The other day, a good friend of mine sent me a link to an article in the LA Times entitled, You're not good enough! Human evolution is now being engineered. Choose to enhance yourself or face inferiority, by Joel Garreau of the Washington Post. Mr Garreau is the author of a newly published book, "Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies — and What It Means to Be Human" At first, I thought the whole thing was a joke.
Let me offer an amusing tidbit from the article:
In the next few years, your child will come home from school in tears. He'll say, once again, that he is unable to compete with the children who are brighter, better behaved and physically more capable than he is because their parents have bought them technological enhancements and you have not. What will you do?
In the next few years?! I don't think so!
Anyone who thinks that we'll begin seeing "enhanced" or "augmented" humans in the next few years, scientist or otherwise, needs to begin practicing what I like to call "reality-based thinking." Several years back, as we were on the verge of finally mapping the human genome, the same cry went out... "We are going to enhance human life, wipe out disease, cure cancer, give everyone built-in antennae for better digital television reception!" Okay, not that last thing, but everything else definitely.
So, what have you heard SINCE we finished mapping our DNA? Very little, right?
That's because, when we were done, we wound up with more questions than answers. We mapped the human genome and we learned, basically, that we don't know a hell of a lot more than we thought we didn't know. If that makes any sense. You could almost hear the cry of scientists and politicians everywhere as they raised a collective "D'OH!" regarding what they had learned.
Article comments
1 - JR
If we were intelligently designed, why are we finding so much room for improvement?
2 - Duane
For now, my money remains on the good old "Mark I" human.
That's no more significant than some guy in 1840 patting his horse, and saying, "For now, my money remains on good old Bessie," smugly responding to his neighbor's interest in the promise of the internal combustion engine.
I'm sure the author is overconfident with regards to the timeline involved, but it will happen eventually.
3 - David Flanagan
Duane,
Isn't that exactly what I just said in my post?
David
4 - Phillip Winn
Duane, the guy in 1840 was probably right, too. For now (then), he was better off with his horse!
5 - bhw
Okay, I've gone on long enough. Suffice it to say, our children -- and our children's children too -- will NOT be coming to us crying because those "enhanced" children are outperforming them.
Something as simple as steroids already causes this to happen. So does Lasik eye surgery. Other types of enhancements are are just around the corner.
6 - Temple Stark
>>If we were intelligently designed, why are we finding so much room for improvement?
hee hee.
Good post David. bhw makes some good points, however. A lot more than perhaps you realize or remember is already here. And not making any sense at all, I approve of some, not others (though perhaps that's because of the reasons behind it. Fake boobs? Bad. Very bad.
7 - Temple Stark
However, of course, your post is specifically about DNA and the underlying rather than the surface
In-vitro parents can already pick out hair color, sex, IQ, and whether to have a child with deformities.
8 - Duane
David asks: Isn't that exactly what I just said in my post?
Uh, sure, OK. Sorry. I developed a sudden brain cloud when I got to the part about Intelligent Design.
9 - TerriO
Temple,
Sorry, I have to disagree. While it is possible to know the sex of the embryo and whether or not it has a genetic defect, there is no way to determine the other attributes.
Most reputable IVF centers don't allow sex selection unless there is a sex-linked disease in the father. What the parents decide to do with that knowledge is their choice.
10 - JR
Temple Stark: Fake boobs? Bad. Very bad.
I agree. The whole point is variety. If all boobs end up looking the same, you might as well just stay with one chick.
11 - Nancy
Or with one guy, JR, since all 'boobs' look the same?
12 - JR
Heh. Excellent point.
13 - Nancy
Sorry, couldn't resist the pun, if not the insult, but just heard one of 'my' guys here at work call another a boob, so it was timely....
14 - Joel Garreau
Hi, this is Joel Garreau, the author of the L.A. Times article mentioned here, and the book "Radical Evolution" on which it is based.
I am a Washington Post reporter and editor, so I understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'm sad that a 1,000-word newspaper column didn't allow me to present much of the four years of reporting that went into the book. But three sample chapters are posted on my webs site at:
http://www.garreau.com/main.cfm?action=book&id=2
I make few if any predictions in "Radical Evolution". All I do is report what's in the labs and about to come to market. I spent the better part of a year, for example, at DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon that is at the forefront of human enhancement. I think you may find it remarkable how far the genetic, robotic, information and nano technologies have already gone toward re-engineering the "Mark 1" human. The significance of this is not the gee-whiz gear, though, although there is plenty of that. (Within five years, more than half of all pharmaceuticals will be based on genetic technology, for example.)
The big deal is that we are demonstrably at a turning point in history, in that our technologies are increasingly aimed inward at modifying our minds, memories, metabolisms, personalities, progeny. What will this mean to our culture and values, and the things we value from democracy to our families? That's what the book's about.
Hope you find the book more useful than the 1,000-word column reviewed here. Hope you review the actual book, for that matter. Feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Joel
15 - Eric Olsen
thanks very much for the input Joel and we would be very interested in reviewing your book!