Widok Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future in contemporary science and popular science PK XIV/2 2012

Pełen tekst

(1)Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis No 3426. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2 Wrocław 2012. Krzysztof Solarewicz University of Wrocław. Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future in contemporary science and popular science. Science fiction is often described, and even defined, as extrapolative. The science fiction writer is supposed to take a trend or phenomenon of the here-and-now, purify and intensify it for dramatic effect and extend it into the future. “If this goes on, this is what will happen.” A prediction is made. Method and results much resemble those of a scientist who feeds large doses of a purified and concentrated food additive to mice in order to predict what may happen to people who eat it in small quantities for a long time. The outcome seems almost inevitably to be cancer. So does the outcome of extrapolation. Strictly extrapolative works of science fiction generally arrive about the Club of Rome arrives: somewhere between the gradual extinction of human liberty and the total extinction of terrestrial life1.. Thus Ursula Le Guin, a writer characterised – as befits Alfred Louis Kroeber’s daughter – by great anthropological perceptiveness, spoke against the idea of discussing the future of humanity using science fiction works2. Specifically, she pointed to the crucial inaccuracy of those science fiction works that extrapolate contemporary trends. It seems sensible to extend this thesis to scientific texts trying to predict the future; the power of Le Guin’s criticism would in this case be directly proportional to the reductive nature of such works. At the same time, it creates situation for scholars who focus in their studies on fears associated with cultural consequences of progress in biotechnology, fears expressed in scientific papers as well as popular science and science fiction works. The following article is an attempt at tackling the issue of the visions of possible threats to the human world, stemming from progress in biotechnology as well as an attempt at locating the notion of human nature in this problematic context. However, in the light of Le Guin’s objections, this requires first of all a justification of the usefulness of extrapolations included in scientific publications such 1 . U. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness, New York 1977, p. 4. In my article I use the terms “science fiction” and “SF” interchangeably owing to the multiplicity of artistic forms and in accordance with the currently accepted terminology. 2 . Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 1. 2014-06-26 08:48:42.

(2) 2. Krzysztof Solarewicz. as Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama and The Case against Perfection by Michael Sandel, as well as works of fiction, for example, Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca. An important view on this problem has been expressed by the renowned science fiction scholar Darko Suvin3, who, importantly, agrees with the author of The Left Hand of Darkness. He starts from a conviction that is almost identical to hers – extrapolative SF “does not work” and this is not where the sense of the genre lies. According to him, fiction cannot pronounce the viability of a hypothesis in the light of science, it can only accept it (for instance cloning) as given and consider its consequences with regard to collectives and individuals4. Still agreeing with Le Guin, he calls for the application of an “experimental method”, on which he comments differently, however. In Suvin’s view, we should introduce a variable (technological or other kind of change) into society (such as it is now) and draw conclusions5. It seems that the conclusion can be as follows: the power of extrapolation lies not so much in the possibility of predictions coming true, that is specific technologies or their specific consequences for humanity materialising, but in a new look at the significance of contemporary phenomena. Projected into the future, they expose a network of phenomena related to them – including those from the sphere of culture. Questions about the meaning of God and man, the body, mind and will, reshuffles in the hierarchy of values – these are just some of the culture studies themes characteristic of futurologist works, irrespective of how scientific, fictional or right their predictions are. What extrapolations have in common is a kind of exaggeration in the strength of their conclusions, to some extent also scientific unverifiability of their fundamental premises. This, however, does not prevent us from regarding these visions of the future as contributing to the reflection of the cultural significance of contemporary phenomena. Their attractiveness, in fact, lies in the fact that they do not care much about the lack of justification and risky nature of statements that they formulate, which makes them different from the products of other forms of reflection. It seems that what is more important than the accuracy of prediction concerning commonly proclaimed (heralded?) “biotechnological revolution”6 is what culturally important consequences of this revolution they show, which in itself provides an insight into current axiological discussions. 3 D. Suvin, “Science fiction parables of mutation and cloning as/and cognition”, [in:] Biotechnological and Medical Themes in Science Fiction, ed. D. Pastourmatzi, Saloniki 2002. 4 Ibidem, p. 143. 5 Ibidem. 6 Classic works dealing with an upcoming “age of biotechnology” or “biotechnological revolution” include those by one of the first critics of this revolution, Jeremy Rifkin: The Biotech Century (1998) and a book written over twenty years earlier, Who Should Play God? (1977).. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 2. 2014-06-26 08:48:42.

