Humanity 2.0 – What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future

By Steve Fuller
Palgrave Macmillan, 2011
265 pages (pb)
ISBN 9–780230–233430

One of the fundamental questions which needs to be at the forefront of our thinking when we consider the advances in new emerging technologies is how do these technologies change what it means for us to be human. The release of Professor Steve Fuller’s latest book, Humanity 2.0 What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future therefore promises, by the title at the very least, to contribute to this conversation.

Fuller is an American philosopher–sociologist and was appointed earlier this year (2011) to the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at University of Warwick. This is the first book by Fuller that I have read and so came to it with no preconceived ideas or expectations on the author’s view point and perspectives on humanity and technologies. On completing the book I find Fuller’s contribution to be a cogent set of ideas which help to form a useful commentary allowing us to track and understand both the past and the future of humanity.

Provoking debate

The author does not offer a specific argument or thesis but rather the book challenges and poses questions which require our attention if we are going to move forward into the future with at least some level of understanding of our relationship with technology.  The lack of a strong argument may frustrate some readers and cause some even to pan the book on the grounds of not offering anything new to the discussion or being too afraid to. Whilst I appreciate such a standpoint I would disagree.  I believe the author is not seeking to put forward a definitive argument or approach to humanity 2.0. Instead he is provoking the reader to think and take on responsibility for his or her role in shaping and contributing to the discussion as to the future of humanity.  Arguably, there are already ideas and arguments being offered as to how others see the future. Think Ray Kurzweil and friends.  But given the weight of the implications arising from these technologies and the profound questions they present, we all need to be provoked into thinking about them ourselves and not merely relying on the views of others to do it for us.

The future of humanity

As the title of the book suggests, Fuller is clear that with the advances in new emerging technologies and their convergence, our understanding of humanity is undoubtedly set to change if it is not already doing so. He points to the usage of cognitive enhancing drugs (or ‘smart drugs’) used by the military but also university students and high powered, high performance executives as examples of this.  What is striking from Fuller’s analysis is that people are opting for this. We are choosing how much time we engage with technology at the expense of spending time with other humans.  Where we may have previously thought technology’s power lay with us, we are beginning to see more distinct changes in our humanity as technology transforms us.  Note the word ‘transform’ and not ‘eradicate’. To Fuller, this does not mean a loss of humanity per se, but rather a transformation of what we consider and understand our humanity to be.  A new state of mind is emerging where we consider and project our humanity across a spectrum of artefacts as opposed to simply through a human body.

Therefore Fuller’s perceptions on humanity can often be quite enlightening.  He refers to the fact that often how we perceive ourselves is based more on description than function. We can describe certain actions as inhuman, not so much because as humans we cannot perform such actions but that the type of action somehow falls short of our aspirations for the human species.

Whilst at points the book can offer some heavy material which arguably could be simplified, it nevertheless takes the debate up a level (if not several levels) in terms of active and considered engagement with the future.

Structure

The book’s structure consists of an introduction followed by five chapters. Readers used to sociology texts will find it familiar and easier to engage with than those from other disciplines. However, I would urge non–social scientists to stick with it as it offers much food for thought. Even if you strongly disagree with Fuller’s ideas, it will in turn help to clarify your own thoughts.

There is strong theological related material (Fuller is an advocate of intelligent design and reported to be a secular humanist) and the author’s desire to bring theology back into science based discussions quickly becomes apparent.  At this juncture you could be mistaken, as others have been, that Fuller is waging war on the disciplines of science for sidelining the social sciences and thinking them superior to the likes of philosophy and sociology. I do believe there is something to be said for this line of argument so empathise with Fuller. However, I also believe and value the contribution that a multidisciplinary approach to these questions can offer. With that in mind, I think Humanity 2.0 may well ruffle the feathers of scientists and may not help the future of inter disciplinary discussions! Nevertheless it certain adds to the argument and if you can stick with it, work with his arguments and dig a little to appreciate the crux of what Fuller is saying, the book’s contribution holds the potential of generating fruitful debate.

Of note, chapter three is perhaps the most helpful as it offers some helpful ideas and perspectives on the development and implementation of transhumanist technologies.  Once again it is not a clear and precise roadmap for policy development, so the chapter title is a little disappointing for ‘a policy blueprint for humanity 2.0’ it is not.  But Fuller’s ideas, thoughts and reflections here could certainly help to feed in and influence for good future policy considerations.  He strongly makes the case for sociology’s role in being key in the interdisciplinary brokerage of such a policy blue print. Chapters four and five have a strong theological slant, taking to task and extensively critiquing Neo–Darwinism. Essentially, Fuller believes there cannot be humanity with god so there must be a god of some description. At this point, the book can become heavy work as the author develops and pursues other trains of thought and ideas which spin off this certain theme.

Conclusion

Humanity 2.0 certainly brings something new to the discussions surrounding the future of humanity and technology. It does this by bringing together disciplines which do not usually sit well together: biology and theology.  Operating in the overview mode as opposed to an in depth analysis, the book will provoke and cause you to think about the issues yourself as you read, drawing upon historical, philosophical and theological ideas in order to help cast our attention towards the future. Parts of the book may be more difficult to engage with than others and I doubt any reader will accept all of Fuller’s ideas. However in so doing it focuses our attention on the kind of future we want to pursue and the place the human body plays in that future.

There have been 0 replies to this Article. + Post your comment here.