What do you think?
Rate this book
Better than Human The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves by Buchanan, Allen [Oxford University Press,2011]
Better than Human The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves by Buchanan, Allen. Published by Oxford University Press,2011, Hardcover
Unknown Binding
First published September 2, 2011
13 people are currently reading
255 people want to read
About the author
Allen Buchanan
26 books15 followersAllen Edward Buchanan is the James B. Duke Professor of philosophy at Duke University and also professor of the Philosophy of International Law at the Dickson Poon School of Law at King's College, London. He received his PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1975. He taught at the University of Arizona, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and the University of Minnesota before joining Duke's faculty in 2002 as professor of public policy and philosophy. He has written six books covering such topics as Marx, applied ethics (especially bio-medical ethics), social justice, and international justice, including the foundations of international law. Buchanan served as staff philosopher for the President's Commission on Medical Ethics in 1983. From 1996 to 2000 he served on the Advisory Council for the National Human Genome Research Institute. He is a fellow of the Hastings Center, an independent bioethics research institution.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
April 16, 2016
Better Than Human is a slim philosophical volume that lays out Buchanan's positions in favor of human enhancement, and particularly against the arguments of Michael Sandel (next on my reading list). Buchanan takes the line that future biotechnological enhancements to humanity, such as genetic enhancement, expansion of emotional and cognitive capacities by drugs, and cybernetic implants, is not qualitatively different than the traditional ways that humans have enhanced themselves and their environment through technologies like literature and agriculture. This statement is grounding in an idea of evolution as blind and clumsy, and human beings as resilient. There are many areas where evolution has produced "good enough" adaptations, because genotypes are trapped on local peaks of fitness, and any harms that occur after reproduction are not sorted against. The rapid cultural evolution of humans (10,000 years of agriculture, 150 years of industrialization, and now post-industrialism) means that our genetic heritage may not yet be able to reach capabilities within reach of some humans, but out of reach of the species as a whole.
Buchanan takes particular ire at the bad arguments of bioconservatives (Kass, Fukuyama, Sandel), in particular for a weak understanding of the facts of evolution and biology, for assuming that an eternal "human nature" exactly matches early 21st century Republican positions on the family and bioethics, and for raising issues of concern that do not rise to the level of a persuasive argument. Buchanan acknowledges that no development is risk free, but that a conscious choice to engage with the complexities of enhancement technologies and their public risks and benefits is likelier to produce positive outcomes than the existing system, which allows access only through the creation of new diseases, and may be most aggressively pursued by countries with weak ethical governance regimes.
In full candor, I'm personally aligned with Buchanan's position. I agree with his counter to the bioconservatives, but I'm not sure that his version of evolution and the "good" of enhancing human capacities is any less of a "just-so" story than what he argues against.
Buchanan takes particular ire at the bad arguments of bioconservatives (Kass, Fukuyama, Sandel), in particular for a weak understanding of the facts of evolution and biology, for assuming that an eternal "human nature" exactly matches early 21st century Republican positions on the family and bioethics, and for raising issues of concern that do not rise to the level of a persuasive argument. Buchanan acknowledges that no development is risk free, but that a conscious choice to engage with the complexities of enhancement technologies and their public risks and benefits is likelier to produce positive outcomes than the existing system, which allows access only through the creation of new diseases, and may be most aggressively pursued by countries with weak ethical governance regimes.
In full candor, I'm personally aligned with Buchanan's position. I agree with his counter to the bioconservatives, but I'm not sure that his version of evolution and the "good" of enhancing human capacities is any less of a "just-so" story than what he argues against.
Read
June 21, 2017Whilst I'm a pro-aug myself, I also happened to be very diplomatic in nature and hence the whole biased approach of the book didn't appeal to me all that much. I was hoping to see both sides of the story and make a decision for myself, but obviously the book is in favor of augmentation. In saying that, Buchanan does present some strong and well researched facts to tip in his favor. Highly recommended for all Deus Ex fans.