(3) . Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future. 3. The basis of this analysis are – mainly American – academic bioethics textbooks, scientific and popular publications as well as press articles and broadly defined SF texts (literature, film, comic books, computer games). It even seems obvious that most of these texts show, to a greater or lesser extent, the possible threats resulting from the progress in biological sciences in general and biotechnology in particular. However, what is really striking in these works is the impression or sometimes directly expressed fear that the ultimate threat lies in a loss – partial or complete – of the “human nature”. That is why my intention is to confirm that the notion of human nature is indeed behind the fears concerning human-oriented biotechnology. The aim of the article is also to try to place the concept of human nature – which, after all, has a tradition going back two-anda-half thousand years – within the context of contemporary bioethical and, more broadly, biotechnological-cultural debate.. Scope of analysis It is worth starting from establishing the cognitive horizon, which, on the one hand, is what the texts mentioned above have in common, and on the other, limits the subject of consequences of biotechnology to cultural matters – and not economic, social or medical matters. According to the UN Convention, biotechnology “means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use”7. The scope of my interest is defined by Paul and Joyce Schoemaker’s conclusions8. Firstly, the definition of biotechnology has been extended to include “biosciences” which also deal with pharmacological substances such as Ritalin and Prozac. However, the scope has been limited to such implementations of biosciences that concern the direct interference in humans – in their bodies, psyche and intellect. Finally, the examples given in this article focus on the topic that facilitates extrapolation, because only to a limited degree is it in the stage of implementation called human enhancement. This concept usually denotes techniques, resulting from developments in biosciences and being used to treat various illnesses, to enhance (or change) human features and capabilities. The examples quoted here constitute just a modest selection dealing with the complex field of human enhancement. What distinguishes its more detailed questions is the nature of the discourse, scope of impact and degree of actual occurrence, but what all of them have in common is a reference to human nature – defined in a variety of ways and defended in the name of various causes. 7 The Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 2. Use of Terms), United Nations 1992, http://www.cbd.int/convention/text (access: November 2011). 8 See P. and J. Schoemaker, Chips, Clones, and Living Beyond 100, FT Press 2009.. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 3. 2014-06-26 08:48:42.

(4) 4. Krzysztof Solarewicz. Hormonal therapy and the “ethic of giftedness” First let us consider the example of somatotropin (rhGH), a modern version of the human growth hormone (GH/HGH) generated in the process of DNA recombination. It is a prescription only drug, administered mainly to children suffering from the deficit of that hormone (GH-deficient), and those affected by ISS (idiopathic short stature), i.e. extremely short for unknown reasons. Unofficially, American doctors receive regular visits from parents ready to pay large amounts of money (around USD 13,000 per centimetre of growth) for the hormone so that their short though completely normal children could have “better chances” against their peers9. Somatotropin has been administered since the second half of the 1950s, so ethical discussions concerning the issue have been going on for over half a century. Most papers examine contemporary controversies over such issues as the real effectiveness of rhGH, possible side-effects, correct definition of “extremely short” people as well as the benefit-loss ratio in the treatment of children with and without GH deficiency. What is striking here, however, is the often extrapolated issue of the norm. “Normal” means physiologically correct, not “average”, “common” or “conventional”. The World Health Organisation defines health as not merely absence of disease, but a complete state of mental, physical and social well-being. Moral objections to growth promoting treatment may be based on the view that the aim of treatment is to enhance normal physical characteristics10.. This brief fragment tells us only that moral doubts may be associated with a change of the height norm as such. What doubts can be formulated with respect to the notion of the norm, regardless of issues like lack of proved benefits resulting form rhGH-induced height changes in comparison with children remaining within the norm, or with respect to the possibility of short people being regarded as having lower status in the case of mass medicalisation of society? The Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel in The Case against Perfection11 combines an analysis of contemporary American trends and prospects of biotechnology. He points to the popularity of rhGH – authorised for application in the case of very short but healthy children (40% of all prescriptions in 2003) – and sees it as a symptom of upcoming changes. To illustrate a possible threat, Sandel uses the example of the American problem of hyperparenting12. This term refers to parents who from an early age direct 9 See R.K. Parikh, Growth hormones for kids, 30 October 2008, http://www.salon. com/2008/10/31/growth_hormones_kids (access: November 2011). 10 C. Kelnar, “Cost-benefit analysis is the key”, Arch Dis Child 2000, no. 2 (83), p. 176, http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1718444/pdf/v083p00176.pdf (access: February 2012). 11 See M. Sandel, The Case against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, Cambridge-London 2007. 12 See ibidem, pp. 52-62.. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 4. 2014-06-26 08:48:42.

