Enough : Genetic Engineering and the End of Human Nature

by Bill McKibben

Sometime in the next few years, scientists may reprogramme a human egg or sperm cell, make a change in the genetic instructions carried by that cell, a change that will be passed on down into eternity. The scientific expertise exists to do this, as does the to erase the chance of inheriting a disease, to improve the intelligence or the stamina or the beauty of a child. On the brink of an era that may be defined by genetic engineering, McKibben should this happen? He argues that genetic engineering and the technologies that lie beyond it will launch us free of our past, of our humanity, of meaning. We are sleepwalking towards a future that will take us far away from all we have Enough is our wake-up call.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Philosophy, Environment, Sociology, Politics, Technology

Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Bill McKibben is the author of Eaarth, The End of Nature, Deep Economy, Enough, Fight Global Warming Now, The Bill McKibben Reader, and numerous other books. He is the founder of the environmental organizations Step It Up and 350.org, and was among the first to warn of the dangers of global warming. In 2010 The Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist," and Time magazine has called him "the world's best green journalist." He studied at Harvard, and started his writing career as a staff writer at The New Yorker. The End of Nature, his first book, was published in 1989 and was regarded as the first book on climate change for a general audience. He is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Orion Magazine, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, Granta, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He has been awarded Guggenheim Fellowship and won the Lannan Prize for nonfiction writing in 2000. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and lives in Vermont with his wife, the writer Sue Halpern, and their daughter.

http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...

Reviews

[Scott Lerch · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gets 3 stars for effort but for the most part McKibben fails miserably at convincing me we need to put restrictions on our technological growth as a human race to somehow preserve our humanity. Most of McKibben's arguments seem to be gut reactions to the ickiness of germline genetic engineering and the horrible inequalities it will produce. Some of that I can definitely agree with, however, to say humans are good enough right now seems ridiculous when we have some many obvious flaws. I'm not saying those flaws should be corrected with genetic engineering but various technologies in general. I think what makes us fundamentally human is our technology. To say stop, no more, is first completely impossible for obvious reasons McKibben isn't willing to admit, and second, totally against our humanity.

It seems McKibben specifically railed on the biological side of the singularity to get that gut reaction from the reader, but he totally missed the importance of AI and nanotech which will probably change us more radically than any genetic engineering. My bet is that genetic engineering will be considered inefficient, imprecise, and obsolete in a few decades.

As I read the book every arguement McKibben presented for the dystopias, why everything today is good enough, and how we could possibly prevent the oncoming technologies, were straw men. I was able to come up with counter arguments in my head immediately which made the book frusterating to read. Either McKibben is stupid or thinks his readers are stupid. There was way too much hand waving and too many fuzzy terms that were not well defined such as natural, human dignity, consciousness, and choice. Terms like that need to be well defined by the author in a book like this, because I bet we'd disagree on what is considered natural or what it means to have free will.

Personally I don't want to reach some stasis with the planet and stay the same for the next few billions year until we all die off from natural causes. Now that's a depressing future more then the dystopias McKibben tries to depict.

[Cheryl]

Interesting. Accessibly and gracefully written. I did deeply skim the whole thing... but I wish I'd read it when published. If I'm actually going to spend more than 1/2 hr on the subject, on an issue that is relevant to technologies that are changing/ growing so very fast, I want it to be something less than 13 yrs old!

(I'll check if the author has anything newer that interests me, and I'll also check TED talks etc.)

[Alisa Kester · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't read past the first few chapters because I kept wanting to disagree with all the author's conclusions. And I wouldn't have minded if we'd just had *different* beliefs, but when it's a problem of him not having basic logic...well...that's just too aggravating even for me!

[Farhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a cautionary book about the exponentially advancing disciplines of genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology that have the potential of bringing about changes at the very core of human physicality and psychology. McKibben takes us on an eye-popping tour of the very frontiers of the cutting edge of science. He tells us that some truly remarkable technological feats might very much take place in our own lifetimes, if not in a a decade or so. He then warns us that not all inventions are good, that not all technological wizardry is benign and benevolent, he wants us to draw a line - he wants us to say 'thanks but no thanks' to the scientists and tell them that we don't want to genetically engineer our children, that we don't want to upload our consciousness into cyberspace, and that we don't want to live forever. He tells us that doing any of the above would rob us of our humanity, and would render us into an altogether different species which maybe technically new and improved, but it wouldn't be us. It would be the ultimate divorce of man from nature.