October 22, 2012
The whole condescending tone of "Oh I'm not saying I know better [but I know better]" is a huge turn off and I can't take any argument of his seriously. As someone who is undecided about the subject...mmmmmph. -.-
May 23, 2020
Brilliantly Clear and accessible, this eye-opening analysis of biotechnology is a must-read for anyone interested in learning more about the biotechnological revolution and the moral dilemmas surrounding it.
October 2, 2012
I agree with him. But his writing style comes off as a little arrogant.
May 13, 2016
There are a few things I disagree about here but overall this is better than Michael Sandel's drivel for example.
February 13, 2019
Many of the ideas which Buchanan illustrates using reasonable examples are compelling. Sometimes, however, the author becomes as shrill as those arguing against enhancement who have no good examples. It is probably reasonable to assume in the near term that those who argue from stances of subjective "concerns" (p. 160) will consider themselves equivalent to those who argue from stances of objective "conclusions," just as many of those same people argue that all theories, be they scientific or pontific, deserve equal weight and time in public elementary school. Until humans shed religious Opinions and embrace scientific Points of View, no amount of enhancement will make humans any better at all. So long as humans stay stuck in the mindset of "pre-Darwinian" thought (158, 184, 193, et. al.), already an 1800-year epoch, genetic science will still struggle to achieve mastery of the thoughtful mind, even 200 years after Mendel's The Genetic Law of Nature was published. Pre-Mendelian, anachronistic thought has been a sticky residue for quite long enough. Buchanan argues, in my estimation, that we need to quickly convert the saps into amber, drop the bits in a museum, and move forward with our transformation now, before corporations (which are already enhancing humans) own all of our sound, democratic choices (2016 notwithstanding) on the subject of enhancement before we have the chance to make them.
July 26, 2024
I když si autor hned v úvodu dává za cíl razit zlatou střední cestu, v knize se téměř výhradně snaží vyvrátit konzervativní pozici, což není s podivem, tahle pozice je v populaci nepochybně zastoupena většinově a je i hlasitější. Kniha tedy poslouží spíše těm, kteří hledají správné argumenty v boji proti extrémně konzervativnímu přístupu, tedy názoru úplného zákazu záměrných genetických modifikací.
Já osobně souhlasím s autorem v tom, že je obtížné dojít vůbec k nějaké plodné debatě na dané téma, když má problém i spousty "odborníků" pochopit správně evoluční teorii, načež se nebrání všemožně překrucovat pojem "přirozený", do polohy, která je jim nejvíce vhod. V tomhle je před námi, všem popularizačním snahám navzdory, ještě kus práce. Pak tedy nezbyde než doufat, že tahle kniha, psaná s ohledem na neodbornému čtenáře, pomůže svou trochou přispět k nápravě.
Já osobně souhlasím s autorem v tom, že je obtížné dojít vůbec k nějaké plodné debatě na dané téma, když má problém i spousty "odborníků" pochopit správně evoluční teorii, načež se nebrání všemožně překrucovat pojem "přirozený", do polohy, která je jim nejvíce vhod. V tomhle je před námi, všem popularizačním snahám navzdory, ještě kus práce. Pak tedy nezbyde než doufat, že tahle kniha, psaná s ohledem na neodbornému čtenáře, pomůže svou trochou přispět k nápravě.
November 26, 2017
A thoughtful approach to the ethics of biomedical enhancement.
July 21, 2021
Appropriate for a general audience. Did not find particularly compelling though.
August 3, 2024
Outstanding! A must read by all in the medical professions and in the emerging biotech world.
July 15, 2016
He made a pretty good case for allowing enhancements to humans (either genetically or chemically). I would say we need to go much more slowly than he thinks though.
The strongest point of his argument to me was that unintentional gene modifications (UGM)essentially were not as effective as they could be if we managed them (IGM -intentional gene modification). Why not fix obvious problems? Evolution may work but it is not the most efficient way to get to the most adaptable beings for our current conditions (see page 30 for some of the best examples).
Where I differ with him is when he gets to the precautionary principle (page 90). He seems to say that the problem is that we only consider the down side and not the upside if we use the precautionary principle. His example of not using a technology to fix global warming due to a slight risk is problematic in that he sets up the question only as using the technology is the only solution. I think there may be other solutions besides technology, especially when risks are unknown. So we might tweak a gene to fix cancer rather than eliminating the cancer causing element from our environment. So while I think it is ok to look at fixing things through gene modification, it should be done very slowly. He seems to down play the problems that technology has created. I think Einstein said something like we don't fix our current problems by doing more of what got us into trouble in the first place.