(5) Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future. 5. their children towards specific skills – sporting, artistic or intellectual skills – focusing on perfection and success and disregarding costs. In the context of already existing possibilities of increasing the child’s height and choosing its sex as well as predicted possibilities of gene therapies increasing the muscle mass and intellectual abilities, Sandel puts forward a number of interesting observations. Firstly, in his opinion genetic interference is yet another – admittedly mind-boggling – way to “create” a child in accordance with parental ideas and desires. For the author of The Case against Perfection, creating instead of upbringing children leads to an imbalance between development and “being”, which is to be supported by genetic engineering. Search for perfection is understood as this imbalance leading to the parents’ and child’s lives being focused on objectives to be achieved and tasks to be performed. Consequently, the value of human life is placed in its achievements, and this threatens the acceptance of the values of being itself, of being here-and-now. The striving for perfection results in the shifting of the “centre” of humanity to dangerous regions, dangerous because they are pragmatic and conducive to domestic tyranny (any tyranny). Sandel juxtaposes this tendency to assume an attitude of “perfection and domination” with the “ethic of giftedness”. To acknowledge the giftedness of life is to recognize that our talents and powers are not wholly our own doing, not even fully ours, despite the efforts we expend to develop and to exercise them. It is also to recognize that not everything in the world is open to any use we may desire or devise. An appreciation of the giftedness of life constrains the Promethean project and conduces to a certain humility. It is, in part, a religious sensibility. But its resonance reaches beyond religion13.. This humility towards fate (or God, nature) is in The Case against Perfection a source of empathy and subjective treatment of other human beings. Considering the argument included in Jürgen Habermas’ The Future of Human Nature, Sandel defends the thesis that fate and value of freedom are inextricably linked14. He also supports the opinion advocated by the German philosopher, who, in regarding genetic enhancement of children as unethical, points to the connection between the contingency of life (and birth) and freedom to give this life an ethical value. Sandel continues this thought in the following manner: the experience of freedom is influenced by constant references to what is beyond human control, to the given. Thus interference in birth itself limits our experience of freedom, it introduces, at least partially, the parents’ will and plans in lieu of fate. Sandel’s main argument is as follows: the experience of fate (what is given; what is beyond human control), struggling against it, giving in to it is a natural state for a human being, it is thus a natural source of humanity. Persistent efforts to limit what fate brings with it – unlike the efforts to overcome it – may deprive us of an ability to feel empathy and acknowledge the subjectivity of others and, 13 14 . Ibidem, p. 27. See ibidem, pp. 80-83.. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 5. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(6) 6. Krzysztof Solarewicz. consequently, may also threaten our freedom. Firstly, it is freedom understood negatively – i.e. freedom from genetic determinants resulting from the will of, for example, parents. Secondly, the restriction of the influence of fate may threaten positive freedom, i.e. freedom to choose one’s path – ethical, social or professional.. Doping, genetic doping and “spirit of sport” The controversy surrounding the use of somatotropin leads to reflections on the significance of doping. Side-effects of the application of rhGH include quicker recovery and muscle mass increase – rhGH is regarded as one of the most effective anabolic steroids (speeding up the growth of specific tissues). Until the early 21st century there was no possibility of distinguishing between natural and artificial GH. Therefore, this type of doping was used by athletes for many years and hence its prominent place in the doping debate. Why is the use of rhGH – and, more broadly speaking, doping – in sports considered unethical? The answer refers to at least three aspects – I am using here the categories proposed by Thomas H. Murray from the Hastings Center15. Firstly, given the significance of rules, doping is a kind of technological innovation and as such should be available to all competitors. An introduction of any innovation into a given sports discipline requires a comprehensive change in the existing rules. It prevents imbalance caused by wealth (for example specification of the minimum weight of the bicycle