utilitarian assumptions, with the aim of 'making the world a better place'. (Sarah Chan EMBO Reports )
Harris' plea for enhancement is not only provoking. It is really thought-provoking since it demonstrates how deep the philosophical issues are and that we have to address them if we want to make explicit all the metaphysical, meta-ethical and ethical premises all participants in the debate rely on. But without such philosophical reflection a serious and fruitful discussion will not be possible. It is among the merits of this extraordinarily well written book to make this visible. (Michael Quante Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy )
Whether one looks upon biotechnology with hope, fear, or a little of both, Enhancing Evolution is a book that should not be ignored. (Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics" )
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
This book is based on a series of three lectures given by the author in Oxford in March 2006 at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilisation. I had the privilege to attend these lectures and I was spellbound by them at the time. So I was looking forward to reading this book.
However, somewhere in the process between the lectures and the book, the material has become, well, too dry. It sparkles on occasion, but the author allows himself to become bogged down too often in academic analysis, intellectual tennis, and other hair-splitting.
He's a great proponent of the merit, the morality, and even the necessity, of human enhancement. So far, so good. Some of his arguments strike home well. But in my view he gives too much time to listing various nooks and crannies of the views of various opponents of his writing. That's where the book becomes tedious. The author needs to become pithier.
The views of opponents of human enhancement (eg the people who say "Enough is enough" and that "Enhancement would destroy our core essential humanity, and must be opposed, despite all its manifest good results") do deserve attention. But I believe that a better book is waiting to be written, that will make a better job of highlighting the perversity and self-delusional destructive nature of these views.
However, somewhere in the process between the lectures and the book, the material has become, well, too dry. It sparkles on occasion, but the author allows himself to become bogged down too often in academic analysis, intellectual tennis, and other hair-splitting.
He's a great proponent of the merit, the morality, and even the necessity, of human enhancement. So far, so good. Some of his arguments strike home well. But in my view he gives too much time to listing various nooks and crannies of the views of various opponents of his writing. That's where the book becomes tedious. The author needs to become pithier.
The views of opponents of human enhancement (eg the people who say "Enough is enough" and that "Enhancement would destroy our core essential humanity, and must be opposed, despite all its manifest good results") do deserve attention. But I believe that a better book is waiting to be written, that will make a better job of highlighting the perversity and self-delusional destructive nature of these views.
5 of 14 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
I bought this book because I wanted to get all sides on the debate surrounding evolution. Unfortunately, it was a very poor choice. Harris' writing style is better suited to an internet blog than a book that attempts to address issues raised by serious academics.
But let's say that you manage to get past the continuous references to himself and his previous book(s), the silly examples that are supposed to illustrate his arguments and the illiterate usage of words such as 'this' and 'it' in the beginning of sentences (something I knew not to do after my first course in College). You are still left with superficial arguments better suited to religious hard-liners than to academics.
It is fortunate that I already agreed with many of the points made by Harris, otherwise I would not have made it through the first half of this poor excuse for a book that is supposed to make the 'ethical case for making better people'. If the word 'eugenics' caused in me the same 'yuck response' it does in most people, I would have thrown it away much earlier than that. Harris managed to put me off even though I was essentialy on his side from the get-go.
But you can never unconditionally endorse any position as Harris does. You need to qualify it, recognize its limitations, issue warnings on the possible pitfalls that our imperfect nature may lead us to and ultimately, accept that there is no black and white. Ever!
All in all, the only thing I got from this book was that there are people who urge for every conceivable genetic intervetion to be permissible and a hell of a lot of interventions to be mandatory.
The guy actually argues that it is ethical to perform experiments on humans, even if they will not be the recipients of the benefits of the experiment. He uses a twisted expansion of the notion of altruism and cooperativeness to substantiate his outrageous claim.
Harris is for the most part ignored by other writers on the subject and for a good reason. He presents poor, unsubstantiated arguments that can be - and are - supported in a myriad of different ways. You're better off reading 'From Chance to Choice, Genetics & Justice' for a much more objective and well thought out view on the subject.
But let's say that you manage to get past the continuous references to himself and his previous book(s), the silly examples that are supposed to illustrate his arguments and the illiterate usage of words such as 'this' and 'it' in the beginning of sentences (something I knew not to do after my first course in College). You are still left with superficial arguments better suited to religious hard-liners than to academics.
