Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

Imagine a world in which human beings no longer worry about procuring food. Imagine a world in which disease becomes a thing of the past. Imagine a world in which mortality gives way to human/machine hybrids that can live for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Sounds good, doesn't it? If so, imagine a different sort of world, a world in which a small class of people in possession of this sort of technology genetically engineers babies. Imagine a world in which these same people turn traditional humans into slaves. Imagine, even, the technology in this possible future spiraling out of control and turning the planet into gray sludge. Sounds scary, doesn't it? These two scenarios play a central role in Joel Garreau's "Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies--And What It Means to Be Human." Another scenario plays out in the book, one in which human beings prevail over sudden technological changes and, by doing so, accept or reject which forms of "radical evolution" to adopt. The subsequent conversation on these three themes fills pages with marvels that boggle the imagination. Could even a fraction of these events really occur in the next twenty to thirty years?

Garreau thinks so, and he begins his examination of GRIN (Genetic, robotic, information, and nanotechnological) advancements by seeking out the wunderkinds working at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). These are the folks brainstorming such projects as vaccines to prevent pain, suits that can allow soldiers to carry hundreds of pounds of weight with ease, and dozens of other incredible inventions. It was their predecessor, ARPA, which created what we now know as the Internet. As amazing as the ideas flowing out of DARPA sound, it's nothing compared to what inventors such as Ray Kurzweil see in our immediate future. Garreau's conversation with this scientist ushers in the first of our three possible destinies, something the author labels the "Heaven" scenario. In this situation, human beings essentially become deities. Immortality thanks to nanotechnology and genetics research becomes the norm. Computers emerge with the power of hundreds of human brains. Heady stuff, indeed. Unfortunately heaven must have a hell, and that's where people like Bill Joy and Francis Fukuyama enter the picture. They see our future as a bleak existence in which out of control nanotechnology devours every resource on the planet, or one in which humans use this fabulous technology against one another.

Both the heaven and hell scenarios paint human beings as a passive force in the face of increasing technology. The "Prevail" scenario takes the human factor and places it center stage. A position advocated by a guy named Jaron Lanier and others, prevailing over the rise of GRIN essentially means people take a hands on role in new technologies. Rather than losing control of robots and genetic engineering, argues Lanier, humans will use them to strengthen the connections between individuals. The example of cell phones, where people use them to stay in constant touch with others in ways unanticipated by their creators, serves as a prime example of how we bend technology to our will instead of the other way around. No new social classes will arise in the prevail scenario based on technology, nor will the world give up the ghost because of nanotechnology run amok. One assumes that genetic engineering will not sink to the sort of eugenics programs National Socialist Germany dabbled in during the 1940s. Prevail means humanity will change, since change is essential to the human experience regardless of culture or time, but we all will still keep that nebulous essence that makes each of us human.

Intriguing ideas and predictions abound in Garreau's study, far too many to document in a short review. It is possible, however, to point out the flaws in the book. There are several. Perhaps the most annoying aspect of "Radical Evolution" is the author's penchant for a "gee whiz" writing style. It's like reading a book written about Superman by cub reporter Jimmy Olsen. Then there is Garreau's almost unquestioning assumption that the marvels documented in the book constitute an absolute future reality. Sorry to burst your bubble, Joel, but a list of futurists proved incorrect over the ages would run the length of a New York City phone book. The truth is that none of us can adequately predict what will happen two weeks from now, let alone what sort of things could occur in twenty, thirty, or one hundred years. Then there's a troubling emphasis in the book on simply documenting the things science could do for us instead of on the possible problems that could sidetrack any one of these advancements. Garreau does examine a few potential roadblocks to the march of GRIN, but the focus definitely falls on the wonderful and awesome.

I'm happy to see another reviewer identify what is surely the most egregious problem with the book, namely a lack of discussion on transportation in general and fuels in particular. How will any of this stuff come to pass if a substitute for oil does not emerge? Petroleum products aren't just important in transportation; they also provide a number of synthetics and lubricants that technology cannot function without. How can we solve the food problem if we cannot invent a means of transportation that runs on something other than gasoline? Anyway, I'm being a bit harsh on Joel Garreau. "Radical Evolution" is an entertaining and informative read that also poses fundamental questions about our relationship to technology. If the section at the back of the book is any indication, Garreau isn't the only guy writing about what GRIN might mean to the future of the human race. I imagine this book would serve as a good introduction for those seeking to learn more about our possible technological future. I give this one four stars for sheer interest.

Garreau takes a scenario planner's view of what he considers some inevitable advancements in the GRIN technologies (genetics, robotics, information technology, and nanotechnology), which will enable humans to exert radical and powerful upon themselves, each other, and the environment. These four technologies are interacting synergistically, therefore multiplying the power and impact of each. But even more importantly, according to Garreau, the pace of change itself is accelerating faster than a lot of people realize.

For Garreau, the result is that there will shortly (within 30 years) arrive a massive tide of change that will sweep a substantial portion of humanity up, and leave others behind. Garreau wonders if the different portions of humanity will even recognize each other as human. Should we call it the geek's version of the fundamentalist Christian idea of The Rapture?

This coming tide is called by some the Singularity, and by others the Spike (think of the graph that slopes gradually and then curves up to the top right at the end). Garreau tries to be present both sides of the debate about whether this can and should happen, but he's unsuccessful.

