This week’s readings were very interesting and though provoking. My favorite reading of the week was Our Posthuman Future, by Fukuyama. This reading was very interesting to me because of its discussion concerning biotechnology and the ethics of the its potential advancements. Straight from the get-to, it is evident that the author has a worrisome and negative feeling about the rise of technology. This directly opposes my viewpoints about the advancements of technology; I am strongly in support of any and all scientific and technological advancements, especially in the areas of biology and medicine.
Fukuyama mentions the book, Brave New World, a book set in the future, where biotech has ha extreme advancements. Brave New World poses a unique dystopia because, unlike in 1984, everyone is happy and satisfied, yet, Fukuyama claims that the people are somehow ‘dehumanized’. The then poses a very interesting questions saying: “why is it wrong to not be human?” Who’s to say that being completely free of pain and suffering makes one less “human” and, more importantly, who cares? I tend to side with the viewpoint that, whatever the definition of being ‘human’ is, it shouldn’t really matter because human beings are constantly evolving and constantly searching for ways to make their lives easier and of better quality.
Fukuyama argues that biotechnologies are the most elusive form of science advancements because, with benefits such as longer life, they come with “dehumanization” and suppress the soul. He also argues that the distinction between what one has achieved “on his own” and what one has achieved through chemical means becomes blurred. To me, that’s the equivalent of saying that some achievements shouldn’t be attributed solely to the person, and, instead, are the result of their diet. I would argue that everything one achieves is the result of their physiology and, thus, altering one’s chemical balances and physiology artificially is perfectly wholesome and moral. In this day and age, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t use the resources available to us to achieve self-actualization.
Furthermore, the author mentions ‘doomsday’ scenarios where psychotropic drugs are able to change one’s mood and personality instantly. Again, I feel like the author doesn’t realize that mood and personality is constantly affected by the chemicals and drugs people consume, whether they come natural through food or synthetically through a pill. Changing one’s negative mood to a desirable one with drugs is perfectly fine and a very valuable tool to have at one’s disposal. Depression and negative moods are already considered a disease and are already efficiently managed.
Even though the biotech article intrigued me the most, I found “the Middle East’s Generation Facebook”, by Mona Eltahawy, interesting as well. The article, written as if from the future, describes how significant the internet revolution has been, especially in the Middle East. The author describes how the internet, and Facebook specifically, gave voices to the young people and the women of Egypt to be heard and express their frustration with the government, effectively taking control of their country through their computers. The author hopes that, by 2033, Egypt will be a thriving country and that, through the continued use and spread of the internet, the country will become more transparent and more democratic, bringing much happiness and prosperity to its citizens.
nourishment4brain 