McKibben is no Luddite, he embraces technology but is fearful of it eroding our fundamental ideas of our humanity. I must admit that I am on the side of those scientists who wish to stop at nothing, who he terms as 'techno-utopians;' those techno enthusiasts who imagine science to accomplish what religion, education, and nurture have not achieved yet: to eradicate all evil from human nature, to provide complete material satisfaction, and to conquer death. But despite differing with him, I enjoyed every page of his eloquent, impassioned book. It forced me to think along lines which were off the beaten mental path for me, and it made me hold in my head ideas that I did not subscribe to. And in doing so, it also provided a very entertaining tour of the latest in science and technology. This is a must read - thoughtful, thought-provoking, poetic, intelligent, informative and a peean to what, in the author's opinion, makes us human.

[Fadillah · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this metaphore, consciousness becomes a more subtle and complicated phenomenon. If we see ourselves as being inexorably driven forward by the irresistible forces of cultural 'evolution,' then consciousness is merely the nifty tool that we've hit on to speed up the process. It allows us to build better stuff and tell each other about it and ratchet everything up another notch. He's got a wheel;
I'm going to get me one too. And mine's going to have a hubcap. But maybe consciousness has another function. Maybe it is the gift - the specialness - that allows us to eventually put a brake on this kind of evolution. To slow ourselves down, to keep ourselves from driving down certain roads. The technologists talk about 'memes,' ideas like 'the wheel' or 'fire' or 'freedom' that spread in the fashion of genes. But the awareness that 'this kind of fire will burn you' is a meme, too; memes can be cautions as well as catalysts. By this light, our gut revulsion at the coming 'enhanced' world is consciousness trying to save itself. As I've tried to show, the advent of these technologies, and this posthuman world, will quickly undermine consciousness. If we turn into engineered automatons, then consciousness as we know it - including the ability to make our own decisions, to say no - will eventually disappear. We will have reduced it to meaninglessness; human consciousness will have committed suicide. But if, on the other hand, our nay-saying ability proves strong enough to help limit our desires, and hence our technologies, consciousness may survive into the deep future. That's the immortality that should interest us, the 'evolutionary goal' we should target.
- Enough : Genetic Engineering and the end of Human Nature by Bill McKibben
.
.
The book was published in 2003, which means that some of the points discussed may be outdated. The initial chapters primarily focus on genetic engineering and nanotechnology, while the later chapters delve into the potential dangers of pursuing technology for its own sake. Throughout the book, the author examines the ethical implications and potential risks linked with genetic engineering and other emerging technologies. The book explores the risks of germ-line engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, and how these advancements may impact the basis of humanity. The author believes that we have the choice to limit our reliance on technology. They argue that human activities have already had a significant and irreversible impact on the environment. While some of McKibben's arguments appear to be based on an instinctive reaction to the unpleasant aspects of germline genetic engineering and the inequalities it may create, there is agreement on the existence of obvious shortcomings in humanity that should be addressed through various technologies, not necessarily limited to genetic engineering. The author suggests that our fundamental humanity lies in our relationship with technology and advocating for a complete halt to technological progress is both impossible and contrary to our nature. The book also emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and addressing the consequences of human actions on the natural world. Despite this, the book oddly argues for restraint in science and technology to preserve our humanity and prevent change, which contradicts the emotional reaction expressed by the author. Additionally, the book raises ethical questions surrounding genetic enhancement, cloning, and nanotechnology. While the book is well-written, it could have potentially been condensed into a lengthy article rather than a full book.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short-sighted, emotional reaction to change

This is an alarmist polemic about the danger that unrestrained growth in germline engineering, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence poses for the human race. Bill McKibben is terrified (the word is not too strong) that science and technology are on the verge of engineering humans out of existence.

I think his fears are justified. However I don't think we should be worried. Unlike McKibben, who seems to view human beings as a fixed endowment (perhaps from a Creator), I think we can view ourselves as ever changing, ever evolving beings, constantly in the process of becoming. I welcome the excitement and prospect of our accelerated evolution. Yes, there are dangers ahead, so it is important to proceed with caution and full deliberation.