For instance, there is some contrary evidence to the accelerating returns argument. Yes, computing hardware follows Moore's law, and so do several other technologies. But do those lead to radical social upheavals? If things are really accelerating, they should. Look at the changes introduced between 1900-1950 (roughly): the combustion engine, the automobile, the airplane, the jet engine, the rocket, the telephone, the radio, the television, nuclear power & weapons, and the computer. Each of them had a massive impact.

If we're really experiencing radical evolution, the subsequent 50 years should have been even more radical. Yes, we have the personal computer, the Internet/web/email, but those are each more than 30 years old. The human genome project is a magnificent achievement, and though the cost of sequencing a base pair has followed the similar price/performance curve of the computer processors, it hasn't spawned any radical changes yet. The CD has now been around longer than the 8 track (good thing too). And we're still travelling via car and plane with combustion engines, and we aren't doing much with our rockets.

I think it's possible we're in a curve, but I'm not convinced. I think Garreau could have grappled with the contrary evidence a little better.

He does give a fair amount of attention to the respectable naysayers like Bill Joy and Francis Fukayama who think we should voluntarily or legislatively forswear certain lines of research and the use of certain technologies. He gives less attention (and I think it's a mistake) to the darker currents to the luddite movement, like Islamic and other forms of violent religious fundamentalism, or the violent environmentalists like some members of PETA, ELF, and Earth First. He mentions Ted Kazynsky (the Unabomber) in passing, but doesn't really connect his sentiments to the radical violence it spawned, and could spawn again.

I loved reading about Jaron Lanier (who is basically the hero of the book), and also the personality profiles of Bill Joy and the wizards at DARPA. But he leaves a large part of the community out. I don't think he gives enough attention to religious thinkers and ethicists (he briefly talks about Leon Kass and Michael Sandel, both on the President's Bioethics committee); he complains that traditional religions don't have anything to contribute to the coming Singularity. That's probably true, so perhaps this omission is more due to the fact that most religious leaders' haven't really grappled with the implications of the Curve, but I don't get the sense Garreau really tried. Just one example that occurred to me when reading the book was the Heaven Scenario bears a marked resemblance to the Christian notion of the Millenium, where the lamb lays down with the lion, men live to the age of a tree, and everyone dwells in peace, prosperity, and freedom. (See the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, for instance.)

So while this book is a much broader tour de force than the more geeky focus of Kurweil's or Gilder's books (which I enjoy), it still ends up being a conversation between geeks--Kurzweil on one side, Joy on the other, and Lanier in the middle.

Most of my points here are quibbles. It's a very insightful book, one that I highly recommend, no matter where you land on the can/can't;should/shouldn't quadrant.

Sometimes you'll hear people say that science and technology have outrun morality and ethics. Not true. The futures outlined in Garreau's book have all been anticipated by decades of science fiction and elsewhere. Technology has only outrun our morality because we've surrendered it to the cult of the new. We have outsourced our ethics to professionals and those with vested interests. We have abdicated our right to moral judgement as humans, preferring to be entertained and served by our tools, without really thinking carefully about what they will make us.

We can influence events. Yes, there are powerful forces that can influence the direction of events, but I truly believe the future doesn't just happen passively and inevitably, like the course of some river. The future is CREATED, it is imagined and realized by visionaries who work and sacrifice for it. We need to stand up for timeless human values like love, honesty, loyalty, respect for life, and caring for the weak and disadvantaged. And if we believe in those things, then we must also oppose those who argue that these values are obsolete, meaningless, or a hindrance to progress. We have a chance to create a future we want to live in. But only if we pay attention.

I've admired Joel Garreau ever since I read and reviewed his really insightful The Nine Nations of North America. I am glad to have bought and read this book, it is certainly worth reading, but it is somewhat unbalanced. However (this is an edit of the original review), now that I have read Ray Kurzweil's book, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology a techno-geek rendition of the same technologies and their future, I have to give Garreau higher marks--while this book may lack soul, it does come closer to its titular objective than does Kurzweil's. Both are worth buying and reading together.

He focused on four technologies abbeviated as GRIN: Genetics, Robotics, Information, and Nano. Others have focused on the integration of Nano, Information, Bio-Technology and Cognitive Science (NIBC), and I would have been happier with this book if it focused more on the thinking side of the future rather than the bio-mechanical side.

The other area where I felt the book was disappointing was in its almost total acceptance at face value of all that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is doing to elevate soldier-humans, giving them super human strength, acute mental perception almost to the point of telepathy, and so on. I could not help but feel, over and over as I read this book, that if DARPA were to apply its considerable talents to waging peace and addressing poverty, disease, water scarcity, energy independence, and the urgent need for global education that does not require packing kids like rats into a stiffling anti-creative environment (and making them get up at 0600), that we would all be better off.

The author talks about the implications for human transformation in all of this, but missing from his schema is the moral dimension. This is closer to a comic book super-hero depiction than it is to a renaissance man's moral and cultural enlightenment, and that, in my view, is where this book falls short--it lacks soul.

I recommend that readers consider the books by Tom Atlee, The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All and Margaret Wheatley Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World as well as the book The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter to gain an alternative perspective on what it might mean to be human in the future, despite the over-whelming incursions of technology into our humanity.