It is fortunate that I already agreed with many of the points made by Harris, otherwise I would not have made it through the first half of this poor excuse for a book that is supposed to make the 'ethical case for making better people'. If the word 'eugenics' caused in me the same 'yuck response' it does in most people, I would have thrown it away much earlier than that. Harris managed to put me off even though I was essentialy on his side from the get-go.
But you can never unconditionally endorse any position as Harris does. You need to qualify it, recognize its limitations, issue warnings on the possible pitfalls that our imperfect nature may lead us to and ultimately, accept that there is no black and white. Ever!
All in all, the only thing I got from this book was that there are people who urge for every conceivable genetic intervetion to be permissible and a hell of a lot of interventions to be mandatory.
The guy actually argues that it is ethical to perform experiments on humans, even if they will not be the recipients of the benefits of the experiment. He uses a twisted expansion of the notion of altruism and cooperativeness to substantiate his outrageous claim.
Harris is for the most part ignored by other writers on the subject and for a good reason. He presents poor, unsubstantiated arguments that can be - and are - supported in a myriad of different ways. You're better off reading 'From Chance to Choice, Genetics & Justice' for a much more objective and well thought out view on the subject.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
6 reviews
28 of 30 people found the following review helpful
Frequently wrong, but never in doubt
30 Sep 2007
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
I thought twice about writing this review, and hesitated before finally submitting it to Amazon. If you really disliked a book, then why review it?
But the topic is just too important. Moreover, since the would-be reader is likely to expect brilliance--not to mention simple fairness in characterizing the views of people who have had the temerity to hold views that Harris rejects--from the pre-publication blurbs on the back of the book, there should be some counterweight.
The book is very short on argument: citing your previous publications is not producing an argument. (If you think that so many of the claims you make were decisively defended in your previous work, why trot them out again? If you think that they are so important that they must be adduced again, then you need to reprise your arguments, not merely assert your conclusions.) Neither is artfully choosing quotations from people who hold opposing views to make them (and anyone who does not hold Harris' views) look like idiots. Or choosing weaker expositors of those views rather than the strongest you can find.
Continuing with the theme of uncharitable interpretation: The book is as long on invective, and gratuitous rudeness as it is short on substantive argument. I do not agree with Michael Sandel's assessment of the problems with supporting genetic enhancement, and I think that his recent book on the subject does not expand or clarify the argument he made in his earlier ATLANTIC article. (I continue to think that the original article was better, in fact.) But Harris's criticism of Sandel is snide, nasty, sneering and self-congratulatory. There is SOME accuracy at the heart of the criticism: Sandel's argument is slight, to be sure. Still, Harris's points could have stated succinctly and non-viciously.
People who are interested in the topic should read Jonathan Glover's recent CHOOSING CHILDREN. Glover's views are congruent with Harris' in many of the fundamentals. But unlike Harris', Glover's treatment is clear, fair, modest, and elegant.
But the topic is just too important. Moreover, since the would-be reader is likely to expect brilliance--not to mention simple fairness in characterizing the views of people who have had the temerity to hold views that Harris rejects--from the pre-publication blurbs on the back of the book, there should be some counterweight.
The book is very short on argument: citing your previous publications is not producing an argument. (If you think that so many of the claims you make were decisively defended in your previous work, why trot them out again? If you think that they are so important that they must be adduced again, then you need to reprise your arguments, not merely assert your conclusions.) Neither is artfully choosing quotations from people who hold opposing views to make them (and anyone who does not hold Harris' views) look like idiots. Or choosing weaker expositors of those views rather than the strongest you can find.
Continuing with the theme of uncharitable interpretation: The book is as long on invective, and gratuitous rudeness as it is short on substantive argument. I do not agree with Michael Sandel's assessment of the problems with supporting genetic enhancement, and I think that his recent book on the subject does not expand or clarify the argument he made in his earlier ATLANTIC article. (I continue to think that the original article was better, in fact.) But Harris's criticism of Sandel is snide, nasty, sneering and self-congratulatory. There is SOME accuracy at the heart of the criticism: Sandel's argument is slight, to be sure. Still, Harris's points could have stated succinctly and non-viciously.
People who are interested in the topic should read Jonathan Glover's recent CHOOSING CHILDREN. Glover's views are congruent with Harris' in many of the fundamentals. But unlike Harris', Glover's treatment is clear, fair, modest, and elegant.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
correction of bad review
13 Mar 2008
Format:Hardcover
Anonymous (Katonah, N.Y.) on December 10, 2007 wrote: "His dismissal of the human and civil rights of those who are flawed, i.e. people with disabilities discussed in chapter 6 is perverse" etc, but he does not give a quote to prove his accusation. In fact on the first page of chapter 6 John Harris wrote:
"A thesis of this book is that all persons are equal and none are less equal than others." (p.86)
Amazingly, this is completely the opposite of what Anonymous wrote! Anonymous did not present an argument, but pure emotion.
"A thesis of this book is that all persons are equal and none are less equal than others." (p.86)
Amazingly, this is completely the opposite of what Anonymous wrote! Anonymous did not present an argument, but pure emotion.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Compelling Thesis, Repetitive Presentation
27 Jun 2008
Format:Hardcover
The attitude we take toward human enhancement is one of the biggest policy choices we face in the coming years but it's one that rarely recieves any serious analysis. Harris, therefore, deserves credit not only for calling this issue to our attention but also approaching it in a rational objective fashion instead of relying on the eww factor or the emotional appeal of enhancement.
Unfortunately the book soon becomes rather repetitive. Each new chapter seems to do little than provide a new setting in which to propound his main points. These include:
1) Their is no principled distinction to be drawn between enhancement and things like vaccinations or preventative measures against cancer as both give us abilities we lack.
2) There is no principled reason to distinguish enhancement via good parenting and good schools from genetic enhancement. If we aren't willing to demand that rich parents/countries give up the permanent advantages arising from proper childhood nutrition we shouldn't treat the permanent advantages from genetic modification any differently.
3) Worries about safety and harmful side effects are reasons to proceed with caution and analyze individual proposals carefully but don't justify blanket rejection of the program of producing better humans.
Frankly the book gets boring quickly because the most visible opponents of genetic enhancement don't have an interesting responses to these points. Sandel seems to rely on confusing and vaguely worded polemics to defend what he is 'sure' must be right (and most philosophy grads I've asked can't decode a cogent argument from his stuff) and Habermas (sp?) is little better. Ultimately it seems to largely come down to the question of whether you take common negative reaction to the idea of enhancement to be decisive and only then try to build a theory around that or you take a more utilitarian/consequentialist approach and try to reach an answer from those principles. While the book does illuminate this divide there is little it can do to advance the argument after the first few chapters.
If you haven't thought of the issue much at all this book is a good prompt to thought but I don't know if I would read to the end. The only thing I got out of later chapters was a better sense of how people's reaction to this subject interfaces with government decisions in the UK but that's hardly the point of the book.
Unfortunately the book soon becomes rather repetitive. Each new chapter seems to do little than provide a new setting in which to propound his main points. These include:
1) Their is no principled distinction to be drawn between enhancement and things like vaccinations or preventative measures against cancer as both give us abilities we lack.
2) There is no principled reason to distinguish enhancement via good parenting and good schools from genetic enhancement. If we aren't willing to demand that rich parents/countries give up the permanent advantages arising from proper childhood nutrition we shouldn't treat the permanent advantages from genetic modification any differently.
3) Worries about safety and harmful side effects are reasons to proceed with caution and analyze individual proposals carefully but don't justify blanket rejection of the program of producing better humans.
Frankly the book gets boring quickly because the most visible opponents of genetic enhancement don't have an interesting responses to these points. Sandel seems to rely on confusing and vaguely worded polemics to defend what he is 'sure' must be right (and most philosophy grads I've asked can't decode a cogent argument from his stuff) and Habermas (sp?) is little better. Ultimately it seems to largely come down to the question of whether you take common negative reaction to the idea of enhancement to be decisive and only then try to build a theory around that or you take a more utilitarian/consequentialist approach and try to reach an answer from those principles. While the book does illuminate this divide there is little it can do to advance the argument after the first few chapters.
If you haven't thought of the issue much at all this book is a good prompt to thought but I don't know if I would read to the end. The only thing I got out of later chapters was a better sense of how people's reaction to this subject interfaces with government decisions in the UK but that's hardly the point of the book.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Health, Family & Lifestyle > Medical & Healthcare Practitioners
- Books > Science & Nature > Biological Sciences > Bioethics
- Books > Science & Nature > Biological Sciences > Genetics > Genetic Engineering
- Books > Science & Nature > Engineering & Technology > Bioengineering > Biotechnology
- Books > Science & Nature > Engineering & Technology > Ethics
- Books > Science & Nature > Medicine > Medical Ethics & Legal Issues
- Books > Science & Nature > Popular Science > Genetics
- Books > Scientific, Technical & Medical
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Philosophy
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