I found the section on 120 about why governments will help make enhancements somewhat horrifying. Essentially governments will work to ensure enhancements are available to increase economic activity and growth and thus increase their own power. This seems a poor reason to push enhancements, although it may be a realistic view. Maybe we can modify genes so that we aren't so hooked up on competition and being greedy...
I think while he raises some good issues about fairness of distribution, I don't think there is a good way to ensure that it will happen. They other thing I think he totally ignores is who gets to decide what is and enhancement and what is not? Is a gene for homosexuality something to keep or eliminate? Is skin color something we would change? Who decides what is good and what is bad?
Technology has unintended consequences which means we need to move very slowly. A good example would be how ultrasound has been used in some countries (despite laws against it) to select for boys instead of girls. Good technology for mother/baby health, but certainly it is being used for something other than what it was developed. I guess in the end we are forced to hope people make good choices, but given humanities track record, it is not encouraging.
The strongest point of his argument to me was that unintentional gene modifications (UGM)essentially were not as effective as they could be if we managed them (IGM -intentional gene modification). Why not fix obvious problems? Evolution may work but it is not the most efficient way to get to the most adaptable beings for our current conditions (see page 30 for some of the best examples).
Where I differ with him is when he gets to the precautionary principle (page 90). He seems to say that the problem is that we only consider the down side and not the upside if we use the precautionary principle. His example of not using a technology to fix global warming due to a slight risk is problematic in that he sets up the question only as using the technology is the only solution. I think there may be other solutions besides technology, especially when risks are unknown. So we might tweak a gene to fix cancer rather than eliminating the cancer causing element from our environment. So while I think it is ok to look at fixing things through gene modification, it should be done very slowly. He seems to down play the problems that technology has created. I think Einstein said something like we don't fix our current problems by doing more of what got us into trouble in the first place.
I found the section on 120 about why governments will help make enhancements somewhat horrifying. Essentially governments will work to ensure enhancements are available to increase economic activity and growth and thus increase their own power. This seems a poor reason to push enhancements, although it may be a realistic view. Maybe we can modify genes so that we aren't so hooked up on competition and being greedy...
I think while he raises some good issues about fairness of distribution, I don't think there is a good way to ensure that it will happen. They other thing I think he totally ignores is who gets to decide what is and enhancement and what is not? Is a gene for homosexuality something to keep or eliminate? Is skin color something we would change? Who decides what is good and what is bad?
Technology has unintended consequences which means we need to move very slowly. A good example would be how ultrasound has been used in some countries (despite laws against it) to select for boys instead of girls. Good technology for mother/baby health, but certainly it is being used for something other than what it was developed. I guess in the end we are forced to hope people make good choices, but given humanities track record, it is not encouraging.
January 25, 2013
This pocket-sized book has a fair amount of content thanks to an unusually small font size – and the subject is one that is quite topical when this review was written given the furore over the cyclist Lance Armstrong’s use of performance enhancing drugs. Allen Buchanan takes on the whole subject of human beings enhancing ourselves.
It’s an interesting book that makes quite strong arguments that augmentation, both through use of drugs and genetic modification, is going to happen whether we like it or not, and shows how many of the arguments against such an approach are based on poor reasoning. Buchanan recognizes the issues and the ways this will cause problems, but equally dismisses many of the arguments against doing so. He also points out that the use of drugs in sport is actually a bad example (sorry), as in most circumstances we aren’t playing games and we aren’t in a zero sum competition. If one person is enhanced it has the potential to benefit the rest of us, rather than being a threat.
There are some quite serious issues. Early on, Buchanan rather condescendingly points out that this is the simplified version and he has a serious book on the topic for academics. That puts us in our place. But more to the point, I am not sure he has managed to leave behind his academic approach, making the book a little stilted sometimes and too focused on shooting down various academic arguments.