The main danger that McKibben presents that I find creditable is that the already wide gap between the haves and have nots of the world will simply get greater and greater until the former will view the latter as something less than human, and the latter will feel demoralized, inferior and without hope. The GenRich will spend their resources on upgrading their genetic stock and especially that of their offspring, while the GenPoor, who will not be able to afford the expensive genetic engineering will, relatively speaking, become less skilled, less talented and presumably a lot less happy. This is a very real danger, and from what I know of humanity, and what I can see in our ghettos and in our suburbs, one not likely to be averted.

But this is the irony of McKibben's argument. He wants to restrain science and technology so that our humanity will not change, so that we will remain as we are. His arguments sadly give the lie to his thesis. He avers that a child that has had its genome altered in some way, perhaps to improve memory or IQ or appearance or even emotional intelligence, is now "a product." He adds, "You [as a parent] can take precisely as much pride in her achievements as you take in the achievements of your dishwashing liquid." (p. 59) I disagree, and I think (and hope) the child would too.

On page 48 he asserts that the faith of a genetically altered "anchorite monk" would be "utterly meaningless" compared to that which "his medieval ancestor inherited by birthright." How could McKibben know this, and would the monk agree with him? Frankly, such assertions are just McKibben's preferences, built into his psyche by his genetic composition, his experience and his education. Are such views somehow lacking in meaningfullness because of that?

The genetically altered child is NOT going to feel like a product, unless he listens to McKibben. The child is still a child, perhaps a beautiful, intelligent and loving child. But McKibben seems to think because someone's genome may be altered they can no longer take pride in themselves. He gives the example earlier in the book of himself and his running. He writes that it is a great source of pride for him to be able to complete a marathon only an hour or so behind the leaders. But he says he would no longer take pride in such an accomplishment had he been engineered for it. But in fact he has been evolutionarily "engineered" for it. Most of us cannot, no matter how hard we try, run a marathon in three, four, five or even ten hours. His ancestors chose (consciously or unconsciously) to mate with genes for running rather than say genes for surviving long winters by burning body fat. By his reasoning, his pride in his running accomplishments should be lessened by the knowledge that he was bred for it to some extent.

"Natural" as seen by McKibben is good; man made or induced is bad. His sense that there is something sacred in sexual reproduction (see p. 12) is shared by many and is understandable. However, the people of the future might feel differently, and I wouldn't be surprised to see in the not too distant future a woman's movement toward relieving themselves of the burden, the pain, the relative immobility, and the danger of pregnancy for something less "natural." Natural is not necessarily better. Would we like to live with all the natural parasites that burdened our ancestors? Are baby bottles and formula to be condemned because they are unnatural? Should a child whose mother had to resort to their use feel less pride in him or herself?

To be fair the changes that we are facing today are greater both in extent and different in kind that we have so far faced. But in principle they are not. We judge from our position of prejudice in what we are now and what we have been, not in what we may be.

There is one other danger that I wish McKibben had focused on, that of making sure our genetic choices are adaptive in the Darwinian sense. (Instead of worrying rhetorically, as he does on page 157, about which frozen wife Robert Ettinger will be married to should they be unfrozen. This sort of journalism I think he should save for a Geraldo TV Special should the opportunity arise.) If we always opt for more happiness and serenity in our lives, we may wake up some day and find that we can no longer cope with the contingencies of the environment. On the other hand if we foolishly cling to an unchanged genome we may find that changing circumstances will leave us far behind. In either case there is the danger of becoming exinct.

We need to educate ourselves to cope with the growing complexity of our culture. That is the answer to the challenge of science and technology, not any neo-Luddite attempt at stuffing the genie back into the bottle.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Bookworm · Rating 1 out of 5]

کتاب رو کامل نخوندم اما مشخصه که کتاب خوبیه حالا بستگی داره با چه انتظاری بخونیدش. با انتظاری که من داشتم اتفاقا کتاب خیلی خوبی بود ولی موضوع ترجمه وحشتناکشه. بهترین جمله این کتاب میتونه این باشه که 《اگر در طول زندگی خود شدیدا ورزش کنید》. یه جوریه انگار یکی که از یه کشور دیگست داره تلاش میکنه بهتون به زبون فارسی از نوع تهرونی چیزی رو بهتون توضیح بده که هیچ تخصصی توش نداره. آفرین. ترجمه این کتاب دقیقا همین شکلیه. حالا تا بمونه ببینم بعدا چی میشه ولی فعلا دراپ میشه

[Liz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a terrific read, very well written.

