I was recommended this book the other day by a classmate, so I went to the campus bookstore and purchased it.
I don’t say this because I am a transhumanist or anything like that, but while Mckibben is a pretty good author, engaging and humorous, yet erriely somber at the necessary times, the book so far isn’t that convincing. I have not finished it, as I type, I am about half the way through the book, as meager as it is (some 230 pgs), so far it seems to be mostly full of appeals to emotions and one big strawman. (In my imagination, GE can create children that are like robots, obeying parents and not enjoying things like running, so therefore it is bad.)
This is rather disapointing, as I was hoping for a real argument, since he has 650 citations in his notes.
So what are some of your opinions on the book, the style, his abundance/lack of fallacies, or your general thoughts? I would like to keep this in Cafe Society, and not get into the whole Pro/Anti- positions on genetic engineering / robotics / nanotechnology, etc, but just on the arguments in the book, or other opinions on writing style, etc.
So far he seems to be saying that technology is racing towards an unsure future (agree), and in that future, some aspect of who we are is going to be forever altered (agree). In this future, all sorts of bad things will be done to our children and they will no longer aspire to push themselves beyond what they are and they will no longer have what it is to be human. (strongly disagree) He goes on to suggest that because we are flawed, that is what makes us human, and if we take away certain flaws, we lose our humanity (not sure I agree fully), and that we should continue to be flawed, so that we can continue to be human, as if that is more important than not being flawed. (disagree, strongly).
Thoughts? Opinions?