I was also quite disappointed that unlike my own Upgrade Me, he makes no mention of anything other than biological enhancements, where many of the most important ones are non-biological. Take two simple ones. If I hit someone with a stone in my fist, I enhance my ability to hurt them beyond human. If I use a water bottle when crossing a desert I am enhanced in my ability to survive. It is very arbitrary to limit yourself to drug and genetic modification.
In some ways, then, a frustrating book – but nonetheless a very useful guide to the arguments for anyone worried about anything from drugs in sport to those who want to enhance their intellectual ability.
Review first published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission
It’s an interesting book that makes quite strong arguments that augmentation, both through use of drugs and genetic modification, is going to happen whether we like it or not, and shows how many of the arguments against such an approach are based on poor reasoning. Buchanan recognizes the issues and the ways this will cause problems, but equally dismisses many of the arguments against doing so. He also points out that the use of drugs in sport is actually a bad example (sorry), as in most circumstances we aren’t playing games and we aren’t in a zero sum competition. If one person is enhanced it has the potential to benefit the rest of us, rather than being a threat.
There are some quite serious issues. Early on, Buchanan rather condescendingly points out that this is the simplified version and he has a serious book on the topic for academics. That puts us in our place. But more to the point, I am not sure he has managed to leave behind his academic approach, making the book a little stilted sometimes and too focused on shooting down various academic arguments.
I was also quite disappointed that unlike my own Upgrade Me, he makes no mention of anything other than biological enhancements, where many of the most important ones are non-biological. Take two simple ones. If I hit someone with a stone in my fist, I enhance my ability to hurt them beyond human. If I use a water bottle when crossing a desert I am enhanced in my ability to survive. It is very arbitrary to limit yourself to drug and genetic modification.
In some ways, then, a frustrating book – but nonetheless a very useful guide to the arguments for anyone worried about anything from drugs in sport to those who want to enhance their intellectual ability.
Review first published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission
Read
December 7, 2011I ended up dropping this book a little more than half way through because it was a bit over my head (I am not a medical student) and I need to focus my reading on material related to my studies. I will, however, recommend this as an excellent book to anyone interested in bioethics. I simply picked up this book because the title caught my appetite for a new, invigorating read.
Allen Buchanan is a vigorous author as one can see by his publications. His writing style seems to portray a lively and fervent personality. This book is also for anyone who hasn't been fond of the Bush administration as Buchanan spends a good portion of this book ripping the organization to shreds. If you are a liberal minded person with interest in things like cloning and biomedical enhancements, this book is for you. If you are conservative, "Beyond Human" places a bold challenge of views on the table.
Allen Buchanan is a vigorous author as one can see by his publications. His writing style seems to portray a lively and fervent personality. This book is also for anyone who hasn't been fond of the Bush administration as Buchanan spends a good portion of this book ripping the organization to shreds. If you are a liberal minded person with interest in things like cloning and biomedical enhancements, this book is for you. If you are conservative, "Beyond Human" places a bold challenge of views on the table.
June 18, 2013
The best book on human enhancement yet. Read in combination with Wright's book, "The Moral Animal" I've been able to "enhance" my own ability to reason responsibly in regards to this very complex topic. Do yourself a favor and read Buchanan's book. Biotechnology will radically transform our lives. It's a very sticky issue (right up there with gay marriage and abortion), and if you don't decide where you stand on the issue, someone else will for you.
December 16, 2015
solid first half with some good arguments in favor of bioenhancement. gets bogged down in latter half though--I feel like he spends to much time refuting arguments from specific authors, and it gets repetitive/boring.
November 25, 2018
First-rate book on the topic of enhancement. Probably the best one around. Haven't yet read the longer, more scholarly Beyond Humanity?
December 30, 2013
A balanced and in-depth look at the possibilities, dangers, and above all the ethical questions surrounding bio-medical enhancements.
March 21, 2015
Buchanan made some very convincing arguments, but his writing style was so arrogant I disliked reading this book.
October 8, 2015
Interesting insight in biomedical enhancement, but I really didn't like his rhetoric. Overly egotistic and persuasive tone.
July 11, 2021
I thought this book was very interesting and definitely opened my mind to other viewpoints on controversial philosophical topics.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews