A look at the arguments for restrictive regulation of biotechnology as presented in Francis Fukuyama’s 2002 book “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution”
In the face of technology that has great potential for saving lives, it is not that fashionable to argue for more regulation. Nor is it particularly clear who would make that case. In Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, American political scientist Francis Fukuyama does just that.
Although Fukuyama rose to fame through proclaiming the End of History through the winning out of liberal democracy, he revisits this position in Our Posthuman Future: there can be no end of history without an end of technological advancement, and biotechnology in particular puts liberal democracy at risk. Published in 2002, the form of the argument is as relevant now as it was then.
The argument turns on the importance of human nature to what we hold dear, and hence that we have much to lose from technology that alters human nature.
First, what is human nature? His definition is that it is “the sum of the behavior and characteristics that are typical of the human species, arising from genetic rather than environmental factors.” The relative roles of nature and nurture have been fought over through the centuries. All we need for the rest of the argument is that it is malleable (by culture, environment, learning), but not infinitely so. He further makes the case that the spread of human emotions is a critical component piece of human nature.
Although the book is framed as one argument, I think there are two fairly separate cases put forward. These require untangling.
The first is that political equality is based on human equality, which is based on our shared human nature:
- Biotechnology can modify human nature
- Human nature is the basis for our human rights
- Therefore, use of biotechnology risks undermining our human rights, which is the basis for our morality
Premise (2) is not currently popular. Instead, the doctrine that human rights come from Man Himself holds the day. Fukuyama argues that a) those that hold this position do actually appeal to human nature, just in a sneaky fashion, and b) they are forced to be cultural relativists. A shared appeal to what we all have in common, our human nature, allows for drawing a “bright red line” within which all humans are equal. A lot of the political progress we have made is expanding this circle of who deserves political rights, from a privileged set of men to all humans. The “nature of nature” has helped in this regard: many attempts to justify the red line as excluding some but not others were shown to be prejudices that didn’t stand up to the facts. Moral order comes from nature, with no appeals to culture necessary. If we alter human nature, we risk introducing the type of political hierarchy that we’ve fought long and hard to get rid of.
The example that most clearly fits (1) is the possibility of genetic engineering producing the genetic “haves” and “have nots”. Indeed, I think something as extreme as this would be necessary for this argument, as the aspects of human nature that are doing the work for political equality are so basic, that we would need considerable change to adjust where the bright red line is drawn. Before we face such a shift, we will face inequalities that, although they do not change our human essence, nonetheless will further alter opportunities between the haves and have nots.
Can only humans display “human nature”? While I am sympathetic to an appeal to human nature as the basis for rights, I prefer an appeal to this as a functional category, rather than something that adheres to a physical human. We can agree that those who have the traits that we consider to be core to the human essence – rationality, the capacity for moral choice, the spread of emotions – are indeed worthy of rights, while still thinking that something other than a human could share in having those properties. On this account, Spock would fall within the bright red line.
The second line of argument also appeals to the importance of human nature. It concerns the threats of utilitarianism:
- Much of biotechnology is very utilitarian in its approach, i.e. it aims to minimize suffering
- A utilitarian approach downplays the importance of “the full emotional gamut” of human nature and hence the human condition, for example, the role that suffering plays in building human character
- Biotechnology is likely to be applied broadly
- Therefore, biotechnology risks destroying that which makes us human
To demonstrate the likely broad reach of biotechnology (C), Fukuyama points to the increasing medicalization of the human condition, for example the prescription of Ritalin not just to those at the far extreme of the spectrum of hyperactivity. We show a desire to medicalize. This is the move to “Don’t blame me! I’m wired wrong!” in the future laid out by Tom Wolfe in his essay “Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died”.
Whereas the biotechnology in question in the first line of argument was genetic engineering, in this second line of argument, it is drugs and the prospect of “cosmetic pharmacology” that looms large. And the use of drugs to alter ourselves in a day-to-day, non-therapeutic way, is even less science fiction than it was in 2002, with use of Adderall (another stimulant for treatment of ADHD) as a cognitive enhancer reported to be widespread. I have on occasion had it offered to me by well-meaning folk who knew I had a hard day’s work ahead.
While cosmetic pharmacology is surely here to stay, to what extent is this likely to lead to a pleasure-maximizing, pain-minimizing (and hence diminished) version of humanity? Would we all take the Soma of Brave New World? If it existed, should we regulate its use?
Fukuyama’s answer to this, and other technologies that have the potential to alter human nature, is a resounding Yes. He is fed up with the defeatist attitude that is always wheeled out: restrictive regulation will push the development of these technologies overseas. We do have examples of regulation that is broadly successful at the international scale, from nuclear power to human experimentation. Unlike nuclear power, where it was obvious to all at the outset that here was a technology that needed strong international regulation, biotechnology will advance through battling one disease at a time. By the time we realize what is at stake, we may have lost it.