Posthuman Analysis

Securing Our Future The accumulating information about biotechnology and its implications are now becoming more of a common idea in society. Every day more and more experts spread the information about the technologies of our future and how they can be used in our every day lives. In such readings as we have discussed, the authors use these scientific ideas to try and explain how our future may unfold in the realm of genetic engineering. On the basis of biotechnology, there is a gray area regarding whether genetic engineering is a positive or negative science. Such scientists surrounding this debate are either interested in seeing a future with genetic engineering, or are in opposition to the science’s powerful problems. Whether it’s accepting the technology for what it is, or making a stand against what is to come, everyone takes a position on the issue. I believe, with all of the information forming from the articles: Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein by Courtney Campbell, Race, Gender, and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia by Dorothy E. Roberts, and Our Porsthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama, that the technological advances pushing us into a posthuman future are too dangerous and revolutionary, consequently, they need to be controlled in order to secure a better fate for humanity. An argument made by Francis Fukuyama in his book Our Posthumam Future, is that genetic engineering is becoming less reliable with the more information we gather about its ideas. More specifically the author argues that changing human nature, prolonging life, and the ethical issues behind it all lead to a problematic future in biotechnology. He writes, “We need, then, a balanced assessment of what this technology can be expected to achieve, and a sense of the constraints that it may eventually face”(Fukuyama 73). In this passage the author suggests that the technology we are developing must be assessed before we use it. The author’s belief is that