Ronald F. White's Review for Choice Magazine: Stefan Lorenz Sorgner, ON TRANSHUMANISM (Pennsylvania University Press: 2020), Translated by Spencer Hawkins
This is Spencer Hawkins’ English translation of the original German book On Transhumanism by Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. Hawkins’ stated purpose is to introduce transhumanism to an American audience. This review will evaluate both the original book and the “Translators Introduction.” The term “transhumanism” was originally introduced as a disparaging concept employed by European critics of unfettered biotechnological innovation, which is dubbed “the most dangerous idea.” The underlying theme is that there are some biotechnologies that, over the long run, threaten “natural” human life, as we now know it. However, Hawkins points out that this naturalistic approach implies that human life can be rigidly defined and that human technology ought-not transcend those objective natural limits. The main biotechnologies defended by Sorgner are those that are intended to increase human health, reproductive capacity, longevity, cognitive ability, and/or athletic ability via genetic modification. Sorgner admits that some biotechnologies are problematic, but he is even more critical of governmental bans and regulations. As libertarians have long observed, governments that claim to pursue the “greater good,” (in fact) tend to embrace policies that preserve/advance the interests of those who now benefit from existing biotechnologies. Sorgner’s arguments are drawn from European scientists and philosophers, including: Darwin, Nietzche, and J.S. Mill. Since this book was originally intended for a German or European audience, Hawkins provides American readers with a Translator’s Introduction that integrates the social and political reception specific biotechnologies have had in the United States. At least some critics would have liked a bit more detail on some of the specific biotechnologies that have been debated in the U.S. including: transgender medicine, reproductive assistance, sports and education. Others would have like a revival of the old therapeutic vs. life enhancing technologies debate. and the current legal status of some of these these biotechnologies. Given the differences between European and American health care systems, other critics would have liked more on socialized v. free market healthcare. Others, who study artificial intelligence, would have liked some analysis of how these biotechnologies might be integrated into to robotic humans. If (when) human brains are replaced by computers, would the beneficiaries be regarded as machines or humans?
Comments
Post a Comment