Book review
Neo.Life
A collection of possible futures for human biology, moving from present research into speculative scenarios. Human choice and caution about unintended consequences appeal, though some proposals raise questions.
These 2020 notes discuss speculative biotechnology proposals in Neo.Life.
Neo.Life by Jane Metcalfe & Brian Bergstein (and the contributing authors) presents 25 visions for the future of the human species. They vary from research reports grounded in today, to speculative stories about how our world will look in 50 years.
The book is divided into three parts, the first consists of road maps and is the most grounded in today. The second is creative briefs and those look at what could be possible (say in 5-50 years). The last imagines a brave new world in which the human species is quite different from today.
Below are some of the things I found most interesting:
Jan Metcalfe (the author/compiler) wrote down the principles that the group proposes for the development of our species:
Technology should be used to increase biological diversity, both in humans and other species. I read this as a way to future-proof the species and as a counterpoint to the monoculture we sometimes strive for, such as prioritising intelligence over art.
In general, people should be free to determine their own use of genetic modification, based on well-informed choices. But who counts as well-informed? The authors distinguish between experimenting on oneself and editing an embryo. That distinction also raises the question of which edits affect only one person and which pass down the gene line.
Humility and caution will lower the risk of unintended consequences that would undermine biotechnologies and thus reduce human possibility in the long run. This principle feels a bit too vague to me, although the explanation mentions more mute switches in genes and testing in somatic cells.
Governance of biotechnologies should exhibit traits of the underlying system. As I understand it, regulation should account for biological features such as feedback loops and adaptation.
The book proposes that genetic sequencing of everyone could help eliminate single-gene diseases and make carriers more aware of them.
One example proposes bringing genetic carrier information into dating, perhaps discussing it on a second date to prevent heartbreak. That part did not sound too convincing to me, though the proposed potential to save a million lives did.
The book states that humans are not very genetically diverse, describing only 0.1% of the genome as different. If that claim is right, what might happen if that changes and different types of humans emerge? One possibility raised here is adaptation to life in space, including radiation, or to other circumstances.
One author (David Eagleman) philosophizes about us being able to choose kids and by having more choices, regret the alternative histories (the choice we didn’t make/pick).
I do not think Eagleman’s point applies perfectly, but I understand why knowing some characteristics of eight or 100 possible children could make someone regret the alternative they did not choose.
Two stories revolve around the democratization/stuff becoming cheaper, of biotechnology. One should only think about a more efficient SARS-CoV-2 and we would all be toast. So ethics and detection should be paramount.
Zoe Cormier imagines the perfect drug. This reflects (one of the) last chapter(s) in Drugs: Without the Hot Air by David Nutt. It would be great if we could invent something that was better than was out there today (alcohol, tobacco – and others).