Product Description

Passionate, succinct, chilling, closely argued, sometimes hilarious, touchingly well-intentioned, and essential.” —Margaret Atwood, The New York Review of Books

Nearly fifteen years ago, in The End of Nature, Bill McKibben demonstrated that humanity had begun to irrevocably alter and endanger our environment on a global scale. Now he turns his eye to an array of technologies that could change our relationship not with the rest of nature but with ourselves. He explores the frontiers of genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology—all of which we are approaching with astonishing speed—and shows that each threatens to take us past a point of no return. We now stand, in Michael Pollan’s words, “on a moral and existential threshold,” poised between the human past and a post-human future. McKibben offers a celebration of what it means to be human, and a warning that we risk the loss of all meaning if we step across the threshold. Instantly acclaimed for its passion and insight, this wise and eloquent book argues that we cannot forever grow in reach and power—that we must at last learn how to say, “Enough.”

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #309290 in Books
• Published on: 2004-02-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 10
• Binding: Paperback
• 288 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780805075199
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
In 1989, McKibben published The End of Nature, a gorgeously written and galvanizing book about the true cost of global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer and other man-made ills-the loss of wild nature and with it the priceless aspect of our humanity that evolved to listen to and heed it. Now McKibben applies the same passion, scholarship and free-ranging thought to a subject that even committed environmentalists have avoided. Here he tackles what it means to be human. Reporting from the frontiers of genetic research, nanotechnology and robotics, he explores that subtle moral and spiritual boundary that he calls the "enough point." Presenting an overview of what is or may soon be possible, McKibben contends that there is no boundary to human ambition or desire or to what our very inventions may make possible. In an absorbing and horrifying montage of images, he depicts microscopic nanobots consuming the world and children born so genetically enhanced that they will never be able to believe that they reach for the stars as pianists or painters or long-distance runners because there is something unique in them that has a passion to try. Indeed, in the view of the most unbridled "technoutopians," the day of the robotically striving human is already here. What does set a human being apart from other beings, McKibben argues, is our capacity for restraint-and even for finding great meaning in restraint. "We need to do an unlikely thing: We need to survey the world we now inhabit and proclaim it good. Good enough." McKibben presents an uncompromising view, and an essential view. Readers will come away from his latest brilliantly provocative work shaking their heads at the possible future he portrays, yet understanding that becoming a pain-free, all-but-immortal, genetically enhanced semi-robot may be deeply unsatisfactory compared to being an ordinary man or woman who has faced his or her fear of death to relish what is. This is a brilliant book that deserves a wide readership.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
McKibben (The End of Nature, 1989) turns a passionate and revealing spotlight on our headlong rush into technology. He explains an array of procedures--including germline engineering and therapeutic cloning--that represent a slippery slope. For although they hold the promise to cure disease, they also offer the option of "improving" or "perfecting" human beings, providing the ability to choose a child's sex, boost intelligence, or implant a predisposition to music. If we're not careful, we could end up engineering our children to the point that they're no longer human, he cautions. Technological advancements are proceeding so rapidly that we will soon need to make decisions about how much technology is enough. McKibben makes genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechology understandable even to those readers who are not techno-savvy, and he makes a strong and compelling case for examining the medical, social, ethical, and philosophical arguments against certain technological advancements that come eerily close to leaving behind humanness and, thus, all the intangible irrationalities that make us who we are. This is a disturbing though ultimately optimistic book that explores the possibility of technology replacing humanity and rouses within us the impulse to declare: enough. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Review
“Bill McKibben has produced a book that is both a sequel and an equal to his brilliant The End of Nature. Enough is an ambitious and important book.” —Los Angeles Times Book Review

“Without question, this is one of the most important books of the year. McKibben deserves to be read, to be discussed, to be heard.” —San Diego Union-Tribune

“[A] brave and luminous book . . . Bill McKibben understands genetics—but he knows poetry, too.” —David Gelernter, Wired

“Bill McKibben has done a top-notch job of researching and writing about one of the most important topics of the current age. Enough is an important book and needs to be read by everyone with an interest in keeping the human future human.” —The Weekly Standard

“Fiercely important . . . the most thought-provoking piece of non-fiction I’ve read in a long time.” —The Globe and Mail (Toronto)

“In this wise, well-researched, and important book, Bill McKibben addresses the burning philosophical question of the new century, and the one that counts for the long haul: how to control the technoscientific juggernaut before it dehumanizes our species.” —E. O. Wilson, author of The Future of Life

“In Enough, McKibben shines his powerful light on another momentous change that is upon us: the ability to re-engineer ourselves and therefore the very meaning of human identity. If he is right, then humankind stands on a moral and existential threshold—or cliff. We would do well as a society to weigh his bracing argument before taking another step.” —Michael Pollan, author of The Botany of Desire
-- Review

Customer Reviews

Not so brave new world
I can't argue the science presented in "Enough" and I do not think that is the point of the book. This is not a scientific treatise or a technical analysis of the subjects raised in the book. Instead, it is a moral tale, not unlike a sermon, and it does not pretend to be something other than that. I found it to be extremely engaging, frightening too. Why not? Not everyone will agree with the points made by Bill McKibben, which is fine. But he deserves much credit for presenting cogently a looming possibility for humanity and discussing it honestly and with foresight. I was fascinated.