[William Schram · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enough is a plaintive cry for common sense when it comes to technology. The book is written by Bill McKibben, a man with a prior entry in the literature when he spoke of global warming.

The book is from 2003 and it shows. That isn’t to say that the points it makes are wrong per se, it is just that the author doesn’t know the future all that well. I mean, if this stuff did happen it makes sense that it would be terrifying. McKibben discusses Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology, Robotics, and Artificial Intelligence. Each one takes the idea to the limit with the most horrifying one being Genetic Engineering in my opinion. I mean, designer babies is a scary idea to me. The idea of using Genetic Engineering to cure disease is fine, but the author’s point is to ask where the line is to be drawn.

As I mentioned, the book is from 2003. This makes it interesting to read where people thought we would be at this point in time. The main thing is that even though these things are possible there is a major ethical dilemma to conquer before that.

All the while, the book discusses the words of futurists who hate their own humanity. Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to poop? If there was a fleet of nanomachines that took care of the solid waste and used it for energy to conquer cancer cells and stuff? Futurists are weird people. That is my main takeaway from all of this.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this up because I'd heard Bill McKibben speak and I was impressed by his lovely prose and his humane concern about the economic and technological threats to life as we know it. Everything in Enough is consistent with my first impressions. What I didn't expect was that I'd find his central arguments entirely unpersuasive. It's true that genetic engineering and nanotechnology raise serious questions that are worth our careful attention, and that the explicit goals of those few who hope for a "transhuman" future are alarming. But McKibben apparently thinks that as soon as we cross the line into germline engineering, we will cease to be free, cease to have lives of value, cease to be human. If it were that easy to lose what's important to us, the technologies we already have would have rendered our lives meaningless long ago. There are dangers here, but they will not come that suddenly. (For a vivid fictional depiction of life with neuro/nano implants, see Greg Egan's inventive Quarantine.)

[Debra Daniels-Zeller · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is about nanotechnology, biotechnology, robots and a computer generated future. I picked the book up at the library because I'd never read anything by Bill McKibben, so this was my introduction. I found it a bit heavy with the metaphors and I get all the reasons for being human but Mckibben has overlooked a huge factor in our computer generated future where parents can pick character traits, diseases are cured and robots take care of everything and that is a big gap in incomes. The gap between the people in the top twenty percent of earners and those at the bottom has been steadily growing. Many people simply can't afford healthcare, even with so called "affordable healthcare plans." Many people won't have access to all the new inventions and medical developments. That said, I also got a bit annoyed by his constant stories about himself and his family in this book. I get it--McKibben is a runner, he's in shape, he's got a comfortable income . . . and he wants to stay human. Some people just want to pay the rent.

[M · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I've been on a nonfiction kick of late, I guess because of the AP Language workshop and finding that this is the wave of new literature - ie, not literature. I also have been hunting for diverse and contemporary works to present to my class on the classical topics, so I picked up a few randoms - Enough, I thought, would work nicely with Walden - it's basically one man's rant (this is the danger of non fiction - and speaking of Enough, McKibben ...) against cloning and genetic design and robots. I happen to agree with him, and he is well researched and articulate, but there is only so much you can take of a person's repeated theme and tirade. I definitely plan on taking excerpts as he has an engaging rhetorical style and I think some of his arguments would work well in a classroom, but as a couch read, be prepared to skim a lot, as it gets relentless. This is often why I shy away from NF, but for the worthwhile pieces I suppose it is valuable.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A more lucid and convincing look at the dangers of genetic engineering may exist, but I have to think I’d be hard pressed to find it. In brief, McKibben constructs a damning argument against engineering as the end of what we currently define as “human.” To be human is to experience, question and push the unknown. To be engineered takes that essential, but nebulous, factor out of the human experience. How good of a baseball player can you become? Don’t turn to practice and repetition to find the answer, just look at the spec sheet that accompanied your birth and design. Genetic engineering could well be the defining issue of our age. Along with global warming. And Iraq. And eroding civil liberties. And...

