I suppose it was inevitable that I would one day review a book whose author would then blog about the review. (The experience may warn me away from reviewing Frans Johannsen's book; on the other hand, if it gets him blogging more...) Thanks to the miracle of Trackback, I see that Ramez Naam has blogged about my (blog post about my) review of his book, More Than Human:
Alex's major ding was that the book wouldn't convince someone who objected to enhancement technology on religious or theological grounds.
I agree. To be honest, I'm not sure there's a book I could have written that would do that. If someone has a religious objection to stem cell research, for instance, there's not much room for persuasion.
But I do think there are a lot of people in the middle ground. People who are nervous about these technologies but still open to rational arguments. People who are worried about social consequences rather than metaphysical or religious issues. They're the audience I most hope to sway, and I hope the book is persuasive in that domain.
Hard, but I think someone's got to do it. Ramez and I agree that religious objections aren't likely to be countered through appeals either to libertarian "let the markets decide" arguments, or the argument (which I personally find more convincing) that the desire to exceed our biological limitations is a defining feature of human nature. And plenty of people are more likely to focus on things like social consequences or issues of fairness and access, rather than moral issues.
But to draw a parallel with political campaigns: do you solidify your base of core supporters (people who generally favor unfettered access to technology, think that markets and individuals will ultimately work out for themselves the best uses, and that the dangers will be outweighed by the benefits) while appealing to swing voters (people who are nervous but rational)? Or do you try to get votes from the opposition?
Given that a very large proportion of our fellow Americans describe themselves as religious or very religious, and they are likely to pay attention-- and some would pay lots of attention-- to moral and theological arguments, I think ultimately it'll be necessary to answer Kass et al on their own ground-- to get votes from the opposition. The debate over stem cells offers a pretty remarkable example of how religious concerns can influence what in many other countries is a complete non-issue, probably to the detriment of American biomedical research and its global competitiveness.
Not that I'm volunteering to try to craft such an argument... yet, anyway.
[To the tune of The Band, "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down," from the album "The Best Of The Band".]
Recent Comments