Is is "luddite" (if anyone really knows the meaning of that word) to question what the outcome might be of letting the genie out of the bottle? Is it alarmist to suggest that we might need to reconsider the consequences of progress? For most Americans, it seems almost sacriligious to question the infallibility of technology, to say nothing of its ability to constantly improve our lives. But is that necessarily so? Can anyone really say that unleashing the power of the Atom was unequivocally good? Do we really have better lives with nuclear weapons blossoming all over the planet like morning glories? For me, the answer is no, and I applaud the attempt by Bill McKibbon to state his case. Is he absolutely correct, maybe not. Only time will tell. But this is an important book because it poses questions and challenges our thinking on the subject of genertic engineering, nanotechnology and the kind of future we are heading toward. The intensity of the reviews is a testament to that.

There are only a few voices out there discussing the possibilities awaiting us down the road. Enough is well worth reading, it may shake you up, and it will provoke some much needed discussion on these subjects.

Something we all need to think about
Bill McKibben's latest book, "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age," raises some fundamental questions about who we are, what we are, and how we may be affected by the biotechnologies which we already possess and those which are just over the horizon. The author takes us on an expedition into the world of genetic research, nanotechnology and robotics.

This is a passionate book and a disturbing book and one that presents what we in the "argumentation trade" might call a "persuasive" argument, that is, a presentation of facts which are used, not to support a conclusion that may be true or false, but used to support a conclusion promoting a particular policy or course of action.

"Enough" is also a revealing book, a hard and detailed look at our rapid acceleration into technologies which may have permanent and adverse effects on the future of human beings; indeed, these technologies have the potential to affect what it means to be human at all. Because he perceives this to be a threatening situation, McKibben discusses technologies such as germline engineering and therapeutic cloning, warning that they represent a slippery slope that may make more dangerous and harmful technologies possible and even acceptable.

"[I]f we aggressively pursue any or all of several new technologies now before us," the author says, "we may alter our relationship not with the rest of nature but with ourselves. First human genetic engineering and then advanced forms of robotics and nanotechnology will call into question, often quite explicitly, our understanding of what it means to be a human being."

McKibben acquaints us with microscopic nanobots cruising our bloodstreams, attacking pathogens within our bodies and building new cells. And with children born so genetically enhanced that they will never be able to believe that they reached success as musicians or artists or athletes or whatever because there was something unique in them and a hunger to reach the pinnacle of their ability through their own choice and desire.

The author tackles what it means to be human, pointing out how these new technologies threaten our very identity as human beings. "What if we have been programmed," he asks, "or at least must suspect each time we choose a path that we have been nudged in that direction by our engineered cells? Who then 'are we'?"

One of the more interesting arguments that McKibben makes, in my opinion, has to do with the matter of "choice," an issue with which libertarians are always concerned. Libertarian-minded thinkers tend to be among the strongest advocates of modern technologies and tend to believe that the free market will police itself in regard to any dangers which may result from their use.

More often than not, libertarians accuse those who oppose or may merely question the effects of new technologies of being Luddites, a name attributed to that infamous group of early nineteenth century workers who protested against the introduction of new labor-saving technologies in the factories of that period.

But McKibben argues that some of these new biotechnologies are really "anti-choice." He points out that "In widespread use, they will first rob parents of their liberty, and then strip freedom from every generation that follows. In the end, they will destroy forever the very possibility of meaningful choice."

I think that's a point that needs to be thoughtfully and seriously considered, especially by those who are, like I am, more or less on the libertarian side of the socio-political spectrum.

McKibben is not a naive thinker. He realizes that there is no limit to human aspirations or desires. And our ability to discover new scientific facts and to invent new technologies seems unlimited. But can we draw a line and say this far and no further? Can we say, this is enough? The author answers yes, and argues that only by staying human can we find true meaning in our lives. What sets a human being apart from other beings in this world of ours? McKibben argues that it is our power of self-limitation. "We need to do an unlikely thing," he says. "We need to survey the world we now inhabit and proclaim it good. Good enough."

While allowing that many of these new technologies may hold the promise to cure disease and provide other benefits, they also offer problematic choices such as the capacity to choose a child's gender, the power to boost human intelligence and, what may be the nightmare of all nightmares, the option of "improving" or "perfecting" human beings. And, I have always argued and will continue to do so: just because we can do something does not mean it is something we should do or need to do. I find myself having to agree with McKibben when he concludes, "I think the stakes in this argument are absurdly high, nothing less than the meaning of being human. Must we forever grow in reach and power? Or can we, should we, ever say,'Enough'?" Maybe so, maybe in this case, maybe at this time.

This is a book that should be read by everyone who is concerned about the future of the human species.

Enough ..Misinformation about Genetic Reseaarch
I had difficulty taking this book seriously. It seems as though the author has misinterpreted the findings of genetic research. As a result, he doesn't present the whole story. His fears are unfounded. Scientists know full well that life is not governed by genetic specifications. The psychological processes he discusses, such as music ability and intelligence, are influenced by many factors such as upbringing, life experiences, culture, cohort and education. Even in the late seventies, when I went to college, researchers accepted the premise that human traits ..especially psychological ones ..are brought about by the interaction of our genetic nature with our life experiences. Human development is a constant exchange between nature and the socializing influences of family and culture. To think that it is unilaterally determined by genetic makeup is fallacious.