during Tour de France, since bicycles are made of ever lighter, state-of-the-art materials) and ensures safety for competitors (a “radical” restriction of the number of parts in order to make the bicycle as light as possible would increase the risk of breakdowns). Secondly, doping leads to a kind of “arms race”. Most performance enhancing drugs used today have been tested for their possible side-effects. Yet in order to achieve maximum results, doping is used in a variety of configurations and doses; its new forms continue to emerge and their side-effects have not been tested in practice yet. If performance enhancing drugs were to be declared legal, all professional athletes would be under pressure of using increasingly sophisticated combinations and increasingly large doses to maintain their position. This could pose a serious risk to their health. Thirdly, doping is contrasted with other methods of improving natural talent – training, commitment, tactics and strategy, indicated as praiseworthy. However, 15 T.H. Murray, “Sports enhancement”, [in:] From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, ed. M. Crowley, Garrison, New York 2008, pp. 153-158, http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/Briefing- Book/Detail.aspx?id=2206 (access: February 2012).. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 6. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(7) Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future. 7. natural talent, genetic make-up in sports and in all other areas are not evenly distributed among people; performance enhancing drugs may, to some extent, eliminate these inherent inequalities. That is why the inadmissibility of doping as a means of creating a level playing field when it comes to physical capabilities is commented on as a sign of discrimination. This contradiction, though not only it (vide the example of carbon fibre prostheses and the career of Oscar Pistorius), leads to the following question: “What do we value in sport?”16. Let us return to the growth hormone example. A reply that juxtaposes the taking of rhGH with the above-mentioned “worthy” methods concerns the process of improvement. Though anabolic steroids do not work on their own, they do enhance the effects of training. We are dealing here with disproportion between the effort, time and energy and the results; this disproportion belittles sporting achievements, it deprives them of their value. There is a similar problem of gene doping. According to the World Anti-Doping Agency, this is “the non-therapeutic use of genes, genetic elements and/or cells that have the capacity to enhance athletic performance”17. Gene doping has been illegal since 2003, though its use is, in fact, a matter of the future; the first type of gene therapy included in the performance enhancing drugs list is Repoxygen (used to treat anaemia, for it increases the production of red blood cells and thus the delivery of oxygen to the lungs). In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs carried out relevant studies in 2004. In a subsequent report, in view of the potential undetectability of gene therapy, the authors expressed the following opinion: The arguments against doping in the “old” (chemical) sense might all come in here with extra force. These arguments are that doping makes competition dubious and unreliable, because the test of relative inequalities based on one’s own individual bodily efforts, talents and character is perverted. “Tailor-made” substances and methods might help the individual athletes to make the best of their abilities, but it will make sport as an essentially social and collective practice uninteresting and even no longer human-like, in the sense that people might no longer be able to identify with the human characteristics and actions of athletes and their performances, but will come to see them as manufactured “products of science”18.. When it comes to practice, the “old” doping is not fundamentally different from gene doping: it maximises the capabilities of the body, it is potentially dangerous and today can be detected. What is associated with gene doping is the fear that athletes and, consequently, sport itself will be “dehumanised”. This happens not only because of the disproportion between the effort and the results; the human 16 . Ibidem. K. Krych, A. Goździcka-Józefiak, “Doping in sport — new developments”, Human Movement 2008, no. 1 (9), p. 62, http://versita.metapress.com/content/b13g60325r532271/fulltext.pdf (access: February 2012). 18 H.J. Haisma, Gene Doping, Capelle aan den IJssel 2004, http://www.genedoping.com/docs/ Gene%20Doping.pdf (access: February 2012). 17 . Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 7. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(8) 8. Krzysztof Solarewicz. dimension of sport is transgressed as natural inequalities are eliminated. “Athletes are not born equal” – it is no coincidence that the famous statement by the runner Sir Roger Bannister was included in the Dutch publication quoted here. What is regarded as worrying ethical consequence of the elimination of natural differences is the violation of the “spirit of sport”, linked to “a rather miscellaneous set of values such as ethics, fair play, honesty, health, fun and joy and respect for rules”19.. Gattaca — “There is no gene for human spirit”20 Gattaca, a film by Andrew Niccol, has become a point of reference both for modern literature devoted to the links between science fiction and technology, and for literature devoted to predictable consequences of the biotechnological revolution21. This state of affairs can be explained only partially by the accessibility of this big-budget, mainstream American production. Gattaca transfers us into a “not too distant future”, in which genetic engineering is highly developed. In vitro fertilisation becomes the norm; human embryos undergo a series of genetic modifications – from eliminating congenital genetic defects to eliminating inclinations to alcoholism and violence. The social structure presented in the film is very polarised – it comprises genetically perfect or near perfect Valids, and In-Valids, conceived by chance. Niccol’s film, given its representation of a vision of society based on genetic discrimination, called “genoism”, is often, and for various purposes, referred to in scientific literature22. The film is a story of Vincent, conceived naturally and, at the request of his mother, genetically unmodified. Called “womb”, “faith child”, “In-valid” by his school mates, treated by society and his own family as seriously ill, Vincent decides – in spite of all this – to become an astronaut. The eponymous “Gattaca”, a corporation which organises space missions and which is named after the nitrogenous bases making up DNA, accepts only the most perfect of the Valids. The protagonist, therefore, secretly assumes the identity of one of them and as Jerome Eugene Marrow, who in reality is a paralysed former Olympic swimmer, easily becomes selected as a navigator of an upcoming spaceflight. On several occasions 19 . Ibidem, p. 14. advertising the film. 21 For example, D.A. Kirby, “New Eugenics in Cinema”, Science Fiction Studies 2000, no. 27, part 2, http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/essays/gattaca.htm (access: February 2012); L.M. Silver, “Genetics Goes to Hollywood”, Nature Genetics 1997, no. 17, pp. 260-261, http://www.nature.com/ng/ journal/ v17/n3/pdf/ng1197-260.pdf (access: February 2012). 22 See D. Dinello, Technophobia! Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology, Austin 2005, p. 195. 20 A slogan. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 8. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(9) Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future. 9. he manages to avoid exposure and following a confrontation with his Valid brother, who works as a detective, he manages to achieve his goal. This brief summary of the plot of Gattaca is enough to show that the problems tackled in the film combine a number of elements appearing in discussions concerning the growth hormone and doping. The mother’s protest against Vincent becoming “improved” – which includes elimination of diseases – means supporting the ethic of giftedness and opposing the transformation of the child into an object that is to fulfil collective or individual ambitions. In addition, Vincent’s fight against genetic social stratification is made legitimate by years of education and exercise, while the Valids need only to maintain the physical, psychological and mental level which eugenics gave them. There is a significant exchange between the Investigator in charge of the investigation on the corporation’s premises and the Mission Director: – Yet you still constantly monitor performance [of the Valids – K.S.] – We have to ensure that people are meeting their potential. – Not exceeding it? – No one exceeds his potential23.. Vincent takes part in a mission to Titan, because he effectively cheats the system. Yet his success has its roots in his love for astronautics, and, as a result, it is his commitment and effort “exceeding” his potential that make him worthy of victory. This leads to another example of confrontation between human nature and human enhancement biotechnology. Jerome, the “donor” of Vincent’s identity, is paralysed as a result of a suicide attempt. He is one of the Valids, also referred to as “vitro” or “made-man”, and carries just one burden – his own perfection. Genetically destined for victory, he kept winning “only” silver medals. The horizon of Jerome’s possibilities is limited by the society-sanctioned idea that genes translate directly into success, an attitude that causes his growing frustration, suicide attempt and loss of the will to