[Kimberly · Rating 3 out of 5]

…the prospect of death can be terrifying. Without it, however, consciousness would carry little meaning; it would have nothing to rub against, it would spin like a tire on ice.
159

“There are a huge number of permutations and combinations of possible rules that societies can establish” [Francis Fukayama] says. They won’t work perfectly – “no regulatory regime is ever fully leakproof” – but then, people still rob banks. The key is to ensure that the robberies don’t happen so often that they make banking impossible.
198

To call the world enough is not to call it perfect or fair or complete or easy. But enough, just enough.
227

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is dated. Any book that deals with a fast changing technology, no more than genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics, is surely going to miss the mark on dates. However, I would say a failing of this book is too much presentation on where we will be by a certain date. In particular, I think this book feels the impacts of genetics, in particular germline engineering, would be much further along by 2022 and therefore the threats the author poses would be further along. Granted, the author does argue in several cases that in the scheme of things, it is not so much the dates that matter but the fact that these changes are coming is the bigger point. Fair enough, but still I feel like the over-presenting dates from various futurist sources makes this book feel old.

The book is divided into 5 chapters. The book begins with a comparison of somatic gene therapy and germline engineering. Somatic gene therapy is used now to help us fight disease, and is much like modern medicine. The ethical argument that is laid out in detail centers on what makes us human. At the end of the chapter, the best summary is that "these new technologies show us that human meaning dangles by a far thinner thread than we had thought". The whole chapter really hinges on a slippery slope argument. Once we start engineering our genes to be smarter, taller, faster, happier, what it means to be human will be slipping away as we become something different.

In addition to genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology also could act in conjunction with genetics to change what it means to be human, or so goes the argument at the beginning of chapter 2. For another fact that has not come to fruition: 100 billion bits of RAM as standard equipment within five years, which would have made it 2008. Not that this is important for the greater trajectory, but I do think that it makes the book seem more alarmist. Robots will be, "by the year 2020 will be pervasive in our lives". Again, off the mark. One idea that I think is interesting is the presentation of assemblers, the mechanical equivalent of germline engineering. An assembler "would be a machine roughly the size of a strand of DNA, able to move individual atoms around and put them precisely where you wanted them". The "dream" of assemblers is that at a molecular level you could engineer virtually anything by putting in raw materials and have the product come out the other end. As the chapter moves along, the author presents some warnings from individuals, such as Bill Joy (Sun Microsystems, UNIX): these new technologies represent a "clear and present danger". Towards the end, a merger of all these technologies, GNR (genetics, nanotechnology, robotics), again threatens our human nature. A scientist with a super-charged brain would no longer yearn for the thrill of learning because it would be too easy. I guess to me I do see the argument on one that could threaten who we are, but I'm not sure that we would not just yearn for higher goals and would not necessarily erode humanness. Sure, comparison between future humans and us would not be fair, but that's not to say that the meaning of happiness would dissolve.

The second half the book wrestles with what is enough, can we decide where the line is to be drawn, and if it is even possible: "we need to decide that we live, most of us in the West, long enough". For example, if we can engineer our minds to not forget, is that something we should even pursue: "perhaps being able to forget is one of the great gifts we've been given, by evolution or by God or by great good luck". Also, is progress causing us to be happier? According to certain polls, a substantial majority of people believe there is a negative correlation between progress and happiness. What if the cause of the negative correlation progress, but the unequal distribution of progress? That is a central tenet of the argument, so if it is matter of unequal distribution, than we need to make sure benefits, including those of GNR, are equally distributed. But the author would probably argue that would not happen, we would end up with GenRich and GenPoor, where GenRich will pay for the enhanced benefits and would move ahead of everyone else.

The other power of Enough is that once we start engineering disease out of our genes, it will be too easy to start augmenting characteristic such as intelligence and other physical characteristics. That assumes that it is easy to figure out more complex characteristics such as intelligence as opposed to say getting rid of cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia. Also, aging: right now we are governed by the "cell clock". Chromosomes end in a region called a telomere, which consists of a number of repeating subunits. Leonard Hayflick compared them to beads on a string -- once you run out of beads, you die. The Hayflick limit, as it is called, is why we don't go beyond 115 or 120 in age. What if we could cause the Hayflick limit to disappear? Could we live longer? Would we live twice as long? Is our meaning, once again the argument for meaning, evaporate because the "prospect of death drives more achievement than it hinders".

At the end of the book, the question of whether enough is possible rests on us choosing to set a limit sooner than later, before it is too late. We have made other choices, such as limiting nuclear warfare by setting up treaties to limit proliferation, we should set-up limits to what sort of genetic engineering and other augmentation to human beings needs to be decided upon. The time table is off in the book, but I think at its core that is more of a distraction. I think while the book is fairly well written, I feel like the book could have been condensed to a long article rather than a whole book.

[Nancy · Rating 5 out of 5]

McKibbem explores the frontiers of genetic engineering, nanotechnolgoy, etc., and identifies some watershed issues that progress is creating. He raises important (and scary) questions about where technolgoy is taking us and what it means to be human, and whether we risk losing that if technology takes us too far -- perhaps where we never intended to go. It's a look at current Frankensteins -- the unintended and irreversible consequences of technology. I wish I'd had a discussion group for this book.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

McKibben has grave concerns about where technology may be leading us. Because human ambition is boundless and because we have the capacity to make life changing technological advances very quickly, he argues that society needs to decide what constitutes "enough" progress in: a.) germ line genetic engineering, b.) robotics and c.) nanotechnology. He is convinced that our lives would become less meaningful and our humanity would be diminished if we fail to set reasonable limits. A thought provoking and very well written book.

[Damien · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting read about the dangers of genetic engineering and nanotechnology if left unchecked. The first few chapters focus on genetic engineering and nanotechnology, the final few chapters focus on some of the inhearent dangers of technology for technology's sake.

I felt that parts of the book were very well done, however I also felt that the overall point was made early in the book and that it could have been a lot shorter without losing its meaning.

[Tomek · Rating 3 out of 5]

McKibben passionately articulates that we may be moving on an unsustainable path of technological advancement that could fundamentally change what it means to be human. My main qualm with this book is that he only focuses on nanotechnology and genetic enhancement: two technologies which are a ways off. Instead, I would like to read more about the development of cheap computers, etc. Which are a bit more relevant now. However, his analysis is spot on and enlightening.

[Curtis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book incredibly educational in teaching me just what is meant by terms like somatic gene therapy, germline genetic engineering, therapeutic cloning, stem cell research, nanotechnology, and others. I also found it a great exercise in pondering what would be lost if we accepted these technologies without limit. Very interesting to hear the future's envisioned by the advocates/engineers of such technologies and how they differ with the future hope found in Christianity.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Troubling, gripping, but ultimately uplifting. A celebration of what it means to be human. Seriously.
I consider myself a relatively well-informed environmentalist, but this book raises all-important issues about which, to my own detriment, I'd barely thought.

[Carolyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I had realized this book was about the dangers of genetic engineering I never would have picked it up but the arguments were clear and can be applied to many other areas in today's world...that we are reaching the point where we need to say "enough."

[Lori · Rating 2 out of 5]

Explores the perils of germ-line engineering, nanotech and robotics -- how it will reduce the "meaning" of what it is to be human. He believes we can choose to limit our use of technology. Interesting, scary, somewhat dull and heavy at times.

[Jessica Zu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very deep reflections on technology and where it is leading us to. I urge everyone, especially people in science, read it carefully! Scientists have social responsibilities as well, we as a society cannot give scientists un-checked power, under the name of progress.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

TSU Library: QH438.7 .M38 2003

[Shannon Reed]

This book is not about what I thought it was going to be about. Yet, I still like it. So far.

[Alex Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Discusses some provocative ideas, mainly the question of if we can do something does that mean we *should* do something, especially in the area of tampering with genetics and computer power.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was written before the current age of technological overabundance. McKibben's words are more true than ever.

[Nicholas · Rating 4 out of 5]

How far will it go? A well-articulated moral analysis of the future of technology.

[Sharon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Challenging read, debating the pros and cons of genetic engineering.