live. In contrast, Vincent is portrayed as a man willing to fight and make sacrifices in pursuit of his goal. The contrast between Vincent and Jerome, who cooperate with each other, illustrates the relation between will and perfection, and makes value judgements possible. If science, while having authority, defines the scope of an individual’s possibilities, it may limit the will, the motivation to develop – and this regardless of its contribution to the very enhancement of these possibilities. The elimination of imperfections practised by society paradoxically does not give a sense of omnipotence, but – on the contrary – it strengthens the feeling of determinism, it diminishes the significance of human will. Our imperfection turns out to be a natural engine of our activity, a source of strength of will, which allows people to successfully cope with fate. 23 . Gattaca, written and directed by A. Niccol, 1997.. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 9. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(10) 10. Krzysztof Solarewicz. To nature Francis Fukuyama begins his book Our Posthuman Future24 with a description of two Utopias representing the threats that the future may bring: George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. The author focuses on the latter as the one with more chance for coming true: The aim of this book is to argue that Huxley was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a “posthuman” stage of history. This is important, I will argue, because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experiences as a species. It is, conjointly with religion, what defines our most basic values25.. Fukuyama calls for a return to the notion of axiologically-oriented human nature – unlike, for example, the biological concept of nature expressed in the nature-nurture disputes. In order to demonstrate its sense in modern science, the author of Our Posthuman Future, again tackles the concept of the naturalist error, the impossibility of deriving “should” from “is”. He follows its history and changing meanings from David Hume and Immanuel Kant, to John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. On the one hand, he shows its weaknesses and inner contradictions, and on the other, he tries to demonstrate the advantage that the axiologically-defined category of human nature had and still has in solving specific problems. Finally, he defines the concept of human nature as the “sum of the behaviour and characteristics that are typical of the human species, arising from genetic rather than environmental factors”26 and “innate human emotional responses that guide the formation of moral ideas”27. I must be noted that the word “typical” is important to Fukuyama. Referring to the normal distribution of human psychological traits, he proposes to introduce the notion of typicality into the sphere of culture. In his view, it is more useful that the notion of universality, far too narrowly defined by the advocates of the concept of the naturalist error. Thus, natural values are not those that are shared by all humans, but those that are typical of humans as a species28. My ambition has not been to defend the notion of human nature or its usefulness in descriptions of problems, that accompany the development of biotechnology. It seems, however, that the applications of the term “human nature” quoted here refer to professed values. As such, they demand honest scholarly reflection and not placement in the category of conservative responses to the unknown29. 24 . 2002.. F. Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biological Revolution, New York. 25 . Ibidem, p. 7. Ibidem, p. 130. 27 Ibidem, p. 140. 28 Ibidem, pp. 130-135. 29 See e.g. A.J. Nair, Introduction to Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Hingham-New Dehli 2008. 26 . Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 10. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(11) . Postnature. Visions of humanity of the future. 11. This does not contradict the recognition that behind each voice expressing fear concerning the boundary between the acceptable and the non-acceptable in biotechnology we find sensibility and openness to change. However, the fact remains that – irrespective of causes and arguments – fears expressed in just this selection of cultural texts concerning human enhancement, and perhaps also biotechnology as such, have been formulated to defend human nature as a source of values. If the author of Our Posthuman Future sounds convincing to his readers, they should understand that the arguments presented in the book has been formulated also to defend their nature.. Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 11. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(12) Prace Kulturoznawcze XIV/2, 2012 © for this edition by CNS. P_K-Solarewicz eng-korekta.indd 12. 2014-06-26 08:48:43.

(13)